{ "schemaVersion": "blobfish.typed-decision-bench-task.v1", "version": "0.3.0", "task": "casehold-cited-holding", "family": "retrieval-and-knowledge", "use_case": "citation-verification", "vertical": "legal", "dataset": "coastalcph/lex_glue", "licence": "CC-BY-4.0", "provenance": "outcome", "state_kind": "text", "primitive": "choice", "items": 200, "scores": { "decider-2b": { "decisionScore": 79.98, "accuracy": 0.705, "answered": 200, "items": 200 }, "Jev": { "decisionScore": 87.03, "accuracy": 0.795, "answered": 200, "items": 200 }, "JevFish": { "decisionScore": 75.79, "accuracy": 0.66, "answered": 200, "items": 200 }, "NanoJev": { "decisionScore": 61.18, "accuracy": 0.3384, "answered": 198, "items": 200 }, "OpenJev": { "decisionScore": 74.69, "accuracy": 0.665, "answered": 200, "items": 200 }, "System One Scorer": { "decisionScore": 69.53, "accuracy": 0.515, "answered": 200, "items": 200 } }, "samples": [ { "id": "retrieval-and-knowledge:casehold-1078", "state": { "citing_context": "to rule on a motion and therefore forgot to rule on a motion to strike. Reply at 2. The court finds this argument speculative at best. In light of the “relative unseemliness of a court’s altering a legal ruling as to the same litigants,” Zdanok, 327 F.2d at 953, the court needs greater justification to re visit Judge Johnson’s ruling than conjecture about whether she forgot something or felt rushed. Because the defendant fails to offer such justification, its motion for reconsiderat 650 F.2d 663, 666 (5th Cir.1981) (finding that the grant of summary judgment for the defendant \"was so inconsistent with the plaintiff's request for leave to amend to state a new claim for relief as implicitly to deny the motion to amend”); Wimberly v. Clark Controller Co., 364 F.2d 225, 227 (6th Cir.1966) (" }, "state_tokens": 228, "tier": "common", "primary": "cited_holding", "questions": [ { "id": "cited_holding", "type": "choice", "instructions": "The state holds citing_context, an excerpt of a US court opinion ending at a citation whose parenthetical holding was replaced by . Which candidate holding is the one the citing sentence relies on for the proposition it states? Pick the holding that supplies exactly that proposition, not merely the same area of law.", "options": [ [ "holding_0", "holding that wjhile it is certainly the better practice to specifically rule on all pending motions the determination of a motion need not always be expressed but may be implied by an entiy of an order inconsistent with granting the relief sought" ], [ "holding_1", "holding death sentence need not be pending in order for this court to engage in review of issues on appeal" ], [ "holding_2", "holding order granting motion to withdraw plea to be the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial because like a postverdict mistrial it returns case to posture it had been before trial" ], [ "holding_3", "holding that the scheduling order merely prescribes the date by which all motions to amend shall be filed the date on the scheduling order does not confine the district courts consideration of the merits of such motions and does not preclude it from finding that an amendment would result in …" ], [ "holding_4", "holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation" ] ], "graded": true, "expected": "holding_0", "responses": { "decider-2b": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_0", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_0": 0.7279, "holding_3": 0.164, "holding_2": 0.0569, "holding_1": 0.0305, "holding_4": 0.0207 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.7279, "proper_score": 0.9472 }, "Jev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_0", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_0": 1.0, "holding_1": 0.0, "holding_3": 0.0, "holding_4": 0.0, "holding_2": 0.0 }, "probability_of_expected": 1.0, "proper_score": 1.0 }, "JevFish": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_0", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_0": 0.819, "holding_4": 0.1042, "holding_2": 0.0495, "holding_1": 0.0182, "holding_3": 0.0091 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.819, "proper_score": 0.9768 }, "NanoJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_0", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_0": 0.2917, "holding_3": 0.2839, "holding_2": 0.2595, "holding_4": 0.0847, "holding_1": 0.0802 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.2917, "proper_score": 0.6684 }, "OpenJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_0", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_0": 0.9982, "holding_3": 0.0017, "holding_4": 0.0001, "holding_1": 0.0, "holding_2": 0.0 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.9982, "proper_score": 1.0 }, "System One Scorer": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_0", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_0": 0.9296, "holding_3": 0.0419, "holding_2": 0.0172, "holding_1": 0.009, "holding_4": 0.0022 