@tangle-network/agent-knowledge 4.0.1 → 4.1.0
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/AGENTS.md +32 -18
- package/CHANGELOG.md +20 -0
- package/README.md +31 -19
- package/dist/benchmarks/index.d.ts +2 -2
- package/dist/{chunk-EUAXSBMH.js → chunk-AKYJG2MR.js} +224 -224
- package/dist/chunk-AKYJG2MR.js.map +1 -0
- package/dist/{chunk-3CAAGJCE.js → chunk-CPMLJYA3.js} +1 -1
- package/dist/chunk-CPMLJYA3.js.map +1 -0
- package/dist/{chunk-WCYW2GDA.js → chunk-MYFM6LKH.js} +2 -2
- package/dist/chunk-MYFM6LKH.js.map +1 -0
- package/dist/cli.js +1 -1
- package/dist/index.d.ts +46 -51
- package/dist/index.js +2905 -2873
- package/dist/index.js.map +1 -1
- package/dist/memory/index.d.ts +12 -15
- package/dist/memory/index.js +1 -1
- package/dist/sources/index.d.ts +17 -33
- package/dist/sources/index.js +1 -1
- package/dist/{types-ZzY_x0r7.d.ts → types-DP38encz.d.ts} +12 -8
- package/docs/eval/investment-material-facts.md +28 -29
- package/docs/eval/rag-eval-roadmap.md +6 -5
- package/docs/results/adaptive.md +13 -13
- package/docs/results/claim-grounding.md +11 -11
- package/docs/results/cost-quality.md +4 -4
- package/docs/results/investment-thesis.md +56 -56
- package/docs/results/research-driving.md +54 -54
- package/docs/two-agent-research-ab.md +94 -94
- package/package.json +4 -7
- package/dist/chunk-3CAAGJCE.js.map +0 -1
- package/dist/chunk-EUAXSBMH.js.map +0 -1
- package/dist/chunk-WCYW2GDA.js.map +0 -1
package/dist/memory/index.d.ts
CHANGED
|
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
import { b as AgentMemoryAdapter, j as AgentMemorySearchOptions, d as AgentMemoryContext, f as AgentMemoryHit, i as AgentMemoryScope, k as AgentMemoryWriteInput, l as AgentMemoryWriteResult, u as KnowledgeBenchmarkFamily, D as KnowledgeBenchmarkSplit, H as KnowledgeMemoryBenchmarkTaskKind, J as KnowledgeMemoryFactMatcher, h as AgentMemoryRunLease, I as KnowledgeMemoryEvent, G as KnowledgeMemoryBenchmarkCase, e as AgentMemoryControllerMode, A as AgentMemoryAcquireRunLease, $ as RetrievalHoldoutConfig, _ as RetrievalHoldoutCallContext, a2 as RetrievalHoldoutResult, Z as RetrievalHoldoutBypassReason, a1 as RetrievalHoldoutEvent } from '../types-
|
|
2
|
-
export { c as AgentMemoryBranchIsolation, g as AgentMemoryKind, Q as OwnedAgentMemoryRunLease, a0 as RetrievalHoldoutEligibleItem, a3 as RetrievalHoldoutSessionState, af as acquireAgentMemoryRunLease } from '../types-
|
|
1
|
+
import { b as AgentMemoryAdapter, j as AgentMemorySearchOptions, d as AgentMemoryContext, f as AgentMemoryHit, i as AgentMemoryScope, k as AgentMemoryWriteInput, l as AgentMemoryWriteResult, u as KnowledgeBenchmarkFamily, D as KnowledgeBenchmarkSplit, H as KnowledgeMemoryBenchmarkTaskKind, J as KnowledgeMemoryFactMatcher, h as AgentMemoryRunLease, I as KnowledgeMemoryEvent, G as KnowledgeMemoryBenchmarkCase, e as AgentMemoryControllerMode, A as AgentMemoryAcquireRunLease, $ as RetrievalHoldoutConfig, _ as RetrievalHoldoutCallContext, a2 as RetrievalHoldoutResult, Z as RetrievalHoldoutBypassReason, a1 as RetrievalHoldoutEvent } from '../types-DP38encz.js';
|
|
2
|
+
export { c as AgentMemoryBranchIsolation, g as AgentMemoryKind, Q as OwnedAgentMemoryRunLease, a0 as RetrievalHoldoutEligibleItem, a3 as RetrievalHoldoutSessionState, af as acquireAgentMemoryRunLease } from '../types-DP38encz.js';
|
|
3
3
|
import { CampaignResult, Scenario, DispatchContext, CampaignStorage, CostLedgerHandle, JudgeConfig, HeldoutSignificance, Lineage, GovernorContext, GovernorOp, SurfaceProposer, LineageStore, HeldoutSignificanceOptions } from '@tangle-network/agent-eval/campaign';
