Initial Commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
|
||||
# m07 — Knights and knaves · 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] (3) C is a knave → 3/3 — "**C is definitely a knave — and that's the only thing you can determine.**", first words
|
||||
- [x] (2) A and B undetermined, but opposite types → 2/2 — "A and B must be *opposite* types, but the information given doesn't tell you which is which"; restated at the end as "determined only up to their opposition"
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [x] (2) Shows both consistent cases explicitly (or a truth table / brute force) → 2/2 — both: two written case derivations each marked consistent, a two-row table of the surviving worlds, and an executed enumeration of all eight assignments whose output is exactly those two rows
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (2) Either a clean two-case proof with no tool, or a `matlab_run` enumeration — both fine → 2/2 — the proof was complete in thinking before any call; the enumeration was added "as a sanity check". Two calls: the first failed on a script-local function, the second supplied it via `helper_files` and succeeded
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Answer first, then the two cases → 1/1 — both answers in the first line, then the cases, then the table, then one closing sentence
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −3 "C cannot be determined" → not applied
|
||||
- −2 assigns definite types to A and B → not applied — explicitly refuses to
|
||||
- −1 invents a statement C never made → not applied
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied — "Let me do it as a sanity check" is followed by the call
|
||||
- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T23:31:56Z (dumped 23:32:56Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 2 — `matlab_run` (scratch, failed: `'tern' undefined`), `matlab_run` (scratch, `tern.m` in `helper_files`, OK)
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: one failed call, recovered on the next. The cause is an Octave-versus-MATLAB difference, not a model slip: MATLAB (R2016b+) allows a local function at the **end** of a script; Octave requires a function defined in a script to appear **before** its first use. The model's code was valid MATLAB. The tool's hint ("Either it is a typo, or it is a function you meant to supply - if it is yours, pass it in helper_files") got it to a working call but did not name the actual difference, and the model's own diagnosis ("In Octave, functions within a script need to be placed in a separate file") is a plausible but inexact reading of it
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.1s / total=8.6s (decode=7.4s, 40.2 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10432, completion_tokens=297; status line: 1,222 generated
|
||||
- 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 6.0 s for 12,716 tokens · 1,222 generated`
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): nothing else. Nudge does not fire. The enumeration encodes both statements correctly (`A == (B == 0)`, `B == (A == C)`) and its output matches the independent check in the rubric
|
||||
|
||||
### 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 — calculator
|
||||
- Did the answer carry a URL? (y/n) — and if the tool offered one and the answer dropped it, say so: n — none expected
|
||||
- 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:** both traps; a valid two-case proof; an executed enumeration to back it; the answer first
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** nothing scored. One wasted call on a sandbox difference
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0).** Same reasoning, same enumeration, same answer shape. The one difference is the failed first call: v2's script used no local function and ran first time; v3's did, and hit Octave's ordering rule. Same score, one call heavier
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): a small tool-output item. `matlab_run`'s undefined-function hint could name the one MATLAB/Octave difference that produces this exact error on valid MATLAB — a script-local function placed after its use — since `purpose: "scratch"` already switches the hint into Octave-equivalence mode for library names. One line ("In Octave a function defined inside a script must come before the code that calls it; MATLAB lets it come last") would have made the first call succeed on retry without `helper_files`
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: rubric carries its own verified enumeration; the model's Octave output (`A=knave, B=knight, C=knave` / `A=knight, B=knave, C=knave`) matches it row for row
|
||||
- Rubric issues: none
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : medium/m07-knights-and-knaves (round v3)
|
||||
# chat id : 20b40619-f53f-4d14-8df8-41a73b604ef9
|
||||
# chat title : Island Islanders
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 2 matlab_run x2
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T23:32:56Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T23:31:56Z) ===
|
||||
On an island, knights always tell the truth and knaves always lie. You meet three islanders, A, B and C. A says: "B is a knave." B says: "A and C are the same type." C says nothing. What is C? And can you determine what A and B are?
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T23:31:56Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=10432 eval_count=297 prompt_tokens=10432 completion_tokens=297 total=8.6s prefill=1.1s decode=7.4s 40.2 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
This is a classic puzzle. Let me reason through it.
|
||||
|
||||
A's statement: "B is a knave (liar)."
|
||||
B's statement: "A and C are the same kind."
|
||||
|
||||
Case analysis:
|
||||
|
||||
Suppose A is a knight. Then B is a knave. B's statement is a lie: A and C are not the same kind. A is a knight, so C is a knave. Consistent: A=knight, B=knave, C=knave. Check B's statement: "A and C are the same kind" — A is a knight, C is a knave, different kinds → false, and B is a knave ✓.
|
||||
|
||||
Suppose A is a knave. Then A's statement is a lie: B is a knight. B tells the truth: A and C are the same kind. A is a knave, so C is a knave. Consistent: A=knave, B=knight, C=knave. Check B: A is a knave, C is a knave, same kind → true, and B is a knight ✓.