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.9296, "proper_score": 0.9964 } } } ], "latency_ms": { "decider-2b": 2729.0, "Jev": 205.8, "JevFish": 1577.0, "NanoJev": 731.6, "OpenJev": 364.4, "System One Scorer": 2624.3 } }, { "id": "retrieval-and-knowledge:casehold-1471", "state": { "citing_context": "See also United States v. Horak, 833 F.2d 1235, 1245 (7th Cir.1987). In United States v. Tranowski, 702 F.2d 668 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1217, 104 S.Ct. 3586, 82 L.Ed.2d 884 (1984), the Court of Appeals allowed the government to appeal from district court’s denial of its motion to retry the defendant following reversal of the original conviction. The Court reasoned that such an appeal was permitted under Section 3731 because the district court’s order was “ ‘tantamount to a dismissal of the indictment ...,’ though not labeled a dismissal.” 702 F.2d at 670, quoting United States v. Esposito, 492 F.2d 6, 10 (7th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1135, 94 S.Ct. 879, 38 L.Ed.2d 760 (1974). See also United States v. Apex Distributing Co., 270 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1959) (" }, "state_tokens": 327, "tier": "long", "primary": "cited_holding", "questions": [ { "id": "cited_holding", "type": "choice", "instructions": "The state holds citing_context, an excerpt of a US court opinion ending at a citation whose parenthetical holding was replaced by . Which candidate holding is the one the citing sentence relies on for the proposition it states? Pick the holding that supplies exactly that proposition, not merely the same area of law.", "options": [ [ "holding_0", "holding that a sufficiency challenge must be preserved in the trial court in a parental termination case to be reviewed on appeal" ], [ "holding_1", "holding that an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved" ], [ "holding_2", "holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal" ], [ "holding_3", "holding that a petitioner must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal" ], [ "holding_4", "holding that the direction the governments appeal must take or whether it may appeal at all is to be governed by the substantial basis of the orders sought to be reviewed rather than their designation and form" ] ], "graded": true, "expected": "holding_4", "responses": { "decider-2b": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 0.9444, "holding_2": 0.0222, "holding_1": 0.0212, "holding_0": 0.0067, "holding_3": 0.0055 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.9444, "proper_score": 0.9979 }, "Jev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 1.0, "holding_3": 0.0, "holding_0": 0.0, "holding_1": 0.0, "holding_2": 0.0 }, "probability_of_expected": 1.0, "proper_score": 1.0 }, "JevFish": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 0.5111, "holding_2": 0.253, "holding_1": 0.1035, "holding_3": 0.0749, "holding_0": 0.0576 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.5111, "proper_score": 0.8387 }, "NanoJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 0.2506, "holding_1": 0.2327, "holding_2": 0.2029, "holding_3": 0.1764, "holding_0": 0.1374 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.2506, "proper_score": 0.6466 }, "OpenJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 0.9989, "holding_0": 0.0007, "holding_1": 0.0003, "holding_3": 0.0001, "holding_2": 0.0 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.9989, "proper_score": 1.0 }, "System One Scorer": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 0.9877, "holding_1": 0.006, "holding_3": 0.0025, "holding_2": 0.0022, "holding_0": 0.0016 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.9877, "proper_score": 0.9999, "truncated": true } } } ], "latency_ms": { "decider-2b": 2812.3, "Jev": 155.4, "JevFish": 1472.2, "NanoJev": 723.7, "OpenJev": 311.7, "System One Scorer": 2708.5 } }, { "id": "retrieval-and-knowledge:casehold-1512", "state": { "citing_context": "engaged in the following colloquy with Juror Five. THE COURT: Juror [Five] was the verdict of guilty as to both counts your verdict when you were in the jury room? JUROR [FIVE]: The first one was, yes, but not the second one. THE COURT: And as to the second issue, did you vote to convict on the second count? JUROR [FIVE]: Yes. THE COURT: Is that your verdict now? JUROR [FIVE]: Yes. THE COURT: Is it freely and voluntarily made by you as you sit here now? JUROR [FIVE]: Yes. THE COURT: So you are good with the verdict as it stands? JUROR [FIVE]: Well, can you explain becau 733 SE2d 36) (2012) (punctuation omitted); accord Powell v. State, 271 Ga. App. 550, 551-52 (610 SE2d 178) (2005). 