|
|
4
4
|
import { OffPolicyTrajectory } from '@tangle-network/agent-eval/rl';
|
|
5
5
|
import { z } from 'zod';
|
|
@@ -382,28 +382,27 @@ interface RetrievalHoldoutOffPolicyOptions {
|
|
|
382
382
|
qHat?: (session: RetrievalHoldoutSessionSummary) => number | null;
|
|
383
383
|
}
|
|
384
384
|
interface RetrievalHoldoutOffPolicyResult {
|
|
385
|
-
/** One trajectory per (configHash, sessionIdHash)
|
|
385
|
+
/** One trajectory per (configHash, sessionIdHash), never per call. */
|
|
386
386
|
trajectories: OffPolicyTrajectory[];
|
|
387
387
|
/** 1:1 with `trajectories` (same order): the diagnostic view of each converted session. */
|
|
388
388
|
sessions: RetrievalHoldoutSessionSummary[];
|
|
389
|
-
/** Sessions
|
|
389
|
+
/** Sessions not converted because exposure was mixed or retrieval was bypassed. */
|
|
390
390
|
excluded: RetrievalHoldoutSessionSummary[];
|
|
391
391
|
/** Events with no sessionIdHash: outside session randomization, cannot join a reward. */
|
|
392
392
|
unattributableEvents: number;
|
|
393
393
|
}
|
|
394
394
|
/**
|
|
395
|
-
* Maps
|
|
396
|
-
*
|
|
397
|
-
*
|
|
398
|
-
*
|
|
399
|
-
* the arm coin is flipped once (P(holdout) = epsilon) and the sticky target is drawn once,
|
|
395
|
+
* Maps retrieval-dropout events onto one `OffPolicyTrajectory` per session for use with
|
|
396
|
+
* `inverseProbabilityWeighting`, `selfNormalizedImportanceWeighting`, or `doublyRobust`.
|
|
397
|
+
* Randomization occurs once per session: the arm is selected with P(dropout) = epsilon and
|
|
398
|
+
* the sticky target is drawn once,
|
|
400
399
|
* uniformly over watchlist ∩ E at the session's first intersecting call.
|
|
401
400
|
*
|
|
402
401
|
* Session-level action space and behavior probabilities (they sum to 1 by construction):
|
|
403
|
-
* - full delivery
|
|
402
|
+
* - full delivery: `1 - epsilon`;
|
|
404
403
|
* - drop candidate i of k = |watchlist ∩ E_first|: `epsilon / k` each (the draw event's logged
|
|
405
404
|
* `dropPropensity`);
|
|
406
|
-
* - sessions whose eligibility sets never intersect the watchlist: probability 1
|
|
405
|
+
* - sessions whose eligibility sets never intersect the watchlist: probability 1, because full
|
|
407
406
|
* delivery was certain in either arm.
|
|
408
407
|
*
|
|
409
408
|
* Per-call events are repeated observations WITHIN one session-level randomization; per-call
|
|
@@ -412,14 +411,12 @@ interface RetrievalHoldoutOffPolicyResult {
|
|
|
412
411
|
* absent from E, and adapter bypass calls, fold into the session summary (callCount /
|
|
413
412
|
* bypassCallCount) instead of generating independent propensities.
|
|
414
413
|
*
|
|
415
|
-
* Join contract: `rewards` is keyed by `sessionIdHash` (sha256(sessionId) first 16 hex
|
|
414
|
+
* Join contract: `rewards` is keyed by `sessionIdHash` (sha256(sessionId) first 16 hex; compute
|
|
416
415
|
* the same prefix over the outcome table's session ids, or log with
|
|
417
416
|
* `includePlaintextIdentifiers: true` and join on raw ids upstream). Events are grouped per
|
|
418
417
|
* (configHash, sessionIdHash) so different experiment configs are never pooled. Mixed-exposure
|
|
419
418
|
* sessions (arm or target disagreement, e.g. after registry eviction) are excluded from the
|
|
420
|
-
* trajectories and surfaced in `excluded` for
|
|
421
|
-
* Pre-registration for EXP-007 stays in the research repo by design; the manifest vocabulary for
|
|
422
|
-
* it is agent-eval's `HypothesisManifest` / `signManifest` / `evaluateHypothesis` exports.
