Initial Commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -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
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user