Initial Commit

2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# e11 — Bat and ball, altered total · round v4
+
+> Grading worksheet for round **v4**. 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] (5) $0.15  → 5/5 — "The ball costs **$0.15**", first line; bat $1.15
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Shows the check (both conditions satisfied)  → 1/1 — "Bat: $1.15 (exactly $1.00 more)", "Total: $1.30 ✓"; the tool block prints the same check
+- [x] (1) No web search for a two-line algebra problem  → 1/1 — no search; one scratch arithmetic call
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (2) No tool, or a single arithmetic check. 0 if it searched the web for "bat and ball".  → 2/2 — one `matlab_run` (`purpose: "scratch"`), which the rubric allows in so many words
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Answer first  → 1/1 — answer first, three-line check, one parenthetical on the wrong instinct
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 answers $0.05 or $0.30 → not applied — $0.05 appears in the answer only as the correctly-labelled famous-version answer; $0.30 only as the named wrong instinct
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied — "let me use matlab_run to be precise as instructed" is followed by the call
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:11:39Z (dumped 04:12:13Z)
+- 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 (scratch)
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.6s / total=4.3s (decode=2.6s, 43.6 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10129, completion_tokens=115
+- 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 — `Calling matlab_run`, `Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.1 s for 12,927 tokens · 624 generated`
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the first line of thinking is the memorised answer, stated as fact: "The answer is 5 cents (the ball), not 10 cents." The algebra two lines later gives 0.15, the model writes "Wait, that's 15 cents", re-reads the prompt, re-derives, explicitly contrasts the $1.10 version, and only then calls the tool "to be precise as instructed". So the trap fired, was caught by the model's own working (as in v1 and v3), and the tool then confirmed (as in v2). Prompt tokens 12,927 — the nudge fires on the dollar amounts and the model acted on it this time. The answer's parenthetical names $0.30 as the tempting wrong answer ("would make the bat $1.30 and the total $1.60") — a different wrong instinct from the one the thinking actually had ($0.05), but a correct statement about $0.30
+
+### Change 55 checks (this round's changes — fill in even when they did not fire)
+
+- Did a tool result carry a `Sources:` trailer? (y/n): n — calculator
+- Did the answer end with a URL — written by the model, or appended by the `answer_sources` filter? (model / filter / none): none — none expected
+- Any of the 55.2 tool fixes exercised? Which, and did it fire correctly?: none — the Octave ran clean
+
+## 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:** solved the problem asked; the memorised $0.05 stated in the first line of thinking and overturned by the algebra in the third; both conditions checked by hand and by tool; answer first
+- **What it got wrong:** nothing
+- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0)** on score; the route is v2's again (wrong instinct → own algebra → tool confirms), after v3 skipped the tool. Four rounds: unaided → tool → unaided → tool. The scratch-call habit on "trivial" arithmetic remains a coin flip, and it has not mattered once, because the model's own working has caught the trap every time. The first-line "5 cents" is the most direct statement of the memorised answer in any round's thinking — and the fastest correction (two lines)
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: 2x + 1.00 = 1.30 → x = 0.15; bat 1.15; both conditions hold. The answer's $0.30 counterfactual: bat = 1.30, total = 1.60 — arithmetic correct
+- Rubric issues: none
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e11-bat-and-ball-variant (round v4)
+# chat id    : 060eabc9-5a22-4147-b915-17de0ab16610
+# chat title : Bat, Ball, and Cost
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  matlab_run x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-12T04:12:13Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-12T04:11:39Z) ===
+A bat and a ball cost $1.30 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-12T04:11:39Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=10129 eval_count=115 prompt_tokens=10129 completion_tokens=115 total=4.3s prefill=1.6s decode=2.6s 43.6 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+This is a classic cognitive reflection puzzle. The answer is 5 cents (the ball), not 10 cents.
+
+Let me verify: If the ball costs x, the bat costs x + 1.00. Total: x + (x + 1.00) = 1.30 → 2x = 0.30 → x = 0.15. Wait, that's 15 cents.
+
+Let me re-read: "A bat and a ball cost $1.30 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball."
+
+Ball = x, Bat = x + 1.00
+x + x + 1.00 = 1.30
+2x = 0.30
+x = 0.15
+
+So the ball costs $0.15 (15 cents).
+
+Wait, let me double-check. The classic version is "bat and ball cost $1.10, bat costs $1.00 more than ball" → ball = $0.05.
+
+But this version says $1.30 total. So:
+2x + 1 = 1.30
+2x = 0.30
+x = 0.15
+
+The ball costs $0.15. Let me verify: ball = $0.15, bat = $1.15. Total = $1.30. Bat is $1.00 more than ball. ✓
+
+This is simple arithmetic I can do in my head, but let me use matlab_run to be precise as instructed.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: matlab_run  (call_kshbmhgw) ===
+{
+  "code": "% Ball = x, Bat = x + 1.00\n% x + (x + 1.00) = 1.30\n% 2x = 0.30\nx = (1.30 - 1.00) / 2;\nfprintf('Ball: $%.2f\\n', x);\nfprintf('Bat:  $%.2f\\n', x + 1.00);\nfprintf('Check total: $%.2f\\n', x + x + 1.00);",
+  "purpose": "scratch"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run  (call_kshbmhgw) ===
+# Scratch run OK (0.45s)
+## Output
+```
+Ball: $0.15
+Bat:  $1.15
+Check total: $1.30
+```
+
+=== [4] THINKING (0s) ===
+The answer is clear: the ball costs $0.15.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+The ball costs **$0.15**.
+
+- Ball: $0.15
+- Bat: $1.15 (exactly $1.00 more)
+- Total: $1.30 ✓
+
+(This is a variation on the classic "bat and ball" problem — the intuitive-but-wrong answer here would be $0.30, which would make the bat $1.30 and the total $1.60.)
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 5.3 s
+- Thought: This is a classic cognitive reflection puzzle. The answer is 5 cents (the ball), not 10 … my head, but let me use matlab_run to be precise as instructed.
+- Calling matlab_run
+- Thinking
+- Thought: The answer is clear: the ball costs $0.15.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.1 s for 12,927 tokens · 624 generated