|
||||
|
||||
So in both cases C is a knave. A and B are opposite kinds, but we can't determine which one is which.
|
||||
|
||||
Answer: C is definitely a knave. A and B are of opposite kinds (one knight, one knave), but we can't tell which is which.
|
||||
|
||||
No tools needed — this is pure logic. But should I verify with matlab_run? This is a logic puzzle, and I could quickly enumerate all 8 assignments in MATLAB and check consistency. That would be a nice verification. Let me do it as a sanity check.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: matlab_run (call_asi0b6ji) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"purpose": "scratch",
|
||||
"code": "% Enumerate all 8 assignments; 1 = knight (truth-teller), 0 = knave (liar)\nfor A = 0:1\n for B = 0:1\n for C = 0:1\n % A says \"B is a knave\": statement truth-value is (B==0)\n okA = (A == (B == 0));\n % B says \"A and C are the same type\": truth-value is (A==C)\n okB = (B == (A == C));\n if okA && okB\n fprintf('Consistent: A=%s, B=%s, C=%s\\n', ...\n tern(A,'knight','knave'), tern(B,'knight','knave'), tern(C,'knight','knave'));\n end\n end\n end\nend\nfunction s = tern(v,kn,kv)\n if v, s = kn; else, s = kv; end\nend\n"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run (call_asi0b6ji) ===
|
||||
# Scratch run FAILED
|
||||
|
||||
## Error
|
||||
'tern' undefined near line 11, column 11
|
||||
|
||||
at main.m line 10
|
||||
(identifier: Octave:undefined-function)
|
||||
|
||||
`tern` is not defined. Either it is a typo, or it is a function you meant to supply - if it is yours, pass it in helper_files as `tern.m`.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] THINKING ===
|
||||
In Octave, functions within a script need to be placed in a separate file. I'll use helper_files.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] TOOL CALL: matlab_run (call_8vp1rexc) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"purpose": "scratch",
|
||||
"code": "% Enumerate all 8 assignments; 1 = knight (truth-teller), 0 = knave (liar)\nfor A = 0:1\n for B = 0:1\n for C = 0:1\n % A says \"B is a knave\": statement truth-value is (B==0)\n okA = (A == (B == 0));\n % B says \"A and C are the same type\": truth-value is (A==C)\n okB = (B == (A == C));\n if okA && okB\n fprintf('Consistent: A=%s, B=%s, C=%s\\n', ...\n tern(A,'knight','knave'), tern(B,'knight','knave'), tern(C,'knight','knave'));\n end\n end\n end\nend\n",
|
||||
"helper_files": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"code": "function s = tern(v,kn,kv)\n if v, s = kn; else, s = kv; end\nend",
|
||||
"name": "tern.m"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [6] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run (call_8vp1rexc) ===
|
||||
# Scratch run OK (0.45s)
|
||||
## Output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Consistent: A=knave, B=knight, C=knave
|
||||
Consistent: A=knight, B=knave, C=knave
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
=== [7] THINKING (0s) ===
|
||||
Confirmed. Answer: C is definitely a liar (knave). A and B are of opposite kinds, but they can't be distinguished.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [8] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
**C is definitely a knave — and that's the only thing you can determine.** A and B must be *opposite* types, but the information given doesn't tell you which is which.
|
||||
|
||||
Here's the reasoning, verified by enumerating all eight possible assignments:
|
||||
|
||||
**Case 1: A is a knight.** Then his statement is true, so B is a knave. Since B lies, "A and C are the same type" is false — A and C differ. A is a knight, so **C is a knave**. ✓ Consistent.
|
||||
|
||||
**Case 2: A is a knave.** Then his statement is false, so B is a knight. Since B tells the truth, A and C are the same type — both knaves. So **C is a knave** again. ✓ Consistent.
|
||||
|
||||
Both consistent worlds agree on C but disagree on A and B:
|
||||
|
||||
| A | B | C |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Knight | Knave | Knave |
|
||||
| Knave | Knight | Knave |
|
||||
|
||||
So the puzzle is fully solvable for C (knave), while A and B are determined only up to their opposition — one knight, one knave, indistinguishable from what they said.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 10.2 s
|
||||
- Thought: This is a classic puzzle. Let me reason through it. A's statement: "B is a knave … would be a nice verification. Let me do it as a sanity check.
|
||||
- Calling matlab_run
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: In Octave, functions within a script need to be placed in a separate file. I'll use helper_files.
|
||||
- Calling matlab_run
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: Confirmed. Answer: C is definitely a liar (knave). A and B are of opposite kinds, but they can't be distinguished.
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 2 tool calls · prefill 6.0 s for 12,716 tokens · 1,222 generated
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user