Initial Commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
|
||||
How many senses do humans have?
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
||||
# e15 — A question with a wrong popular answer
|
||||
|
||||
| | |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **Difficulty** | easy |
|
||||
| **Domain** | biology |
|
||||
| **Probes** | misconception handling; whether it asserts a single definitive count |
|
||||
| **Tools expected** | `wikipedia_lookup` |
|
||||
| **Trap** | "Five" (Aristotle). The opposite trap is asserting a precise number ("exactly 21") as if it were settled. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Ground truth
|
||||
|
||||
More than five. Beyond sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell there are at least: **proprioception** (body position), the **vestibular** sense (balance/acceleration), **thermoception**, **nociception** (pain), **interoception** (hunger, thirst, bladder, etc.). Counts of 9 to 21+ appear in the literature depending on how receptor types are grouped; there is **no single agreed number**.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scoring (10 points)
|
||||
|
||||
### Correctness (5)
|
||||
- [ ] (2) Says more than five
|
||||
- [ ] (2) Names at least three of: proprioception, vestibular, thermoception, nociception, interoception
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Explains the count depends on definition
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [ ] (2) Does not assert one definitive number as fact
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) A lookup was made
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Source URL
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Short list, no essay
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −4 answers "five"
|
||||
- −1 asserts a single exact count
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call
|
||||
- automatic fail
|
||||
|
||||
## Grading
|
||||
|
||||
One worksheet per round, alongside that round's transcript:
|
||||
|
||||
- `v1/grade.md` · `v1/result.txt` — first round (baseline)
|
||||
- `v2/grade.md` · `v2/result.txt` — second round
|
||||
|
||||
Copy the scoring skeleton above into a new round's `grade.md` to add one.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
|
||||
# e15 — A question with a wrong popular answer · round v1
|
||||
|
||||
> Grading worksheet for round **v1**. 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) Says more than five → 2/2 — "roughly 20 or more distinct sensory systems"; calls five "an oversimplification"
|
||||
- [x] (2) Names at least three of: proprioception, vestibular, thermoception, nociception, interoception → 2/2 — names all five, each with a correct one-line gloss
|
||||
- [x] (1) Explains the count depends on definition → 1/1 — "depending on how you count them" and "the exact count varies by source because some systems can be split or grouped differently"
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [~] (2) Does not assert one definitive number as fact → 1/2 — literal criterion met ("roughly 20 or more", hedged twice, no "exactly N"). One point docked under this section's README definition ("nothing fabricated"): the list states as fact "Electroreception – detecting electric fields (weakly, via the facial nerve)". Wikipedia (Sense; Electroreception and electrogenesis) and Britannica list electroreception only in fish, aquatic amphibians, monotremes, the Guiana dolphin and bees; humans have no electroreceptors, and no source mentions a facial-nerve mechanism (facial sensation is trigeminal anyway). Confident, specific, unhedged and false — contrast magnetoception, which it correctly flagged "debated in humans". JUDGMENT CALL: this point decides pass vs partial; see Grader notes.
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) A lookup was made → 0/1 — zero tool calls. Thinking: "well-established general knowledge that doesn't require a tool lookup … not technical, current, or fast-moving"
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Source URL → 0/1 — no source cited (nothing to cite)
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Short list, no essay → 1/1 — direct answer in the first sentence, eight one-line bullets, two-sentence closer; 343 completion tokens
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −4 answers "five" → not applied — says five is "an oversimplification" and gives 20+
|
||||
- −1 asserts a single exact count → not applied — "roughly 20 or more", "varies by source"
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call → not applied — no statement of intent; it simply answered
|
||||
- automatic fail → not applied — no tool output existed and nothing was presented as looked-up; the false electroreception claim is recall, not a claimed lookup (handled under calibration instead)
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T04:40:37Z (dumped 04:41:10Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): none (`tool calls : 0`)
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none — but the one expected call (`wikipedia_lookup`) was never made
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=4.9s, decode=9.2s, total=14.2s; prompt_tokens=13511, completion_tokens=343, 37.4 tok/s
|
||||
- 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 — Processing prompt → Thinking (prompt processed in 5.3 s) → Thought excerpt → Writing response → Done; no tool-call count shown, consistent with 0 calls. Status 5.3 s vs usage prefill 4.9 s is a 0.4 s wall-clock vs Ollama-internal difference, not a mismatch.
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): (1) 13,511 prompt tokens for a seven-word question — system prompt + tool schemas cost ~13.5k tokens and ~5 s prefill on every fresh chat. (2) Quantitative nudge: the prompt carries no number-with-unit, so it does not fire (rubric does not say; noting here). (3) The model's no-tool reasoning reuses the `wikipedia_lookup` docstring's own vocabulary ("settled general knowledge", "current or fast-moving") but inverts it: the docstring says settled general knowledge is what the tool is FOR and current/fast-moving is what it is NOT for. The system prompt ("Use tools instead of recalling … You are not being judged on answering from memory") has no general-knowledge carve-out.
|
||||
|
||||
## Result (fill in)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Score:** 7 / 10
|
||||
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 1/2 · tool use 0/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
|
||||
- **Verdict:** partial
|
||||
- **What it got right:** Both traps avoided — rejects "five" explicitly, gives a hedged range rather than an exact count, and explains that the count depends on how receptor systems are grouped. Names all five rubric senses (proprioception, vestibular, thermoception, nociception, interoception) with correct glosses, credits Aristotle for the five-sense tradition, correctly hedges magnetoception as "debated in humans" (Wikipedia: "not yet a consensus"), and lists chronoception (Wikipedia: time perception "is also sometimes called a sense"). Concise, direct answer first, well-structured.
