Grant/owui-tools
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial Commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Grant
2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v4/grade.md
+60
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
# m07 — Knights and knaves · 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] (3) C is a knave → 3/3 — "**C is a knave.** Both surviving cases (4 and 6) agree on this, so C's type is determined"
- [x] (2) A and B undetermined, but opposite types → 2/2 — "**A and B are always opposite types**, but you cannot tell which is which from the statements alone"
### Calibration & honesty (2)
- [~] (2) Shows both consistent cases explicitly (or a truth table / brute force) → **1.5/2** — a full eight-row truth table, with rows 4 and 6 marked as the survivors and both restated in the result. Half charged for a wrong entry in the shown work: row 3 (A knight, B knave, C knight) gives as its reason "✗ A≠C, but B (knave) must lie → contradiction". A and C are both knights in that row, so A = C; B's statement is *true*, and the contradiction is that a knave told the truth. The row's verdict (No) is right; the stated reason asserts the opposite of the row's own assignment and, taken at face value, would make the row consistent. The thinking had it right ("A is knight, C is knight → they ARE the same type"); the table garbled it. A reader checking the proof row by row would stop here
### Tool use (2)
- [x] (2) Either a clean two-case proof with no tool, or a `matlab_run` enumeration — both fine → 2/2 — the eight-case enumeration is worked in full in thinking and reproduced as the table; no tool, which the rubric allows in so many words. Thinking: "This is a pure logic puzzle, no tools needed"
### Communication (1)
- [ ] (1) Answer first, then the two cases → **0/1** — the answer is last. The reply opens with a heading, "Let's work through all eight possible assignments…", the eight-row table, and only then "### Result — C is a knave". v1–v3 all led with the answer
### 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
- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:35:32Z (dumped 04:36:20Z)
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 0 (none)
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none — none made. v3's failed `matlab_run` (a script-local function defined after its use, which Octave rejects) has no counterpart because no script was run
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=5.0s / total=34.8s (decode=28.0s, 47.6 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=12800, completion_tokens=1332
- 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 · prefill 5.0 s for 12,800 tokens · 1,332 generated`
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): nothing. Nudge does not fire. The thinking's eight cases are all correctly reasoned; the error is introduced when the table is written. 1,332 tokens for a table plus two bullets is the longest answer of the four rounds on this prompt
### 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): n/a — no tool
- Did the answer end with a URL — written by the model, or appended by the `answer_sources` filter? (model / filter / none): none — none expected
- Any of the 55.2 tool fixes exercised? Which, and did it fire correctly?: **the `matlab_run` function-order hint — this prompt's own fix (v3's failed call) — was not exercised**, because no `matlab_run` was made. Fifth 55.2 fix in the round whose motivating prompt did not reach the tool it was written for
## Result (fill in)
- **Score:** 8.5 / 10
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 1.5/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 0/1 · deductions −0
- **Verdict:** pass
- **What it got right:** both traps; a complete eight-case enumeration; the two surviving worlds identified and the conclusion drawn correctly from them
- **What it got wrong:** the answer comes after the table instead of before it; and one row of the table gives a reason that contradicts its own assignment
- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 8.5 (−1.5).** Same conclusion, same two surviving cases, same refusal to pin A and B. The two losses are presentation: v3 led with "C is definitely a knave" and v4 leads with "Let's work through…"; and v3's cases were written out in prose (correctly) and checked by an executed enumeration, while v4's are in a table with one wrong cell and no execution. The tool that would have caught the cell was not called, on the same "no tools needed" judgement seen across the round
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no harness item. The answer-last structure and the table slip are model-side; the 55.2 function-order hint remains confirmed only by smoke tests
## Grader notes
- Ground truth verification: rubric carries its own verified enumeration; the table's survivors (rows 4 and 6) match it. Row 3 re-derived: A = K, B = N, C = K → A and C the same type → B's statement true → B (knave) told the truth → inconsistent. The table's "A≠C" is wrong; its "No" is right
- Rubric issues: none. The communication line did what it is for
docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v4/result.txt
+98
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
########################################################################
# owuitools prompt test result
# prompt dir : medium/m07-knights-and-knaves (round v4)
# chat id : 80703b35-1abc-4c09-a87e-e0061b9b8d51
# chat title : C's Identity and the Truth
# user : the operator
# model : qwen3.8:latest
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
# tool calls : 0 (none)
# dumped at : 2026-09-12T04:36:20Z
########################################################################
=== USER (2026-09-12T04:35:32Z) ===
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 (2026-09-12T04:35:32Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
usage: prompt_eval_count=12800 eval_count=1332 prompt_tokens=12800 completion_tokens=1332 total=34.8s prefill=5.0s decode=28.0s 47.6 tok/s
=== [1] THINKING (17s) ===
Let me think carefully about this logic puzzle.
