Initial Commit

2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# e08 — Free fall with a mass distractor · round v2
+
+> Grading worksheet for round **v2**. The ground truth, the trap and the
+> scoring criteria live in [`../rubric.md`](../rubric.md) — that file is the
+> master and is not edited per round. The transcript being graded is
+> [`result.txt`](result.txt).
+
+## Scoring (10 points)
+
+### Correctness (5)
+- [x] (2) t ≈ 3.0 s  → 2/2 — **3.03 s**; tool returned `t = 3.029 s`
+- [x] (2) v ≈ 29.7 m/s  → 2/2 — **29.7 m/s (≈ 107 km/h)**; tool returned `v = 29.71 m/s = 107.0 km/h`
+- [x] (1) Mass makes no difference  → 1/1 — "**With the 4 kg ball: nothing changes.** Time and speed are identical", with the correct reason (acceleration is g regardless of mass)
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) States the g it used  → 1/1 — "with g = 9.81 m/s²" in the opening line, and `g = 9.81` in the code
+- [x] (1) Does not invent air-resistance numbers when asked to ignore it (a one-line caveat is fine)  → 1/1 — the caveat is a single parenthetical, entirely qualitative ("the difference is tiny"), with no invented drag coefficient, terminal velocity or corrected time. It also states the right direction: with drag, the heavier of two similar bodies falls slightly faster because drag is a smaller fraction of its weight
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (2) `matlab_run` for the numbers. 1 if hand-calculated with the formula shown and correct.  → 2/2 — one `matlab_run` call, `purpose: "scratch"`, and it did more than the minimum: an energy cross-check (`mgh` vs `½mv²`, both 882.9 J) that independently validates v. Every number in the answer except the mph conversion is a tool number
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Numbers first, units, brief  → 1/1 — formula line, then time, then speed, each bold with units, before any discussion
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −3 says the heavier ball falls faster or slower → not applied — says explicitly that nothing changes. (The air-resistance aside is correctly scoped to the case the user excluded)
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T19:19:59Z (dumped 19:20:31Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `matlab_run` x1 (`purpose: "scratch"`)
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.3s / total=13.1s (decode=10.7s, 34.9 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=9869, completion_tokens=373
+- Ended a turn with a statement of intent and no tool call? (y/n): n
+- Live status indicator matched what actually happened? (y/n): y — `Done · 1 tool call · prefill 6.1 s for 12,864 tokens · 653 generated`. v1's grade flagged "prompt processed in 5.2 s vs usage prefill=2.9s" as a low-priority harness observation; the label is now "first token after 6.2 s", which is what that number always was
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): no. The quantitative nudge fires (2 kg, 45 m, 4 kg), same as v1, so the comparison is like-for-like. Two things worth recording as positives. The model used `purpose: "scratch"` again, unprompted — third easy-set prompt in a row to reach for it — and it added an unrequested **energy cross-check** to the same call rather than making a second one: `mgh = 882.9 J` against `½mv² = 882.9 J` is an independent confirmation that t and v are consistent, obtained for free. That is the behaviour the `matlab_run` docstring rewrite was aiming at
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 10 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass
+- **What it got right:** both numbers, from a tool, with g stated; the 4 kg distractor handled flatly and correctly with the right reason; an energy cross-check it was not asked for; the air-resistance caveat kept qualitative and clearly outside the stated assumption; numbers-first layout
+- **What it got wrong:** nothing material. Two nits, both smaller than v1's. The mph conversion "about 67 mph" is the one figure not from the tool and is about 0.5 mph high (29.71 m/s = 66.5 mph) — inside "about", but it is the only unsourced number in the answer. And "twice the damage" is a loose gloss on twice the kinetic energy; the energy figures themselves (883 J and 1766 J) are right, the first from the tool and the second by doubling it
+- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0).** Already at ceiling, still there, and the one nit v1 recorded is fixed: v1 wrote a four-sentence air-resistance digression where the rubric allows one line, and v2 compressed it to a single parenthetical. Completion tokens fell 403 → 373 while the answer gained the energy comparison, so the added content was paid for by cutting the padding. The v1 grade's minor harness observation (status prefill vs `usage:` prefill) is resolved by Change 52