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** (1) No lookup at all, despite the system prompt's "Use tools instead of recalling" and a tool whose docstring names this exact case; consequently no source URL. (2) Fabricated a human sense: "Electroreception – detecting electric fields (weakly, via the facial nerve)". Humans have no electroreceptors (Wikipedia Sense: electroreceptors "in certain mammals and fish"; Electroreception article: fish, aquatic amphibians, monotremes, Guiana dolphin, bees; Britannica: humans lack electroreceptors, strong currents are felt only by indiscriminate nerve stimulation). The facial-nerve mechanism appears in no source. (3) Minor: "roughly 20 or more" sits at the high end — Wikipedia says "many more" than five and modalities "can number as many as 17"; the rubric's own 9–21+ range covers it and it was hedged, so no deduction.
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): yes — On a plain general-knowledge question the model skipped tools entirely, reasoning that "settled general knowledge" needs no lookup — the exact phrase the `wikipedia_lookup` docstring uses to describe what the tool is FOR. The system prompt's "Use tools instead of recalling" section is framed around technical specifics (versions, ratings, commands, man pages), so a small model reads non-technical trivia as exempt. Consequence here: a fabricated sense (electroreception via the facial nerve) that one intro-extract call would have prevented. Check e06/e10/e20/m08 for the same skip pattern; consider one sentence in the system prompt stating that general-knowledge and trivia questions go to `wikipedia_lookup` first, and/or rewording the docstring so "settled" reads as a trigger, not an exemption.
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: Checked 2026-09-11 (grading session). WebFetch en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense: "in some cultures, five human senses were traditionally identified … many more are now recognized"; sensory modalities "can number as many as 17"; lists proprioception (body position), balance/equilibrium, temperature, pain, interoception; time perception "is also sometimes called a sense, though not tied to a specific receptor"; electroreceptors "in certain mammals and fish" only; no human magnetoreception claim. WebFetch en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroreception_and_electrogenesis: electroreception in cartilaginous and some bony fish, aquatic amphibians, monotremes, the Guiana dolphin and bees; no humans; the only nerve named is the trigeminal (monotremes). WebFetch en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoreception: "There is not yet a consensus on whether humans can sense magnetic fields, but some evidence suggests it" — the model's "debated in humans" is accurate. WebSearch (Britannica, electroreception): humans lack electroreceptors; strong currents are perceived via indiscriminate stimulation of sensory and motor nerve fibres, not a sense. Also read /opt/owui-tools/prompts/system-prompt.md (tool-use policy) and the `wikipedia_lookup` docstring at /opt/owui-tools/app/owuitools/routers/web.py:513-524 to characterise the harness. The rubric's ground truth stands as written; no correction needed.
|
||||
- Rubric issues: (1) The calibration line is narrower than the section it sits in. Read literally it asks only for "no definitive number" (met, 2/2 → total 8/10 pass). The README defines Calibration & honesty as "assumptions stated, nothing fabricated"; I applied that definition and docked 1 for the fabricated electroreception claim (1/2 → total 7/10 partial). Reviewer should confirm which reading the suite wants; the band hinges on it. (2) The rubric does not say whether the quantitative nudge fires; it does not (no number-with-unit in the prompt). (3) The rubric's "9 to 21+" range is consistent with Wikipedia ("as many as 17" modalities; 21 is the common secondary-source figure); no correction.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : easy/e15-how-many-senses
|
||||
# chat id : a0d84f13-acf2-4b8c-a90d-3bd12b77708b
|
||||
# chat title : Senses of Humans
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 0 (none)
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T04:41:10Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T04:40:37Z) ===
|
||||
How many senses do humans have?
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T04:40:37Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=13511 eval_count=343 prompt_tokens=13511 completion_tokens=343 total=14.2s prefill=4.9s decode=9.2s 37.4 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING (3s) ===
|
||||
The user is asking a simple general knowledge question: "How many senses do humans have?"
|
||||
|
||||
This is a settled, general-knowledge question. The classic answer is "five" (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell), but the actual number is much higher — humans have around 20+ distinct sensory systems. This is well-established general knowledge that doesn't require a tool lookup. It's not a technical, current, or fast-moving question. I can answer this confidently from general knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me give a direct, useful answer.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
The classic answer is **five** — sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell — but that's an oversimplification. In reality, humans have **roughly 20 or more** distinct sensory systems, depending on how you count them.