Knights always tell the truth, knaves always lie.
A says: "B is a knave."
B says: "A and C are the same type."
C says nothing.
Let me enumerate the possibilities. A and B each have two types, and C has two types. So 8 total combinations. Let's check which are consistent.
Case 1: A is a knight, B is a knight, C is a knight.
- A (knight) says "B is a knave" → but B is a knight. Contradiction. ✗
Case 2: A is a knight, B is a knight, C is a knave.
- A (knight) says "B is a knave" → but B is a knight. Contradiction. ✗
Case 3: A is a knight, B is a knave, C is a knight.
- A (knight) says "B is a knave" → B is indeed a knave. ✓
- B (knave) says "A and C are the same type" → A is knight, C is knight → they ARE the same type. But B is a knave, so B must lie. Contradiction. ✗
Case 4: A is a knight, B is a knave, C is a knave.
- A (knight) says "B is a knave" → B is indeed a knave. ✓
- B (knave) says "A and C are the same type" → A is knight, C is knave → they are NOT the same type. B lies, which is correct for a knave. ✓
This works! ✓
Case 5: A is a knave, B is a knight, C is a knight.
- A (knave) says "B is a knave" → B is a knight. A lies, which is correct for a knave. ✓
- B (knight) says "A and C are the same type" → A is knave, C is knight → they are NOT the same type. But B is a knight and must tell the truth. Contradiction. ✗
Case 6: A is a knave, B is a knight, C is a knave.
- A (knave) says "B is a knave" → B is a knight. A lies. ✓
- B (knight) says "A and C are the same type" → A is knave, C is knave → they ARE the same type. B tells the truth. ✓
This works! ✓
Case 7: A is a knave, B is a knave, C is a knight.
- A (knave) says "B is a knave" → B is indeed a knave. But A is a knave and must lie. Contradiction. ✗
Case 8: A is a knave, B is a knave, C is a knave.
- A (knave) says "B is a knave" → B is indeed a knave. But A is a knave and must lie. Contradiction. ✗
So the valid cases are:
- Case 4: A = knight, B = knave, C = knave
- Case 6: A = knave, B = knight, C = knave
In both cases, C is a **knave**.
But A and B can't be uniquely determined — either A is a knight and B a knave, or A is a knave and B a knight. They are always opposite types of each other.
Wait, let me double-check. In both valid cases, A and B are opposite types. So we can determine that A and B are different types from each other, but we can't determine which one is which. And C is definitely a knave.
This is a pure logic puzzle, no tools needed. I can just answer directly.
=== [2] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
## Solving the islander puzzle
Let's work through all eight possible assignments of knight/knave to A, B, and C, keeping only the ones where every statement is consistent with the speaker's type.
| # | A | B | C | A's claim "B is a knave" | B's claim "A & C same type" | Consistent? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | K | K | K | ✗ (B is a knight) | — | **No** |
| 2 | K | K | N | ✗ (B is a knight) | — | **No** |
| 3 | K | N | K | ✓ | ✗ A≠C, but B (knave) must lie → contradiction | **No** |
| 4 | **K** | **N** | **N** | ✓ B is a knave | A=K, C=N → different; B (knave) lies ✓ | **Yes** |
| 5 | N | K | K | ✓ A lies correctly | A=N, C=K → different, but B (knight) must be truthful → contradiction | **No** |
| 6 | **N** | **K** | **N** | ✓ A lies correctly | A=N, C=N → same; B (knight) tells truth ✓ | **Yes** |
| 7 | N | N | K | ✗ A (knave) says B is a knave, which is *true* → contradiction | — | **No** |
| 8 | N | N | N | ✗ same problem as 7 | — | **No** |
### Result
- **C is a knave.** Both surviving cases (4 and 6) agree on this, so C's type is determined.
- **A and B are always opposite types**, but you cannot tell which is which from the statements alone. Either A is a knight and B a knave, or A is a knave and B a knight. The information given is insufficient to distinguish between those two.
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
- Processing prompt
- Thinking · first token after 6.8 s
- Thought: Let me think carefully about this logic puzzle. Knights always tell the truth, knaves … pure logic puzzle, no tools needed. I can just answer directly.
- Writing response
- Done · prefill 5.0 s for 12,800 tokens · 1,332 generated