13 McCullough, 317 Ga. App. at 855; see Steele v. State, 270 Ga. App. 488, 492 (606 SE2d 664) (2004) (" }, "state_tokens": 301, "tier": "long", "primary": "cited_holding", "questions": [ { "id": "cited_holding", "type": "choice", "instructions": "The state holds citing_context, an excerpt of a US court opinion ending at a citation whose parenthetical holding was replaced by . Which candidate holding is the one the citing sentence relies on for the proposition it states? Pick the holding that supplies exactly that proposition, not merely the same area of law.", "options": [ [ "holding_0", "holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue" ], [ "holding_1", "holding that the sentencing courts conclusion that there was simply no way to avoid the base offense level did not indicate mandatory application of the guidelines" ], [ "holding_2", "holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense" ], [ "holding_3", "holding that extrinsic offense evidence was admissible to prove intent where the prosecutor stated that she anticipated the defendant would deny his intent to be involved in the charged offense and defense counsel did not even mention that he would refrain from contesting the intent issue" ], [ "holding_4", "holding that courts announcement that it would deny firstoffender status b ased on the nature of the offense did not indicate mechanical sentencing policy" ] ], "graded": true, "expected": "holding_4", "responses": { "decider-2b": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_2", "correct": false, "probabilities": { "holding_2": 0.3438, "holding_3": 0.2836, "holding_0": 0.1593, "holding_1": 0.1194, "holding_4": 0.0939 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.0939, "proper_score": 0.4704 }, "Jev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_2", "correct": false, "probabilities": { "holding_2": 0.64, "holding_0": 0.14, "holding_3": 0.12, "holding_1": 0.05, "holding_4": 0.05 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.05, "proper_score": 0.3257 }, "JevFish": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_2", "correct": false, "probabilities": { "holding_2": 0.4756, "holding_3": 0.2658, "holding_1": 0.1355, "holding_0": 0.0666, "holding_4": 0.0564 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.0564, "proper_score": 0.395 }, "NanoJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_0", "correct": false, "probabilities": { "holding_0": 0.2893, "holding_3": 0.2139, "holding_2": 0.1922, "holding_4": 0.1526, "holding_1": 0.152 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.1526, "proper_score": 0.5462 }, "OpenJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_2", "correct": false, "probabilities": { "holding_2": 0.5511, "holding_1": 0.3099, "holding_0": 0.1088, "holding_3": 0.0182, "holding_4": 0.012 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.012, "proper_score": 0.306 }, "System One Scorer": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_2", "correct": false, "probabilities": { "holding_2": 0.7786, "holding_3": 0.075, "holding_0": 0.0716, "holding_1": 0.0454, "holding_4": 0.0295 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.0295, "proper_score": 0.2195, "truncated": true } } } ], "latency_ms": { "decider-2b": 3168.7, "Jev": 151.2, "JevFish": 1514.3, "NanoJev": 717.1, "OpenJev": 413.4, "System One Scorer": 2767.3 } }, { "id": "retrieval-and-knowledge:casehold-2667", "state": { "citing_context": "copy of Morris D. Murphy's driving record as maintained by the Secretary of State, as of this date. Although the last paragraph in the certificate referred to an attached copy of Murphy’s driving record, no other document was attached to the certificate. However, a third exhibit, a copy of the letter entitled “Notice of Suspension and Opportunity for Hearing” was also admitted in evidence over Murphy’s objection. 3 . The notice of suspension in the certification stated: \"[N]otice of suspension was sent by regular mail to Richard E. Tayman, Jr. ... by the Violations Bureau of the District Court, pursuant to 29-A MRSA Section 2608.” State v. Tayman, 2008 ME 177, ¶ 3, 960 A.2d 1151, 1153 (quotation marks omitted). 4 . See also State v. Knight, 2009 ME 32, ¶¶ 4, 10, 967 A.2d 723, 724, 725 (" }, "state_tokens": 248, "tier": "common", "primary": "cited_holding", "questions": [ { "id": "cited_holding", "type": "choice", "instructions": "The state holds citing_context, an excerpt of a US court opinion ending at a citation whose parenthetical holding was replaced by . Which candidate holding is the one the citing sentence relies on for the proposition it states? Pick the holding that supplies exactly that proposition, not merely the same area of law.", "options": [ [ "holding_0", "holding that admission of evidence in violation of confrontation clause was harmless because it did not relate to the contested issue before jury" ], [ "holding_1", "holding that admission of business records does not violate the confrontation clause under roberts" ], [ "holding_2", "holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue" ], [ "holding_3", "holding that the admission of prior testimony that had been subjected to crossexamination violated the confrontation clause because the state did not prove that the witness was unavailable" ], [ "holding_4", "holding that the admission in evidence of a certifying