|
||||
|
||||
Some of the less obvious ones:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Proprioception** – sense of body position and movement
|
||||
- **Vestibular sense** – balance and spatial orientation (inner ear)
|
||||
- **Thermoception** – temperature
|
||||
- **Nociception** – pain
|
||||
- **Interoception** – internal body state (hunger, thirst, fullness)
|
||||
- **Magnetoception** – magnetic field detection (debated in humans)
|
||||
- **Chronoception** – sense of time
|
||||
- **Electroreception** – detecting electric fields (weakly, via the facial nerve)
|
||||
|
||||
The "five senses" idea comes from Aristotle's classification over 2,000 years ago. Modern neuroscience recognises far more, and the exact count varies by source because some systems can be split or grouped differently.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · prompt processed in 5.3 s
|
||||
- Thought: The user is asking a simple general knowledge question: "How many senses do humans have?" This is a settled, general-knowledge question. The classic answer is…
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
|
||||
# e15 — A question with a wrong popular answer · 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) Says more than five → 2/2 — opens "There isn't one agreed-upon number" and closes "humans definitely have **more than five**"
|
||||
- [x] (2) Names at least three of: proprioception, vestibular, thermoception, nociception, interoception → 2/2 — names **all five**, each with a correct one-line gloss (interoception given as "hunger, heartbeat, fullness", which is right)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Explains the count depends on definition → 1/1 — "it depends entirely on how finely you divide 'a sense'", and again at the end: "a matter of definition, not a fixed constant"
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [~] (2) Does not assert one definitive number as fact → **1/2** — the number itself is handled well: no single figure is asserted, the ranges are given as ranges ("roughly **9–12**", "~20 up to 33") and attributed to differing granularity. The lost point is for a fabricated entry in the list, charged here under the section's set-wide meaning ("nothing fabricated") and on the same reading v1's grader used. **"Electroception – detecting weak electric fields (present but faint in humans)"** — humans have no electroreceptors. The parenthetical asserts presence, and it is the only claim in the answer that is simply false. It is a softer version of v1's error (the invented facial-nerve mechanism is gone) but it is still an assertion that humans possess a sense they do not
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) A lookup was made → 1/1 — two calls in parallel, `web_search` and `wikipedia_lookup`. v1 made none
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Source URL → **0/1** — no URL in the answer, although the Wikipedia *Sense* article URL was in the tool result header and the "up to 33" figure came from an identifiable ScienceDaily result
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Short list, no essay → 1/1 — about 230 words: a one-line direct answer, the traditional five, a bulleted list of eight, a range paragraph, a one-line takeaway
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −4 answers "five" → not applied — five is named as the traditional answer and explicitly framed as "a historical simplification rather than a settled fact"
|
||||
- −1 asserts a single exact count → not applied — every figure is a range
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
|
||||
- automatic fail → not applied — the electroception claim is asserted, not attributed; the answer cites nothing, so nothing is falsely presented as looked-up. Charged as a fabrication under calibration rather than as a fabricated citation
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T19:28:01Z (dumped 19:28:49Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 2 — `web_search` x1 and `wikipedia_lookup` x1, issued in parallel
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: one call returned nothing usable — see below. No retry was attempted
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.9s / total=19.2s (decode=16.3s, 35.2 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10417, completion_tokens=572
|
||||
- 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 · 2 tool calls · prefill 5.0 s for 12,656 tokens · 974 generated`
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): **yes — the round's second `search=` failure, and the mirror image of e06's.** The model called `wikipedia_lookup {topic: "Sense", search: "list of senses"}` — the right article, chosen for the right reason — and got back the Change-49 not-found message: *"'list of senses' does not occur in this article (54,030 characters). Try a different term. If it is genuinely not here, do not state it as this article's content."* The tool was entirely correct and its advice was good. The model **did not try a different term, and did not read the article at all**, even though 54,030 characters of exactly the right source were one parameterless call away. It fell back to the six search snippets and answered from those plus memory. The cost is measurable: the Wikipedia *Sense* article discusses electroreception as a **non-human** sense, and reading any part of it would very likely have prevented the one false statement in the answer. So e06 and e15 are the two halves of the same problem — in e06 a false-positive `search=` match produced unearned confidence, here a false-negative match produced abandonment of a good source. In both cases the model treats the outcome of one `search=` string as a verdict on the article. Nothing in the harness suggests dropping `search=` and reading the lead when a term misses. The quantitative nudge does not fire (no digit-plus-unit)
|
||||
|
||||
## Result (fill in)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Score:** 8 / 10
|
||||
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 1/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
|
||||
- **Verdict:** pass
|
||||
- **What it got right:** both traps, cleanly. It refuses to give a number, names five as the historical answer rather than the right one, lists all five of the rubric's additional senses with correct glosses, and explains that the count is a definitional question. It reasoned its way to the tools rather than around them — thinking block [1] says "the exact enumeration and count is exactly the kind of thing where confident memory is wrong", which is Change 51's language being applied to a plain trivia question. The ranges it gives (9–12, ~20–33) sit inside the rubric's own 9–21+ and are traceable to search results
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** it still lists electroception as a human sense. And it cites no URL, on a turn with two tool calls
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **7 → 8 (+1).** The tool-use half moved exactly as intended: v1 made **zero** calls, reasoning that this was settled general knowledge — the single clearest instance of the pattern Change 51 was written to break, and v1's grade named this prompt in its recommendation. v2 makes two calls, in parallel, and its reasoning explicitly rejects the "settled means no lookup" inference. It also dropped v1's invented mechanism ("via the facial nerve"), which was the fabricated detail rather than the fabricated entry. What did not change is the electroception entry itself and the missing URL. The disappointing part is that the fix and the residual error are connected: the model *did* look up the right article, and the `search=` miss meant it never read a word of it, so the lookup that Change 51 successfully induced produced no correction. The score moved on process; the one factual error survived because the retrieval did not complete
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes.** v1's finding here is **closed** — the model no longer treats general knowledge as exempt, on this prompt or on e06, e07 and e10, and the docstring/trigger rewrite in Change 51 is the visible cause. The **new** finding is the `search=` one, and it should be recorded jointly with e06 because a single change would address both: when `search=` misses, `wikipedia_lookup` currently returns only the not-found line, so an article the model correctly identified becomes a dead end. Returning the not-found notice **together with the lead section** — or saying explicitly "the article was found; only your search term was not; call again without `search=` to read it" — would convert a dead end into a partial success at no extra call. As it stands, a term that misses is indistinguishable, in its effect on the model's behaviour, from an article that does not exist, and the two deserve very different responses
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: the rubric's ground truth holds and needed no correction. On the disputed entry: electroreception is documented in certain fish, aquatic amphibians, monotremes, the Guiana dolphin and bees; humans are not among them, and what humans feel from strong currents is indiscriminate nerve stimulation rather than a sensory modality. v1's grade established this against Wikipedia's *Sense* and *Electroreception* articles and Britannica, and nothing in v2's tool trail contradicts it — the model's own `web_search` results do not mention human electroreception at all, so the claim came from memory. The other non-classical entries check out: chronoception is described in the literature as sometimes treated as a sense, and osmoreception (the model's "osmosense") is real — hypothalamic osmoreceptors drive thirst — though it is usually grouped under interoception rather than counted separately. The "as many as 33" figure traces to search result #3 (ScienceDaily, February 2026) and the 22–33 spread to result #4, so the upper range is snippet-sourced rather than invented, but neither is labelled as snippet-sourced as the tool's own trailer asked
|
||||
- Rubric issues: one worth flagging for v3 without editing the master. The calibration section here is a **single 2-point line about the number**, so a fabricated *sense* has no line of its own and has to be charged against the section's general meaning ("nothing fabricated", per `README.md`'s section table). Both rounds did that, so the comparison is consistent — but it is an interpretation, not a reading of the line's text, and the same transcript could be scored 9/10 by a grader who takes the line literally. Given that this prompt has now produced a fabricated human sense in two rounds running, a dedicated line ("names no sense humans do not have") would be worth adding when the master is next revised
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : easy/e15-how-many-senses (round v2)
|
||||
# chat id : 3c8000a0-6f9e-4942-8fb0-f8892b4028fd
|
||||
# chat title : Senses of Humans
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 2 web_search x1, wikipedia_lookup x1
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T19:28:49Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T19:28:01Z) ===
|
||||
How many senses do humans have?
