1 files changed, 47 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:14b/reasoning/device/1634069 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:14b/reasoning/device/1634069
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0a627277a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:14b/reasoning/device/1634069
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+<think>
+Okay, I need to classify this bug report from QEMU into one of the given categories. Let me read through it carefully.
+
+The user is talking about excluding certain keys from being grabbed by QEMU. They mention that pressing a shortcut repeatedly to release grab for switching windows or desktops is annoying, especially for users of tiling window managers. They want QEMU to allow specifying keys or shortcuts (maybe with a modifier key) that aren't intercepted.
+
+Hmm, so the main issue here is about how QEMU handles keyboard input and whether certain keys are grabbed and not released easily. The user wants more control over which keys are intercepted by QEMU versus those that can be used by the host system for window management or other tasks.
+
+Looking at the possible categories: device, graphic, socket, network, KVM, boot, vnc, debug, files, permissions, performance, kernel, peripherals, hypervisor. 
+
+Wait, but the user is talking about key interception and grab release, which relates to how input events are handled. In QEMU, this usually falls under the 'input' category, but since that's not listed, I need to think where it fits.
+
+The bug is about modifying QEMU's behavior regarding keyboard shortcuts, so maybe it affects device handling or peripherals? Alternatively, perhaps it's more related to how QEMU interacts with the host system's input devices, which could be considered under 'device' or 'peripherals'. 
+
+But another angle: if this feature request allows certain keys not to be grabbed by QEMU, it might affect other functionalities that rely on these keys. However, since the user is asking for a way to specify exceptions, it's more about configuration rather than a bug per se, but in terms of classification, it's still within how QEMU manages input devices.
+
+Wait, maybe 'device' isn't the right category here. Alternatively, perhaps it's under 'other' because the issue doesn't fit neatly into the listed categories like network or graphic issues. Or is there another way to see this?
+
+Alternatively, considering that this affects the interaction between QEMU and the host window manager, which could be related to the graphical interface but not directly a graphics rendering issue. But 'graphic' category might not cover it.
+
+I'm torn between 'device', 'peripherals', or maybe even 'other'. Since the user is focusing on keyboard shortcuts and grab behavior, which relates more to input handling within the emulator's device management, perhaps 'device' is the closest fit. Alternatively, if none of the listed categories directly address input grabs, then 'other' might be appropriate.
+
+But wait, the category list doesn't have an explicit 'input' or 'keyboard' option. The possible categories are: mistranslation, assembly, other, device, graphic, socket, network, KVM, boot, vnc, debug, files, permissions, performance, kernel, peripherals, hypervisor.
+
+So, considering that the issue is about how QEMU interacts with input devices (like keyboards) and whether certain keys are intercepted, it's more of a device management problem. So 'device' might be the right category. Alternatively, perhaps 'peripherals' since the keyboard is a peripheral device.
+
+But wait, the user isn't reporting a hardware issue but rather a feature request for configuration options. Hmm, maybe 'other' because it's not directly about any specific listed category like network or graphic performance.
+
+Alternatively, considering that this affects how QEMU handles input events, which are part of the device emulation, so 'device' could still be appropriate. But I'm not entirely sure. Maybe 'peripherals' is a better fit as it pertains to the handling of input devices as peripherals.
+
+Wait, but I think in the context of QEMU's categories, the 'input' aspect might fall under 'device', since device management includes handling input events for different types of devices.
+
+But if the bug report is more about user interface interaction and window management, maybe it's not directly a device issue. Hmm, this is tricky.
+
+Wait, another approach: The feature request is to modify how QEMU handles certain keys so they aren't grabbed. This affects the way QEMU interacts with the host system's input, which could be part of the hypervisor or kernel-level operations, but that might not fit either.
+
+Alternatively, perhaps it's more about configuration options, making it a 'feature request' rather than a bug, but the user is reporting it as a bug. Maybe the category should be something else.
+
+Wait, looking back at the possible categories, perhaps 'other' is the safest bet since none of the other categories directly address input handling or keyboard shortcuts specifically. Alternatively, if I think about how QEMU's grab functionality affects window management, maybe 'graphic' could be a stretch, but it's not directly a graphics issue.
+
+So, after considering all angles, I'm leaning towards 'device' as the category because it relates to how input devices (keyboard) are managed within QEMU.
+</think>
+
+The bug report is about modifying QEMU's behavior regarding keyboard shortcuts and grab release. This falls under the handling of input devices. Therefore, the most appropriate category is:
+
+**device**
+
+Answer: device
\ No newline at end of file