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no — clean run in both rounds. Worth one positive line: this is the third consecutive easy prompt where the model chose `matlab_run` with `purpose: "scratch"` on its own, and the first where it used the call for a self-check (`mgh` vs `½mv²`) rather than only for the requested arithmetic. Change 50's scratchpad framing is being used more broadly than it was written for
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: recomputed on 2026-09-11 — t = √(2·45/9.81) = 3.0290 s; v = g·t = 29.715 m/s; 29.715 × 3.6 = 106.97 km/h; 29.715 / 0.44704 = 66.47 mph; ½·2·29.715² = 882.9 J and m·g·h = 2·9.81·45 = 882.9 J, so the model's energy check is exact; ½·4·29.715² = 1765.8 J ≈ 1766 J. With g = 9.8 instead of 9.81 the answers would be t = 3.0305 s and v = 29.70 m/s, so the rubric's "either is fine if stated" makes no practical difference here. Rubric ground truth correct
+- Rubric issues: none
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e08-ball-drop-mass (round v2)
+# chat id    : 33ae90bc-5113-41bd-bb14-7202b36bfdd0
+# chat title : Time of Fall and Velocity of Steel Ball
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  matlab_run x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T19:20:31Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T19:19:59Z) ===
+I drop a 2 kg steel ball from a 45 m tower. Ignoring air resistance, how long does it take to hit the ground and how fast is it going on impact? If I used a 4 kg ball instead, how do the answers change?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T19:19:59Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=9869 eval_count=373 prompt_tokens=9869 completion_tokens=373 total=13.1s prefill=2.3s decode=10.7s 34.9 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+Simple physics problem: t = sqrt(2h/g), v = gt. Mass doesn't matter (Galileo's principle). Let me calculate using matlab_run scratch.
+
+t = sqrt(2*45/9.81) = sqrt(9.1743) ≈ 3.029 s. v = 9.81 * 3.029 ≈ 29.71 m/s ≈ 106.9 km/h.
+
+Let me run the calculation.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: matlab_run  (call_ltmryr17) ===
+{
+  "purpose": "scratch",
+  "code": "g = 9.81;\nh = 45;\nt = sqrt(2*h/g);\nv = g*t;\nfprintf('t = %.3f s\\n', t);\nfprintf('v = %.2f m/s = %.1f km/h\\n', v, v*3.6);\n% energy check: mgh = 0.5*m*v^2\nm = 2;\nfprintf('KE check: mgh=%.1f J, 0.5mv^2=%.1f J\\n', m*g*h, 0.5*m*v^2);"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run  (call_ltmryr17) ===
+# Scratch run OK (0.44s)
+## Output
+```
+t = 3.029 s
+v = 29.71 m/s = 107.0 km/h
+KE check: mgh=882.9 J, 0.5mv^2=882.9 J
+```
+
+=== [4] THINKING (1s) ===
+Answer: t ≈ 3.03 seconds, v ≈ 29.7 m/s (about 107 km/h). The mass doesn't change the answer — Galileo's equivalence principle. The energy doubles, but the velocity and time are the same.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Using h = ½gt² and v = gt with g = 9.81 m/s²:
+
+**Time to impact:** t = √(2h/g) = √(2·45/9.81) ≈ **3.03 s**
+
+**Impact speed:** v = gt ≈ **29.7 m/s** (≈ 107 km/h or about 67 mph)
+
+**With the 4 kg ball: nothing changes.** Time and speed are identical. That's the whole point of Galileo's result — in free fall without air resistance, the acceleration is g for every object regardless of mass, so the trajectory depends only on height and gravity, not on how heavy the thing is.
+
+What *does* change is the energy at impact:
+- 2 kg ball: ½mv² ≈ **883 J**
+- 4 kg ball: **1766 J** (double, since KE scales with mass)
+
+So the heavier ball hits just as fast but packs twice the energy — which is exactly why it would do twice the damage to whatever it lands on, even though its motion looks identical.
+
+(One real-world caveat: with air resistance actually present, a denser/heavier object falls slightly faster than a light one because drag is a larger fraction of its weight — but for a steel ball dropped from 45 m the difference is tiny, so the "ignoring air resistance" answers hold very well.)
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 6.2 s
+- Thought: Simple physics problem: t = sqrt(2h/g), v = gt. Mass doesn't matter (Galileo's … * 3.029 ≈ 29.71 m/s ≈ 106.9 km/h. Let me run the calculation.
+- Calling matlab_run
+- Thinking
+- Thought: Answer: t ≈ 3.03 seconds, v ≈ 29.7 m/s (about 107 km/h). The mass doesn't change the … The energy doubles, but the velocity and time are the same.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 6.1 s for 12,864 tokens · 653 generated