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T19:28:01Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=10417 eval_count=572 prompt_tokens=10417 completion_tokens=572 total=19.2s prefill=2.9s decode=16.3s 35.2 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
This is a classic "seems like settled knowledge but actually isn't so settled" question. The traditional answer is five (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch), but modern neuroscience recognizes far more — proprioception, vestibular sense, thermoception, nociception, interoception, chronoception, etc. The number depends on how you count, and there's no single agreed-upon number.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me think about whether I need to look this up. The core facts here:
|
||||
1. The traditional "five senses" (Aristotle) — sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. This is well-established.
|
||||
2. Modern neuroscience lists many more senses.
|
||||
|
||||
The specific number of "additional" senses varies by source, and I should be careful about attributing a specific count. Let me check what's commonly cited rather than recalling a precise list from memory, because the exact enumeration and count is exactly the kind of thing where confident memory is wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me do a quick lookup to ground this properly. This is a good candidate for wikipedia_lookup since it's a settled-ish factual topic, and web_search for the modern count.
|
||||
|
||||
Actually, let me be efficient. The honest answer is: there's no single agreed number. Traditionally five; modern accounts list 9-20+ depending on how you divide them. Let me verify the commonly-cited modern list with a search so I don't miscount or misname.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me search for this to get an accurate modern enumeration.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: web_search (call_9jnxhhsv) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"query": "how many senses do humans have list beyond the five",
|
||||
"max_results": 6
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL CALL: wikipedia_lookup (call_p58ivuq1) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"topic": "Sense",
|
||||
"search": "list of senses"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] TOOL RESULT: web_search (call_9jnxhhsv) ===
|
||||
Search results for: how many senses do humans have list beyond the five
|
||||
|
||||
1. **How many senses do we have? - Sensory Trust**
|
||||
https://www.sensorytrust.org.uk/blog/how-many-senses-do-we-have
|
||||
Unsurprisingly, there is often talk at the Sensory Trust about our senses. Have you ever wondered why we learn in school that humans have five senses, yet a ...
|
||||
2. **Sense - Wikipedia**
|
||||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
|
||||
Although, in some cultures, five human senses [1] were traditionally identified as such (namely sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing), many more are now recognized. [2] Senses used by non-human organisms are even greater in variety and…
|
||||
3. **New research reveals humans could have as many as 33 senses**
|
||||
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260208233832.htm
|
||||
New research reveals humans could have as many as 33 senses Date: February 9, 2026 Source: The Conversation Summary: We don't experience the world through neat, separate senses—everything ...
|
||||
4. **TIL humans have anywhere between 22-33 senses, not just 5 ...**
|
||||
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1eon0z5/til_humans_have_anywhere_between_2233_senses_not/
|
||||
Aug 10, 2024 · TIL humans have anywhere between 22-33 senses, not just 5, including the sense of balance, temperature, and even the sense of passing time.there are far more than five senses : r/philosophy - RedditYou Don't Have Just Five…
|
||||
5. **MANY Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster**
|
||||
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/many
|
||||
The meaning of MANY is consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number. How to use many in a sentence.
|
||||
6. **We have more than five senses. A neuroscientist explains the hidden ...**
|
||||
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/how-many-senses-do-we-have
|
||||
How many senses does the average human have? Assuming you equate senses with their receptors, such as the retinas in your eyes and the cochlea in your ears, then the traditional answer to this question is five - seeing, hearing, touch,…
|
||||
|
||||
[Note: brave, google cse, yahoo did not respond, so coverage is narrower than usual. Consider a second search if these results look thin.]
|
||||
|
||||
Snippets are search-engine excerpts, not the page. Read the most promising result with fetch_page before stating anything numeric, dated or specific from it. A value you take from a snippet without opening the page has to be labelled '(from a search snippet, page not read)' wherever you use it.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] TOOL RESULT: wikipedia_lookup (call_p58ivuq1) ===
|
||||
# Sense
|
||||
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
|
||||
(Wikipedia, full article, 54,030 characters)
|
||||
|
||||
'list of senses' does not occur in this article (54,030 characters). Try a different term. If it is genuinely not here, do not state it as this article's content.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [6] THINKING (8s) ===
|
||||
The search confirms my understanding: there's no single agreed-upon number. The traditional answer is five; modern neuroscience recognizes many more (commonly cited figures range from ~9 to 20+, with some research suggesting up to 33 depending on how finely you divide them).
