Protocol-Bench

15 published IEEE 802.11 and 3GPP procedures with ground-truth safety verdicts — and, where a property fails, the shortest counterexample trace that proves it.

Most reasoning benchmarks accept an answer. This one asks for a proof: if a model says a protocol is broken, it must supply a trace that starts at the initial state, moves only along real transitions, and ends in a genuinely violating state. Traces are replayed mechanically. A plausible-sounding trace that does not replay earns nothing.

Why the metric is shaped this way

The task set is deliberately imbalanced — 13 of 15 procedures are safe, which is what the published-procedure population actually looks like.

Strategy	Accuracy	Balanced accuracy	Valid counterexamples
Answer "safe" every time	0.867	0.500	0
Answer "violated" every time	0.133	0.500	0
Exhaustive model checker	1.000	1.000	2

Plain accuracy is nearly uninformative here — hence balanced accuracy as the headline, and the valid-counterexample count as the column separating a detector from a guesser.

There is a second reason, specific to language models: a verdict is separable from the reasoning that should justify it. "The WPA2 four-way handshake" is strongly associated with "vulnerable" in any training corpus, so a model can be right about it having done no reasoning at all. Recalling a CVE does not produce a replaying trace; reasoning about the state machine does.

Schema

21 fields per row. Everything is derived from the live models at export time, never hand-maintained.

Field	Type	Description
id	string	Task identifier
standards_body	string	IEEE (8) or 3GPP (7)
spec_clause	string	The published clause modelled
property	string	Name of the safety property that must hold
label	string	KNOWN_COUNTEREXAMPLE | CANDIDATE_COUNTEREXAMPLE | PROVEN_SAFE
violated	bool	Binary target, derived from label
prompt	string	Ready-to-use prompt
prompt_mode	string	model or spec (see below)
state_machine	string	Human-readable rendering of the machine
state_fields	list[string]	State variable names, in order
initial_state	object	Field → initial value
transitions	list[object]	Every reachable edge: {from, label, to}
n_state_fields	int	Number of state variables
n_reachable_states	int	Reachable state count
n_transitions	int	Reachable edge count
counterexample	list[object] | null	Shortest violating trace: {label, state} per step
counterexample_length	int	Steps in the trace (0 if none)
has_fixed_twin	bool	Whether a repaired variant exists
fixed_twin_holds	bool | null	Whether the repair actually removes the violation
citation	string | null	Publication, where the finding is published
known_finding	string | null	One-line description of the published finding

Corpus totals: 67 reachable states and 83 transitions across the 15 machines; 2 rows carry a counterexample; 2 carry a repaired twin, and both twins verify.

Two difficulty modes

• model — the full transition table is in the prompt. No protocol knowledge needed; isolates formal reasoning.
• spec — only the standards clause and a description of the procedure. The model must know or infer the behaviour. This is the mode corresponding to what a security researcher actually does.

Regenerate either: python load_dataset.py --regenerate --mode spec.

Usage

# No dependencies
from load_dataset import load, stats
rows = load()
stats()          # {'n_rows': 15, 'n_violated': 2, 'trivial_always_safe_accuracy': 0.8667, ...}

# Or as a datasets.Dataset
from load_dataset import load_hf
ds = load_hf()
print(ds[0]["prompt"])

python load_dataset.py --stats        # summary counts
python load_dataset.py --regenerate   # rebuild from the package, so data cannot drift from code

Scoring — including trace replay — needs the package, because a trace only means something when replayed against the real model:

pip install "protocol-bench @ git+https://github.com/nickharris808/protocol-bench.git"
# `pip install protocol-bench` does not work yet — the package is not on PyPI.
protocol-bench prompts --mode model -o prompts.json
# ... run your model, save {task_id: completion} to completions.json ...
protocol-bench score-completions completions.json

Provenance

Rows are generated by protocol_bench.export.export_rows() from the same finite-state models the package ships and the test suite checks. Nothing in this file is hand-written:

• n_reachable_states, n_transitions, and transitions come from exhaustive reachability;
• counterexample is the shortest violating trace found by breadth-first search;
• fixed_twin_holds is the verdict on the repaired model;
• label is cross-checked against exhaustive reachability by a test, so a label cannot drift away from its model.

A further test asserts that the committed JSONL is byte-equal to what the package generates, and another asserts that every counterexample in this file replays against its own model.

Labels, and one deliberate open question

KNOWN_COUNTEREXAMPLE means the violation is published and cited. The single instance is the WPA2 4-way handshake — KRACK (Vanhoef & Piessens, ACM CCS 2017, CVE-2017-13077…13088).

CANDIDATE_COUNTEREXAMPLE means the property fails and no published citation was found. It is labelled unconfirmed on purpose, and it is a genuine open question posed publicly: if you can cite it, or show the model is wrong, please say so.

Limitations

These are models of published procedures, not the standards themselves and not implementations. PROVEN_SAFE means the property holds over the modelled state space — not that any shipping product is secure. Abstractions hide things.

The set is small (15 rows) and drawn from one modelling effort, so a system tuned on it will overfit quickly. Treat per-task outcomes as the primary result and the aggregate as a summary. Two further procedures exist in the source corpus and are withheld.

Replay validation checks that a trace is a genuine execution reaching a violating state; it does not check that the trace is the explanation a human would give.

Licence and attribution

MIT, for the code and the task metadata. The KRACK finding belongs to Vanhoef & Piessens; this dataset reproduces it and does not claim it. Specification clauses are cited, not reproduced.

Citation

@misc{protocolbench2026,
  title  = {Protocol-Bench: ground-truth safety verdicts for published IEEE 802.11 and 3GPP procedures},
  year   = {2026},
  note   = {Counterexamples are machine-validated by replay against the model.}
}