Initial Commit

2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -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