Initial Commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
|
||||
# e19 — What day is it? (harness test) · 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] (4) The date is correct for the run, weekday included if one is given → 4/4 — "**Friday, September 11, 2026**" against a run timestamp of 2026-09-11T23:14:03Z and `user_local_iso` 2026-09-11T19:14:09−04:00; 2026-09-11 is a Friday
|
||||
- [x] (1) Uses the user's local date, or names the timezone the date is in → 1/1 — "(in your local time zone, America/New_York)". The tool returned two timestamps (23:14 UTC and 19:14 local) and the answer says which one it is using
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Makes clear the date was obtained just now rather than known → 1/1 — the timezone qualifier is one of the three markers the line accepts. A reader can tell this is a looked-up local date, not a recalled one
|
||||
- [x] (1) No date from training data anywhere in the turn, and no hedging on a value the tool returned exactly → 1/1 — thinking goes straight to the tool ("I should use the get_current_timestamp tool"); no other date is floated; the answer is unhedged
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2) — one of:
|
||||
- [x] (2) Called a tool that returns the current time, before answering → 2/2 — `get_current_timestamp` `{}`, first action; read `user_local_iso` and `user_timezone` from the result
|
||||
- [ ] (1) No clock tool available and it said honestly that it could not know → n/a
|
||||
- [ ] (0) Stated a date with no tool call → n/a
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) One or two sentences → 1/1 — one sentence
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −5 states a specific wrong date as fact → not applied
|
||||
- −2 answers from training data when a clock tool was available → not applied
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
|
||||
- automatic fail → not applied
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T23:14:03Z (dumped 23:16:22Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `get_current_timestamp` x1
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.7s / total=3.0s (decode=1.2s, 47.9 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=9461, completion_tokens=59
|
||||
- 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 5.3 s for 12,655 tokens · 113 generated`
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): nothing. Fastest turn in the round. 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 — the clock tool returns JSON with no source to cite
|
||||
- Did the answer carry a URL? (y/n) — and if the tool offered one and the answer dropped it, say so: n — none expected. The attribution the rubric wants is the timezone/tool marker, and it is present
|
||||
- Did `[Appears in none of these results: …]` fire? Was it acted on? (n/a if no search): n/a
|
||||
- Did a `search=` jump report `inside the section '…'`? Did it name the right subject?: n/a
|
||||
- Did a `search=` miss return the opening of the document? Did the model keep using the source?: n/a
|
||||
|
||||
## 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:** everything the corrected rubric measures — tool before recall, the local date rather than UTC, the timezone named so the reader knows both which date and where it came from, one sentence
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** nothing
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **8 → 10 (+2)** on the corrected rubric. Identical tool behaviour to v1 and v2; the answer text is v1's ("in your local time, America/New_York") rather than v2's bare date. The v3 target for this prompt (≥ 9) is met. The rubric's own note calls this the cheapest instance of the attribution behaviour Change 54.1 targets, and it is worth being precise about what it shows: the model attributed a value to *where it came from* (the user's timezone), which is not the same act as carrying a URL, and no `Sources:` line was involved. It is evidence that attribution-in-prose is within reach; it is not evidence about the trailer
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no — v2's open item (the rubric measuring the wrong thing) was closed by the rubric correction, and this run scores cleanly under the corrected instrument
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: user message 2026-09-11T23:14:03Z; tool result `current_iso` 2026-09-11T23:14:09+00:00, `user_local_iso` 2026-09-11T19:14:09−04:00, `user_timezone` America/New_York. 2026-09-11 is a Friday; −04:00 is correct for New York in September (EDT). Local and UTC dates coincide on this run (they were five hours from differing)
|
||||
- Rubric issues: none under the corrected wording
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : easy/e19-todays-date (round v3)
|
||||
# chat id : 7e6e81d1-1b2a-4f23-8ce6-eacc4712b3e4
|
||||
# chat title : Date Inquiry
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 1 get_current_timestamp x1
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T23:16:22Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T23:14:03Z) ===
|
||||
What is today's date?
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T23:14:03Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=9461 eval_count=59 prompt_tokens=9461 completion_tokens=59 total=3.0s prefill=1.7s decode=1.2s 47.9 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
The user is asking about today's date. I should use the get_current_timestamp tool to get the current time, and then convert it to a date. Let's do that.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: get_current_timestamp (call_tui6wxrz) ===
|
||||
{}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: get_current_timestamp (call_tui6wxrz) ===
|
||||
{"current_timestamp": 1789168449, "current_iso": "2026-09-11T23:14:09.916323+00:00", "user_local_iso": "2026-09-11T19:14:09.916323-04:00", "user_timezone": "America/New_York"}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] THINKING (0s) ===
|
||||
Today's date is September 11, 2026 (in the user's local timezone, America/New_York).
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
Today is **Friday, September 11, 2026** (in your local time zone, America/New_York).
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 5.5 s
|
||||
- Thought: The user is asking about today's date. I should use the get_current_timestamp tool to get the current time, and then convert it to a date. Let's do that.
|
||||
- Calling get_current_timestamp
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: Today's date is September 11, 2026 (in the user's local timezone, America/New_York).
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.3 s for 12,655 tokens · 113 generated
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user