|
|
419
|
+
* trajectories and surfaced in `excluded` for analysis.
|
|
423
420
|
*/
|
|
424
421
|
declare function toOffPolicyTrajectory(events: RetrievalHoldoutEvent[], options: RetrievalHoldoutOffPolicyOptions): RetrievalHoldoutOffPolicyResult;
|
|
425
422
|
|
package/dist/memory/index.js
CHANGED
package/dist/sources/index.d.ts
CHANGED
|
@@ -15,9 +15,9 @@
|
|
|
15
15
|
* Sources MUST be pure with respect to local filesystem state outside the
|
|
16
16
|
* cache directory the caller hands them — they read remote authorities and
|
|
17
17
|
* return data. They MUST mark `verifiable: false` on any fragment they could
|
|
18
|
-
* not
|
|
19
|
-
* substituting empty
|
|
20
|
-
* `verifiable` to refuse promotion of
|
|
18
|
+
* not fetch and extract (block page, 4xx, parse failure) rather than silently
|
|
19
|
+
* substituting empty or partial content. The control loop downstream uses
|
|
20
|
+
* `verifiable` to refuse promotion of unusable content.
|
|
21
21
|
*
|
|
22
22
|
* @stable
|
|
23
23
|
*/
|
|
@@ -77,10 +77,11 @@ interface FragmentProvenance {
|
|
|
77
77
|
*/
|
|
78
78
|
jurisdiction?: string;
|
|
79
79
|
/**
|
|
80
|
-
* True iff the
|
|
81
|
-
* expected
|
|
82
|
-
*
|
|
83
|
-
*
|
|
80
|
+
* True iff the configured URL returned an acceptable response and the
|
|
81
|
+
* expected content was extracted. False on a block page, rate-limit
|
|
82
|
+
* response, 4xx/5xx, or selector miss. This is not publisher authentication
|
|
83
|
+
* or cryptographic content verification. Consumers MUST refuse to promote
|
|
84
|
+
* `verifiable: false` fragments into citable knowledge.
|
|
84
85
|
*/
|
|
85
86
|
verifiable: boolean;
|
|
86
87
|
/** If `verifiable === false`, the reason — surfaced to operators. */
|
|
@@ -222,33 +223,16 @@ declare function extractLinks(html: string, hrefPattern: RegExp, baseUrl: string
|
|
|
222
223
|
}[];
|
|
223
224
|
|
|
224
225
|
/**
|
|
225
|
-
* Polite HTTP fetcher
|
|
226
|
+
* Polite HTTP fetcher shared by remote sources.
|
|
226
227
|
*
|
|
227
|
-
*
|
|
228
|
-
*
|
|
229
|
-
*
|
|
230
|
-
*
|
|
231
|
-
*
|
|
232
|
-
* is per-host (`hostThrottle`) rather than per-source so that two
|
|
233
|
-
* independent sources targeting the same authority still cooperate.
|
|
234
|
-
*
|
|
235
|
-
* 2. On-disk content cache keyed by URL. Production sources are called
|
|
236
|
-
* from a cron loop; without a cache, every run re-hits the same
|
|
237
|
-
* pages and inflates change-detection false-positives (the authority
|
|
238
|
-
* occasionally serves slightly different boilerplate). The cache is
|
|
239
|
-
* content-addressed by URL, not by ETag — authorities like IRS.gov
|
|
240
|
-
* do not consistently send ETag/Last-Modified.
|
|
241
|
-
*
|
|
242
|
-
* 3. Block-page detection on success. A 200 with a captcha body still
|
|
243
|
-
* means "we couldn't authenticate." Sources downstream rely on
|
|
244
|
-
* `verifiable` to refuse promotion — losing that signal because the
|
|
245
|
-
* fetcher said "well, the status code was 200" is the bug class
|
|
246
|
-
* this exists to prevent.