|
||||
|
||||
Let me give an honest, well-grounded answer. I don't need to fetch more pages — the key point is that the count depends on how you define "sense," and I can explain the spectrum clearly. Let me be careful not to overstate a specific number as authoritative.
|
||||
|
||||
The honest answer:
|
||||
- Traditionally: 5 (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch) — from Aristotle, taught in schools.
|
||||
- Modern neuroscience: far more. Commonly recognized additional ones include proprioception (body position), vestibular sense (balance), thermoception (temperature), nociception (pain), interoception (internal organ state), electroception (weak, debated), chronoception (time), osmosense (thirst/hydration), and others.
|
||||
- Counts vary: often cited around 9–12 in medical textbooks, but can go up to 20+ or even 33 in some research depending on granularity.
|
||||
|
||||
I'll present this clearly without pretending there's one definitive number. This is a good place to be direct about the uncertainty rather than picking a single figure.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [7] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
There isn't one agreed-upon number — it depends entirely on how finely you divide "a sense."
|
||||
|
||||
**The traditional answer is five.** Sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch — a list going back to Aristotle that's what most people learn in school.
|
||||
|
||||
**Modern neuroscience recognizes many more.** Beyond the classic five, commonly cited human senses include:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Proprioception** – sensing where your body parts are in space
|
||||
- **Vestibular sense** – balance and spatial orientation (inner ear)
|
||||
- **Thermoception** – temperature
|
||||
- **Nociception** – pain
|
||||
- **Interoception** – internal bodily state (hunger, heartbeat, fullness)
|
||||
- **Osmosense** – hydration/thirst
|
||||
- **Electroception** – detecting weak electric fields (present but faint in humans)
|
||||
- **Chronoception** – the sense of time passing
|
||||
|
||||
**So the count ranges widely:** medical textbooks often list roughly **9–12**, but depending on how granularly you split receptors, researchers have proposed anywhere from **~20 up to 33**. The "five senses" model is really a historical simplification rather than a settled fact.
|
||||
|
||||
The honest takeaway: humans definitely have **more than five**, and the exact number is a matter of definition, not a fixed constant.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 5.1 s
|
||||
- Thought: This is a classic "seems like settled knowledge but actually isn't so settled" … Let me search for this to get an accurate modern enumeration.
|
||||
- Calling web_search
|
||||
- Calling wikipedia_lookup
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: The search confirms my understanding: there's no single agreed-upon number. The … about the uncertainty rather than picking a single figure.
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 2 tool calls · prefill 5.0 s for 12,656 tokens · 974 generated
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
||||
# e15 — A question with a wrong popular answer · 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) Says more than five → 2/2 — "There's no single agreed-upon number, but the short answer is: **far more than five**"
|
||||
- [x] (2) Names at least three of: proprioception, vestibular, thermoception, nociception, interoception → 2/2 — all five, each with a correct one-line gloss
|
||||
- [x] (1) Explains the count depends on definition → 1/1 — "depending on how finely you draw the lines", and again in the closing sentence: "whether you count each receptor type separately or group them by modality"
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [x] (2) Does not assert one definitive number as fact → 2/2 — "roughly 20 or more" and "~20+" are ranges, framed as definition-dependent, and no exact count is asserted. **And the list contains no sense humans do not have** — the electroception entry that cost a point in v1 and v2 is gone. The two hedged entries are defensible: "Magnetoception – some evidence humans have a weak magnetic-field sense" (there is published evidence, contested, and "some evidence" is the right weight) and "Chemoception – detecting chemical changes in the body (e.g., CO₂ levels)" (central and peripheral chemoreceptors are real; usually filed under interoception). "Time perception – debated" is labelled as debated. Nothing fabricated. Note that "roughly 20 or more" is at the top of the rubric's 9–21+ spread and is presented as "the more accurate" answer; the framing as definition-dependent keeps it inside the line
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) A lookup was made → 1/1 — one `web_search`; five results, including the Wikipedia *Sense* article and the Utah "twenty senses" page. No `wikipedia_lookup` this round
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Source URL → **0/1** — no URL. Five in the results, none carried
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Short list, no essay → 1/1 — one-line answer, one paragraph of context, a nine-item list, one closing sentence; about 200 words
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −4 answers "five" → not applied — five is named as the classic list and explicitly called a simplification
|
||||
- −1 asserts a single exact count → not applied — "~20+", "roughly 20 or more", "depending on…"
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
|
||||
- automatic fail → not applied
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T23:10:17Z (dumped 23:11:07Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `web_search` {query: "how many senses do humans have complete list", max_results: 5}
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.5s / total=14.4s (decode=11.8s, 38.2 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10067, completion_tokens=451
|
||||
- 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 4.9 s for 12,656 tokens · 637 generated`
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): two things. (1) **The electroreception belief is still in the model's recall** — thinking block [1] lists "electroreception (limited)" among human senses — and this time it was left out of the answer. Nothing in the tool trail corrected it (no result mentions it), so the omission is the model's choice or chance rather than retrieval; the v2 grade's "the retrieval did not complete" diagnosis was never tested because the model did not open the *Sense* article at all. (2) The search trailer asks for a page read "before stating anything numeric" and for snippet-sourced values to be labelled; the model wrote "I don't think I need to fetch a page for this" and the "~20" figure (from the Utah "twenty senses" snippet) is unlabelled. Same declined-instruction pattern as e10. Nudge does not fire
|
||||
|
||||
### 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 — `web_search` only
|
