Initial Commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
|
||||
# e08 — Free fall with a mass distractor · round v3
|
||||
|
||||
> Grading worksheet for round **v3**. 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 3.0289 s
|
||||
- [x] (2) v ≈ 29.7 m/s → 2/2 — "≈ **29.7 m/s** (~107 km/h or ~66 mph)"; tool returned 29.7136 m/s and 106.97 km/h
|
||||
- [x] (1) Mass makes no difference → 1/1 — "**4 kg ball: nothing changes.** Same 3.03 s, same 29.7 m/s", with the a = F/m = mg/m = g derivation
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) States the g it used → 1/1 — g = 9.81 in the formula line and in the tool call
|
||||
- [x] (1) Does not invent air-resistance numbers when asked to ignore it → 1/1 — the caveat is qualitative ("edge slightly ahead", "the difference would be tiny") with no figures. It is three sentences rather than the one line the rubric suggests — back to v1's length after v2 had cut it to a parenthetical — but it invents nothing and is clearly fenced off from the idealised answer
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (2) `matlab_run` for the numbers. 1 if hand-calculated with the formula shown and correct. → 2/2 — one scratch `matlab_run` call; both reported figures are the tool's, rounded. Thinking pre-computes the same values first, then "let me verify with matlab_run scratch" — the safe order
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Numbers first, units, brief → 1/1 — two bold bullets with units are the first thing; the 4 kg answer is the third line
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −3 says the heavier ball falls faster or slower → not applied — "nothing changes" for the no-air case; the air-resistance remark is explicitly outside the stated assumption, which the rubric permits
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
|
||||
- automatic fail → not applied
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T23:03:18Z (dumped 23:10:24Z)
|
||||
- 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=10.9s (decode=8.5s, 37.1 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=9806, completion_tokens=316
|
||||
- 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 6.0 s for 12,864 tokens · 557 generated`
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): no. The nudge fires (kg, m), so as in v1 and v2 the tool call is not attributable to the model alone. The energy cross-check v2 added on its own initiative is gone this round; the "equivalence principle of general relativity" flourish is new. The mph figure (~66) is the one number not from the tool and is right (66.5)
|
||||
|
||||
### Change 54 checks (this round's changes — fill in even when they did not fire)
|
||||
|
||||
- Did a tool result end with a `Sources:` line? (y/n): n — calculator
|
||||
- Did the answer carry a URL? (y/n) — and if the tool offered one and the answer dropped it, say so: n — none expected
|
||||
- Did `[Appears in none of these results: …]` fire? Was it acted on? (n/a if no search): n/a
|
||||
- Did a `search=` jump report `inside the section '…'`? Did it name the right subject?: n/a
|
||||
- Did a `search=` miss return the opening of the document? Did the model keep using the source?: n/a
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 the tool, g stated, the 4 kg distractor answered flatly with the correct derivation, the air-resistance caveat kept qualitative, numbers first
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** nothing scored. The caveat paragraph is longer than it needs to be
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0).** At ceiling for the third time. Minor drift in both directions: the air-resistance caveat grew back from one line to three (v1's nit, which v2 had fixed), and the unrequested energy cross-check v2 did was dropped. Neither touches a scored line. `matlab_run` scratch use is now the settled behaviour on every arithmetic prompt in the easy set
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: t = √(90/9.81) = 3.0289 s; v = 9.81 × 3.0289 = 29.714 m/s = 106.97 km/h = 66.47 mph. Rubric correct; tool agrees
|
||||
- Rubric issues: none
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : easy/e08-ball-drop-mass (round v3)
|
||||
# chat id : a5906d91-f00b-42d8-853e-4a1143b9c084
|
||||
# chat title : Time and Speed of Falling Ball
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 1 matlab_run x1
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T23:10:24Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T23:03:18Z) ===
|
||||
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 (2026-09-11T23:03:18Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=9806 eval_count=316 prompt_tokens=9806 completion_tokens=316 total=10.9s prefill=2.3s decode=8.5s 37.1 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
Physics problem: t = sqrt(2h/g), v = sqrt(2gh). g = 9.81 m/s². h = 45 m.
|
||||
|
||||
t = sqrt(90/9.81) = sqrt(9.1743...) ≈ 3.029 s
|
||||
v = gt ≈ 29.71 m/s (or sqrt(2*9.81*45) = sqrt(882.9) ≈ 29.71 m/s)
|
||||
|
||||
Mass doesn't matter (Galileo). Let me verify with matlab_run scratch.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: matlab_run (call_o27ok1nz) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"purpose": "scratch",
|
||||
"code": "g = 9.81; h = 45;\nt = sqrt(2*h/g);\nv = g*t;\nfprintf('t = %.4f s\\n', t);\nfprintf('v = %.4f m/s (%.2f km/h)\\n', v, v*3.6);"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run (call_o27ok1nz) ===
|
||||
# Scratch run OK (0.42s)
|
||||
## Output
|
||||
```
|
||||
t = 3.0289 s
|
||||
v = 29.7136 m/s (106.97 km/h)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] THINKING (0s) ===
|
||||
The answer is clear. Mass is irrelevant — Galileo's principle of equivalence. I'll present both cases and explain why they're identical.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
**2 kg ball, 45 m drop (no air resistance):**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Time to impact:** t = √(2h/g) = √(90/9.81) ≈ **3.03 s**
|
||||
- **Impact speed:** v = √(2gh) ≈ **29.7 m/s** (~107 km/h or ~66 mph)
|
||||
|
||||
**4 kg ball: nothing changes.** Same 3.03 s, same 29.7 m/s.
|
||||
|
||||
Why mass doesn't matter: the only force acting is gravity, F = mg, so by Newton's second law a = F/m = mg/m = g. The mass cancels exactly — every object in free fall accelerates at the same rate regardless of how heavy it is. This is Galileo's insight (the famous dropped-balls experiment), and it's the whole premise of general relativity's equivalence principle.
|
||||
|
||||
One caveat for the real world: with air resistance, mass *would* start to matter — heavier objects have more weight per unit of drag, so a 4 kg steel ball would actually edge slightly ahead of a 2 kg one over a 45 m drop. But both are dense, compact steel balls, so the difference would be tiny; in the idealized version you asked about, the answers are identical.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 6.2 s
|
||||
- Thought: Physics problem: t = sqrt(2h/g), v = sqrt(2gh). g = 9.81 m/s². h = 45 m. t = … matter (Galileo). Let me verify with matlab_run scratch.
|
||||
- Calling matlab_run
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: The answer is clear. Mass is irrelevant — Galileo's principle of equivalence. I'll present both cases and explain why they're identical.
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 6.0 s for 12,864 tokens · 557 generated
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user