document from the secretary of state that its history records indicated that notice of suspension was sent by regular mail to the defendant did not violate the confrontation clause" ] ], "graded": true, "expected": "holding_4", "responses": { "decider-2b": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 0.7713, "holding_1": 0.1074, "holding_2": 0.0474, "holding_0": 0.0431, "holding_3": 0.0308 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.7713, "proper_score": 0.9655 }, "Jev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 0.99, "holding_2": 0.01, "holding_1": 0.0, "holding_0": 0.0, "holding_3": 0.0 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.99, "proper_score": 0.9999 }, "JevFish": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 0.6236, "holding_0": 0.2736, "holding_1": 0.0628, "holding_3": 0.0226, "holding_2": 0.0174 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.6236, "proper_score": 0.8893 }, "NanoJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 0.5059, "holding_2": 0.1681, "holding_3": 0.1325, "holding_1": 0.0969, "holding_0": 0.0966 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.5059, "proper_score": 0.8457 }, "OpenJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 0.998, "holding_0": 0.0014, "holding_1": 0.0005, "holding_3": 0.0001, "holding_2": 0.0 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.998, "proper_score": 1.0 }, "System One Scorer": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_4", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_4": 0.671, "holding_2": 0.1897, "holding_3": 0.0679, "holding_0": 0.0588, "holding_1": 0.0127 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.671, "proper_score": 0.9238 } } } ], "latency_ms": { "decider-2b": 2800.9, "Jev": 137.2, "JevFish": 1495.1, "NanoJev": 711.4, "OpenJev": 358.4, "System One Scorer": 2804.3 } }, { "id": "retrieval-and-knowledge:casehold-3517", "state": { "citing_context": "a substantial preliminary showing that Officer McGrew recklessly made false statements and has further shown that the false statements were necessary or material to the magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause, we remand the case for a Franks hearing on Flake’s allegations. B. Downward Departure in Sentencing Flake contends that the federal district court erroneously concluded during the sentencing proceedings that it did not have the legal authority to depart downward on the basis of the six months that Flake had already been held in custody on related state charges. We find no support for Flake’s contention in the record and hold that the district court was aware of and properly exercised its discretion. See United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1064-65 (9th Cir.2000) (" }, "state_tokens": 183, "tier": "common", "primary": "cited_holding", "questions": [ { "id": "cited_holding", "type": "choice", "instructions": "The state holds citing_context, an excerpt of a US court opinion ending at a citation whose parenthetical holding was replaced by . Which candidate holding is the one the citing sentence relies on for the proposition it states? Pick the holding that supplies exactly that proposition, not merely the same area of law.", "options": [ [ "holding_0", "holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure" ], [ "holding_1", "holding that the district courts refusal to grant a downward departure was discretionary and not because it believed it lacked the authority to depart where the court assessed the facts of the case and concluded that the departure requested does not seem to have a basis" ], [ "holding_2", "holding that a district courts statement that there was no basis for a downward departure did not indicate that it believed it lacked authority" ], [ "holding_3", "holding that the district court was not required to state affirmatively on the record that it knew it possessed the authority to depart downward" ], [ "holding_4", "holding that the district courts denial of a downward departure was an exercise of discretion and therefore not reviewable" ] ], "graded": true, "expected": "holding_2", "responses": { "decider-2b": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_0", "correct": false, "probabilities": { "holding_0": 0.3835, "holding_1": 0.2488, "holding_2": 0.1777, "holding_4": 0.1153, "holding_3": 0.0748 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.1777, "proper_score": 0.548 }, "Jev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_0", "correct": false, "probabilities": { "holding_0": 0.34, "holding_1": 0.32, "holding_2": 0.2, "holding_3": 0.11, "holding_4": 0.03 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.2, "proper_score": 0.5645 }, "JevFish": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_0", "correct": false, "probabilities": { "holding_0": 0.3294, "holding_4": 0.235, "holding_2": 0.1731, "holding_3": 0.1421, "holding_1": 0.1203 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.1731, "proper_score": 0.5589 }, "NanoJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_2", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_2": 0.4231, "holding_1": 0.2058, "holding_0": 0.1911, "holding_4": 0.1638, "holding_3": 0.0162 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.4231, "proper_score": 0.7806 }, "OpenJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_1", "correct": false, "probabilities": { "holding_1": 0.9816, "holding_2": 0.0119, "holding_3": 0.0038, "holding_4": 0.0014, "holding_0": 0.0012 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.0119, "proper_score": 0.03 }, "System One Scorer": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_2", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_2": 0.3585, "holding_3": 0.3355, "holding_1": 0.2024, "holding_0": 0.0809, "holding_4": 0.0228 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.3585, "proper_score": 0.714 } } } ], "latency_ms": { "decider-2b": 2644.7, "Jev": 162.8, "JevFish": 1431.4, "NanoJev": 717.9, "OpenJev": 399.5, "System One Scorer": 2681.4 } }, { "id": "retrieval-and-knowledge:casehold-872", "state": { "citing_context": "of this state. 2. A police officer in “hot pursuit” may continue beyond the one and one-half mile [2.⅛1 kilometers] limit to make an arrest, in obedience to a warrant or without a warrant under the conditions of section 29-06-15, whenever obtaining the aid of peace officers having jurisdiction beyond that limit would cause a delay permitting escape. As used in this subsection, “hot pursuit” means the immediate pursuit of a person who is endeavoring to avoid arrest. (Emphasis added.) [¶ 10] This Court has also recognized that city police officers have jurisdiction to stop vehicles and arrest individuals outside of their geographical jurisdiction when responding to requests from another law enforcement agency for aid and assistance. See State v. Graven, 530 N.W.2d 328, 330 (N.D.1995) (" }, "state_tokens": 198, "tier": "common", "primary": "cited_holding", "questions": [ { "id": "cited_holding", "type": "choice", "instructions": "The state holds citing_context, an excerpt of a US court opinion ending at a citation whose parenthetical holding was replaced by . Which candidate holding is the one the citing sentence relies on for the proposition it states? Pick the holding that supplies exactly that proposition, not merely the same area of law.", "options": [ [ "holding_0", "holding a stop was effected where officers vehicle blocked defendants vehicle from proceeding" ], [ "holding_1", "holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop" ], [ "holding_2", "holding that the stop of defendants vehicle was unlawful where officers stopped the vehicle to check the license and registration but had observed no suspicious activity" ], [ "holding_3", "holding that although officers observation and stop of the defendants vehicle occurred outside of the officers geographical jurisdiction the officer still had jurisdiction where the officer was requested by a state trooper to stop the suspects vehicle" ], [ "holding_4", "holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have …" ] ], "graded": true, "expected": "holding_3", "responses": { "decider-2b": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_3", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_3": 0.958, "holding_0": 0.0161, "holding_2": 0.0095, "holding_1": 0.0086, "holding_4": 0.0078 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.958, "proper_score": 0.9989 }, "Jev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_3", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_3": 1.0, "holding_4": 0.0, "holding_1": 0.0, "holding_2": 0.0, "holding_0": 0.0 }, "probability_of_expected": 1.0, "proper_score": 1.0 }, "JevFish": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_3", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_3": 0.7772, "holding_2": 0.0962, "holding_4": 0.059, "holding_0": 0.0397, "holding_1": 0.028 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.7772, "proper_score": 0.9676 }, "NanoJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_1", "correct": false, "probabilities": { "holding_1": 0.3592, "holding_0": 0.1876, "holding_4": 0.1592, "holding_2": 0.149, "holding_3": 0.145 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.145, "proper_score": 0.5286 }, "OpenJev": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_3", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_3": 0.9999, "holding_1": 0.0001, "holding_0": 0.0, "holding_2": 0.0, "holding_4": 0.0 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.9999, "proper_score": 1.0 }, "System One Scorer": { "answered": true, "pick": "holding_3", "correct": true, "probabilities": { "holding_3": 0.3749, "holding_4": 0.2932, "holding_0": 0.159, "holding_1": 0.108, "holding_2": 0.0649 }, "probability_of_expected": 0.3749, "proper_score": 0.7411 } } } ], "latency_ms": { "decider-2b": 2869.2, "Jev": 135.6, "JevFish": 1364.2, "NanoJev": 736.3, "OpenJev": 374.2, "System One Scorer": 2756.5 } } ] }