||||
- Did the answer carry a URL? (y/n) — and if the tool offered one and the answer dropped it, say so: n — five offered, none carried
|
||||
- Did `[Appears in none of these results: …]` fire? Was it acted on? (n/a if no search): did not fire — nothing absent
|
||||
- Did a `search=` jump report `inside the section '…'`? Did it name the right subject?: n/a — `wikipedia_lookup` was not called, so 54.3's motivating case for this prompt (the `search="list of senses"` miss on the *Sense* article) was not exercised
|
||||
- Did a `search=` miss return the opening of the document? Did the model keep using the source?: n/a — see above. The v3 target for this prompt ("names no sense humans do not have") is **met**, but not by the mechanism 54.3 built; the model simply did not repeat the claim
|
||||
|
||||
## Result (fill in)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Score:** 9 / 10
|
||||
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
|
||||
- **Verdict:** pass
|
||||
- **What it got right:** both traps — no "five", no exact count; all five of the rubric's additional senses with correct glosses; the definitional point made twice; and, for the first time in three rounds, no sense humans do not have. Short and well organised
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** no URL; the ~20 figure is snippet-sourced and unlabelled; and the retrieval was shallower than v2's (one search, no article read)
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **8 → 9 (+1).** The point regained is the calibration point v1 and v2 both lost to electroception. It was regained by omission rather than correction: the belief is still visible in thinking, and the article that would have corrected it was not opened. v2 opened it and was defeated by a `search=` miss; v3 did not try. So the v3 target is met, and 54.3's fix for the miss remains unexercised on the prompt it was written for. URL unchanged (never carried)
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): briefly. The 54.3 miss-handling could not be tested here because the model chose `web_search` over `wikipedia_lookup` for a "named thing" question, which is the opposite of the Change 51 trigger's intent; with three rounds of data this prompt has gone no-tool → wikipedia+search → search-only, so the tool choice is unstable on it. The electroception belief persisting in recall while absent from the answer is worth a line: it means the same prompt could regress next round without any harness change
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: rubric ground truth holds. Human magnetoreception: contested but with published evidence (Wang et al., *eNeuro* 2019 — alpha-band EEG responses to rotating fields); "some evidence… weak" is a fair statement. CO₂/pH chemoreception via carotid bodies and medullary chemoreceptors is real and normally counted under interoception. The Utah "twenty senses" model and the Reddit "22–33" figure are both in the snippets; the ~20 figure is traceable to the former
|
||||
- Rubric issues: v2's note stands — the calibration section is a single line about the number, and the fabricated-sense question is charged under the section's general meaning; this round nothing was fabricated so the interpretation did not matter
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : easy/e15-how-many-senses (round v3)
|
||||
# chat id : beb423ca-8263-4c3c-8fb6-8ba4d1d1e567
|
||||
# chat title : Senses of Humans
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 1 web_search x1
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T23:11:07Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T23:10:17Z) ===
|
||||
How many senses do humans have?
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T23:10:17Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=10067 eval_count=451 prompt_tokens=10067 completion_tokens=451 total=14.4s prefill=2.5s decode=11.8s 38.2 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
The user is asking how many senses humans have. This is a common question with a nuanced answer. Let me think about whether I should look this up or if I know the answer well enough.
|
||||
|
||||
The traditional answer is 5 (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch), but this is a simplification. In reality, humans have many more senses - proprioception, vestibular sense (balance), thermoception (temperature), nociception (pain), interoception (internal body state), electroreception (limited), chemoreception, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me look this up to give an accurate, well-sourced answer rather than relying on memory for a specific number.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: web_search (call_6zqzbyen) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"query": "how many senses do humans have complete list",
|
||||
"max_results": 5
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: web_search (call_6zqzbyen) ===
|
||||
Search results for: how many senses do humans have complete list
|
||||
|
||||
1. **How many senses do we have? - Sensory Trust**
|
||||
https://www.sensorytrust.org.uk/blog/how-many-senses-do-we-have
|
||||
Whilst there is no common agreement on how many senses we have, we can assure you that there are definitely more than five. Aristotle (384-322 BC) is credited with first numbering the senses in his work De Anima.
|
||||
2. **Sense - Wikipedia**
|
||||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
|
||||
Although, in some cultures, five human senses [1] were traditionally identified as such (namely sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing), many more are now recognized. [2] Senses used by non-human organisms are even greater in variety and…
|
||||
3. **The Twenty senses - Learn Genetics (Utah)**
|
||||
https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/senses/twentysenses/
|
||||
The "five senses" model is based on where the sensory cells are located in the body: the eye, mouth, nose, ear, and skin. The "twenty senses" model is based on the number of specialized cell types, the types of signals that activate them,…
|
||||
4. **r/todayilearned on Reddit: TIL humans have anywhere between 22-33 senses, not just 5, including the sense of balance, temperature, and even the sense of passing time**
|
||||
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1eon0z5/til_humans_have_anywhere_between_2233_senses_not/
|
||||
The chart is complete bullshit. It's very well known that humans cannot sense blood oxygen content, and cannot sense blood pressure (apart from extreme cases). But redditors love cool factoid infographics, so your comment will be buried…
|
||||
5. **How many senses do we have? - Hopkins Press**
|
||||
https://www.press.jhu.edu/newsroom/how-many-senses-do-we-have
|
||||
Let’s first observe that all of the numbers in the paragraph above are greater than five. It doesn’t take much reflection to figure out that humans possess more than the five “classical” senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch.
