Initial Commit

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