docs/license_audit.md

License audit

This audit records what was found on disk, in the project's own benchmark preparation directories, before any redistribution decision was made. Sub-agent A performs the formal, authoritative audit in parallel; this file records the independent check that drove this staging tree's contents.

Decision rule applied

Default to caution. Do not stage upstream problem text, gold answers, reference solutions, or answer options for any benchmark unless on-disk evidence shows a license that clearly permits redistribution and the release plan needs the text. Where in doubt, omit the text and keep stable identifiers.

Outcome: no problem text is staged for any benchmark, including the two whose upstream licenses (MIT) would have permitted it. The decision was made release-wide rather than per-benchmark, because the flagship table data/matched_labels.csv interleaves all four benchmarks in one file and a mixed-license text column would be hard for a downstream user to respect correctly. Stable IDs plus docs/reconstruction.md give the same scientific value without the licensing hazard.

Evidence found on disk

Benchmark	Evidence file	License stated	Redistribution permitted by that license?	Decision here
Omni-MATH-2	dataset_release/hf_release_v2/LICENSES/README.md, registry/licenses.parquet	Apache-2.0	yes, with attribution	text withheld (release-wide rule)
JEEBench	data/source_benchmarks/jeebench/LICENSE, data/science-benchmarks/manifest.json, per-row license: MIT field	MIT, Copyright (c) 2023 DAIR Group, IIT Delhi	yes, with notice	text withheld (release-wide rule)
SciBench	data/source_benchmarks/scibench/LICENSE, data/science-benchmarks/manifest.json, per-row license: MIT field	MIT, Copyright (c) 2023 Xiaoxuan Wang	yes, with notice	text withheld (release-wide rule)
LAB-Bench	data/lab-bench-public/README.md, data/lab-bench-public/manifest.json, registry/licenses.parquet	CC-BY-SA-4.0 with an upstream do-not-train request and a canary string	share-alike; redistribution would force CC-BY-SA on the redistributed content and carries the canary obligation	text withheld — the most restrictive of the four, and the binding constraint
MaScQA	data/source_benchmarks/mascqa/LICENSE, data/science-benchmarks/manifest.json	CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0	NonCommercial; the project's own manifest marks it internal_only_not_compatible_with_cc_by_sa_4_0_release	entire benchmark excluded

Notes per benchmark

LAB-Bench. data/lab-bench-public/README.md records upstream revision 5c77cec648430f30611808808861eb86f81d5eaa of futurehouse/lab-bench and states that the upstream canary field is deliberately kept out of the agent-facing prompt. The project's own release code (scripts/dataset_release/ prepare_hf_labbench_protocol_dataset.py) carries the note "Check upstream LAB-Bench terms before public redistribution." That unresolved check is itself a reason to withhold. LAB-Bench was treated as the binding constraint for the release-wide rule.

MaScQA. Excluded for two independent reasons. First, it is not in the paper: there is no matched Gemma run, so the setting mascqa__text_only__gpt_oss_120b (642 rows) has no paired counterpart and is not one of the ten camera-ready settings. Second, CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 is a NonCommercial license, which the project's own data/science-benchmarks/manifest.json marks as internal_only. The 642-row file exists in the source tree and was deliberately not staged.

Omni-MATH-2. The Apache-2.0 finding comes from the project's own registry (registry/licenses.parquet, source https://huggingface.co/datasets/martheballon/Omni-MATH-2), not from a LICENSE file sitting next to the data. No LICENSE file was found under data/omni-math-2-filtered/. That is a weaker form of evidence than the MIT LICENSE files present for JEEBench and SciBench, and is a second reason the release-wide withhold rule is the safe call.

Model output terms

openai/gpt-oss-120b has Apache-2.0 weights. google/gemma-4-31B-it is governed by the Gemma Terms of Use. This release contains no raw generated text from either model — only derived correctness flags, integer confidence values, and token/call accounting — so the exposure is limited to derived measurements. The Gemma Terms are cited in NOTICE regardless.

What this audit does not establish

• It does not re-verify the upstream licenses at their sources. Every license above was read from a file in the project tree, not fetched from the upstream repository or dataset card at audit time. Confirm before public upload.
• It says nothing about whether the derived measurements themselves are copyrightable, which is a question for counsel, not for this file.