|
||||
|
||||
[Note: google, google cse, yahoo did not respond, so coverage is narrower than usual. Consider a second search if these results look thin.]
|
||||
|
||||
Snippets are search-engine excerpts, not the page. Read the most promising result with fetch_page before stating anything numeric, dated or specific from it. A value you take from a snippet without opening the page has to be labelled '(from a search snippet, page not read)' wherever you use it.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] THINKING (3s) ===
|
||||
The user is asking how many senses humans have. This is a common question with a nuanced answer. Let me look at what I know and what the search results tell me.
|
||||
|
||||
The traditional answer is 5 (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch), but modern neuroscience recognizes many more - estimates range from 11 to over 20 depending on how you define "sense." Let me give a clear, well-organized answer based on what I know and the search results.
|
||||
|
||||
I don't think I need to fetch a page for this - it's a general knowledge question where I can give a solid answer. The search results confirm the range of opinions. Let me just answer directly.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
There's no single agreed-upon number, but the short answer is: **far more than five**.
|
||||
|
||||
The classic list — sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch — dates back to Aristotle and is really a simplification based on *where* the sensory organs sit (eye, ear, mouth, nose, skin). Modern neuroscience identifies **roughly 20 or more** distinct senses, depending on how finely you draw the lines. Some of the ones beyond the big five:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Proprioception** – sense of body position and movement
|
||||
- **Vestibular sense** – balance and spatial orientation (inner ear)
|
||||
- **Thermoception** – temperature (hot/cold are arguably two separate channels)
|
||||
- **Nociception** – pain
|
||||
- **Interoception** – internal body state (hunger, thirst, fullness, blood chemistry)
|
||||
- **Tactile sub-senses** – pressure, vibration, itch, tickle, texture
|
||||
- **Magnetoception** – some evidence humans have a weak magnetic-field sense
|
||||
- **Chemoception** – detecting chemical changes in the body (e.g., CO₂ levels)
|
||||
- **Time perception** – debated, but many researchers treat it as a distinct sense
|
||||
|
||||
So "five" is the culturally familiar answer, but a more accurate one is **~20+**, with the exact count depending on whether you count each receptor type separately or group them by modality.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 5.1 s
|
||||
- Thought: The user is asking how many senses humans have. This is a common question with a … answer rather than relying on memory for a specific number.
|
||||
- Calling web_search
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: The user is asking how many senses humans have. This is a common question with a … confirm the range of opinions. Let me just answer directly.
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 4.9 s for 12,656 tokens · 637 generated
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
|
||||
# e15 — A question with a wrong popular answer · 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] (2) Says more than five → 2/2 — "There's no single agreed-upon number… **In modern physiology: far more**"
|
||||
- [x] (2) Names at least three of: proprioception, vestibular, thermoception, nociception, interoception → 2/2 — proprioception, vestibular, nociception, thermoception, each with a correct gloss, under the heading "internal senses (interoception)". Proprioception, nociception and "spatial orientation" are in the retrieved lead; thermoception and the vestibular label are the model's own and correct
|
||||
- [x] (1) Explains the count depends on definition → 1/1 — "it depends on how broadly you define 'sense'", and again: "it hinges on whether you're counting organs, stimulus types, or neural pathways"
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [x] (2) Does not assert one definitive number as fact → 2/2 — "five" is labelled the traditional answer, "dozens" is the modern one, and no exact count appears. No sense humans do not have — electroception is absent from both answer and thinking this round (v1 and v2 listed it; v3 still had it in thinking). One wrinkle, not a fabrication: "Vestibular sense — balance and spatial orientation" and "Equilibrioception" are listed as two items and are the same sense
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) A lookup was made → 1/1 — one `wikipedia_lookup` {topic: "Sense"}, the tool the rubric expects, for the first time since v2. Intro only (2,495 characters), which carried enough
|
||||
- [x] (1) Source URL → **1/1** — `Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense` closes the answer (filter-appended)
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Short list, no essay → 1/1 — one-line answer, two bullets with a five-item sub-list, one summary paragraph, one offer to expand; about 150 words
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −4 answers "five" → not applied — five is named as the traditional list and the answer says the real count is far higher
|
||||
- −1 asserts a single exact count → not applied — "dozens", "no single agreed-upon number"
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
|
||||
- automatic fail → not applied
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:15:31Z (dumped 04:16:01Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `wikipedia_lookup` {topic: "Sense"}
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.5s / total=9.8s (decode=8.2s, 36.2 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10060, completion_tokens=298
|
||||
- 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 4.9 s for 12,740 tokens · 410 generated`
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the tool choice is back to `wikipedia_lookup` (rounds: none → wikipedia+search → search → wikipedia), and the thinking gives the system prompt's own reason: "a common 'everyone knows this' question… Let me check what a reliable source says rather than just reciting the familiar answer". The intro-only header's instruction (call again with `full_article=true`) was not followed and did not need to be — the lead lists the internal senses the rubric wants. The duplicate vestibular/equilibrioception entry is a list-padding slip. Nudge does not fire
|
||||
|
||||
### 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): **y** — `Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense`
|
||||
- Did the answer end with a URL — written by the model, or appended by the `answer_sources` filter? (model / filter / none): **filter.** The body names no source; the trailing block is the filter's. The URL point, lost in all three earlier rounds, is earned
|
||||
- Any of the 55.2 tool fixes exercised? Which, and did it fire correctly?: none — no `search=` was used, so 54.3's miss path (this prompt's v2 motivating case) again went unexercised; nothing from 55.2 applies to a plain intro lookup
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 traps — no "five", no exact count; four of the rubric's five named senses with correct glosses; the definitional point made twice; the expected tool; a URL; short
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** nothing scored. Vestibular and equilibrioception listed as two senses; "dozens" is at the generous end of the literature's 9–21+
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **9 → 10 (+1).** The point regained is the URL, via the filter. Everything else held or improved: the electroception belief that v3 still carried in thinking is gone from the transcript entirely, the tool is the one the rubric names, and the answer is the shortest of the four rounds. First 10 on this prompt (v1 7, v2 8, v3 9)
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no new finding; a clean 55.1 firing on a single-lookup prompt
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: rubric ground truth holds. The retrieved lead names proprioception, nociception, "spatial orientation" (vestibular), and the hunger/thirst/suffocation/nausea interoceptive signals, and says "many more are now recognized" — the answer's list is a faithful expansion. Thermoception is not in the lead by name but thermoreceptors are, and it is a standard entry
|
||||
- Rubric issues: none
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : easy/e15-how-many-senses (round v4)
|
||||
# chat id : e5118679-9811-4722-949f-5fa15a2b0a4a
|
||||
# chat title : Senses of Humans
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 1 wikipedia_lookup x1
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-12T04:16:01Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-12T04:15:31Z) ===
|
||||
How many senses do humans have?
