Initial Commit

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