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-12T04:15:31Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=10060 eval_count=298 prompt_tokens=10060 completion_tokens=298 total=9.8s prefill=1.5s decode=8.2s 36.2 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
The user is asking how many senses humans have. This is a common "everyone knows this" question — the classic answer is "five" (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell), but the actual number is much higher and debated. Let me check what a reliable source says rather than just reciting the familiar answer.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me look this up on Wikipedia to get a properly sourced answer.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: wikipedia_lookup (call_j8rasgp7) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"topic": "Sense"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: wikipedia_lookup (call_j8rasgp7) ===
|
||||
# Sense
|
||||
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
|
||||
(Wikipedia, introduction only, 2,495 characters)
|
||||
[Introduction only. For a specific fact - a date, a result, a list, a quotation - call again with full_article=true and search='<term>'. The lead section summarises; it rarely carries the detail.]
|
||||
|
||||
A sense is a biological system used by an organism for sensation, the process of gathering information about the surroundings through the detection of stimuli. During sensation, sense organs collect various stimuli (such as a sound or smell) for transduction, meaning transformation into a form that can be understood by the brain. Sensation and perception are fundamental to nearly every aspect of an organism's cognition, behavior and thought.
|
||||
Although, in some cultures, five human senses were traditionally identified as such (namely sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing), many more are now recognized. Senses used by non-human organisms are even greater in variety and number.
|
||||
In organisms, a sensory organ consists of a group of interrelated sensory cells that respond to a specific type of physical stimulus. Via cranial and spinal nerves (nerves of the central and peripheral nervous systems that relay sensory information to and from the brain and body), the different types of sensory receptor cells (such as mechanoreceptors, photoreceptors, chemoreceptors, thermoreceptors) in sensory organs transduct sensory information from these organs towards the central nervous system, finally arriving at the sensory cortices in the brain, where sensory signals are processed and interpreted (perceived).
|
||||
Sensory systems, or senses, are often divided into external (exteroception) and internal (interoception) sensory systems. Human external senses are based on the sensory organs of the eyes, ears, skin, nose, and mouth. Internal sensation detects stimuli from internal organs and tissues. Internal senses possessed by humans include spatial orientation, proprioception (body position) and nociception (pain). Further internal senses lead to signals such as hunger, thirst, suffocation, and nausea, or different involuntary behaviors, such as vomiting. Some animals are able to detect electrical and magnetic fields, air moisture, or polarized light, while others sense and perceive through alternative systems, such as echolocation.
|
||||
Sensory modalities or sub modalities are different ways sensory information is encoded or transduced. Multimodality integrates different senses into one unified perceptual experience. For example, information from one sense has the potential to influence how information from another is perceived. Sensation and perception are studied by a variety of related fields, most notably psychophysics, neurobiology, cognitive psychology, and cognitive science.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] THINKING (2s) ===
|
||||
The user asked "How many senses do humans have?" This is a settled-facts question. The Wikipedia article gives me a good answer: traditionally five (sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing), but many more are now recognized. Let me give a clear, well-sourced answer.
|
||||
|
||||
I don't need to search further — I have a reliable source. Let me answer concisely.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
There's no single agreed-upon number, because it depends on how broadly you define "sense."
|
||||
|
||||
- **Traditionally: five** — sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell (the classic Aristotle-derived list).
|
||||
- **In modern physiology: far more.** Beyond those five external senses, humans also have internal senses (interoception) such as:
|
||||
- **Proprioception** — awareness of body position and movement
|
||||
- **Vestibular sense** — balance and spatial orientation
|
||||
- **Nociception** — pain
|
||||
- **Thermoception** — temperature
|
||||
- **Equilibrioception**, and signals for hunger, thirst, and the like
|
||||
|
||||
So the short answer most people expect is **five**, but neuroscientists recognize **dozens** of distinct sensory systems once you include the internal ones. The count isn't fixed — it hinges on whether you're counting organs, stimulus types, or neural pathways.
|
||||
|
||||
Want me to break down the full list of recognized human senses?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 5.0 s
|
||||
- Thought: The user is asking how many senses humans have. This is a common "everyone knows this" … me look this up on Wikipedia to get a properly sourced answer.
|
||||
- Calling wikipedia_lookup
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: The user asked "How many senses do humans have?" This is a settled-facts question. The … further — I have a reliable source. Let me answer concisely.
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 4.9 s for 12,740 tokens · 410 generated
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user