|
|
247
|
-
*
|
|
248
|
-
* @stable
|
|
228
|
+
* Independent sources share a per-origin throttle because rate-limited sites
|
|
229
|
+
* may return block pages instead of 429 responses. Responses are cached by URL
|
|
230
|
+
* because many publishers omit reliable ETag and Last-Modified headers. Bodies
|
|
231
|
+
* are checked even after a 2xx response because captcha and block pages often
|
|
232
|
+
* use successful status codes.
|
|
249
233
|
*/
|
|
250
234
|
/** User-Agent string sent on every outbound request. */
|
|
251
|
-
declare const POLITE_USER_AGENT = "agent-knowledge
|
|
235
|
+
declare const POLITE_USER_AGENT = "agent-knowledge (+https://github.com/tangle-network/agent-knowledge)";
|
|
252
236
|
/** Minimum gap between successive requests to the same origin (ms). */
|
|
253
237
|
declare const MIN_REQUEST_GAP_MS = 1000;
|
|
254
238
|
/** Maximum response body we will buffer in memory (bytes). */
|
|
@@ -257,7 +241,7 @@ interface PoliteFetchOptions {
|
|
|
257
241
|
signal?: AbortSignal;
|
|
258
242
|
cacheDir?: string;
|
|
259
243
|
/**
|
|
260
|
-
* Cache age beyond which we re-fetch. Default 1 hour
|
|
244
|
+
* Cache age beyond which we re-fetch. Default 1 hour, long enough to
|
|
261
245
|
* batch a cron sweep across many selectors, short enough that hourly
|
|
262
246
|
* authoritative-page changes get picked up next tick.
|
|
263
247
|
*/
|
|
@@ -291,7 +275,7 @@ interface PoliteFetchResult {
|
|
|
291
275
|
}
|
|
292
276
|
/**
|
|
293
277
|
* Fetch one URL with per-host throttling, on-disk cache, and block-page
|
|
294
|
-
* detection. Never throws on network/HTTP failure
|
|
278
|
+
* detection. Never throws on network/HTTP failure. It returns a result with
|
|
295
279
|
* `verifiable: false` and `unverifiableReason` set so the caller can decide
|
|
296
280
|
* whether to skip, retry, or surface.
|
|
297
281
|
*
|
package/dist/sources/index.js
CHANGED
|
@@ -252,6 +252,11 @@ interface AgentMemoryAdapter {
|
|
|
252
252
|
flush?(): Promise<void>;
|
|
253
253
|
close?(): Promise<void>;
|
|
254
254
|
}
|
|
255
|
+
/**
|
|
256
|
+
* Optional session-level retrieval dropout for estimating whether delivered memories affect
|
|
257
|
+
* task outcomes. The feature is disabled unless configured, and consumers persist events
|
|
258
|
+
* through `onEvent`.
|
|
259
|
+
*/
|
|
255
260
|
interface RetrievalHoldoutConfig {
|
|
256
261
|
/** Per-session probability that one eligible watchlist item is suppressed. 0 logs the full schema without ever dropping. */
|
|
257
262
|
epsilon: number;
|
|
@@ -268,20 +273,20 @@ interface RetrievalHoldoutConfig {
|
|
|
268
273
|
* sessionIdHash/scopeHash, so PII-bearing identifiers (tenantId/userId/tags) never reach a
|
|
269
274
|
* consumer-controlled sink unless the consumer explicitly owns that decision. Note that
|
|
270
275
|
* replaying assignment draws from logs alone needs the plaintext sessionId, so
|
|
271
|
-
* privacy-
|
|
276
|
+
* privacy-preserving logs require the consumer's own sessionId mapping for replay.
|
|
272
277
|
*/
|
|
273
278
|
includePlaintextIdentifiers?: boolean;
|
|
274
279
|
/**
|
|
275
280
|
* Cap on tracked sessions per experiment config in the sticky wrapper's registry.
|
|
276
|
-
*
|
|
281
|
+
* The default is 10,000.
|
|
277
282
|
*/
|
|
278
283
|
maxTrackedSessions?: number;
|
|
279
284
|
/**
|
|
280
285
|
* Uniform-[0,1) generator keyed by a string. Defaults to a sha256-derived deterministic
|
|
281
|
-
* generator so every assignment is replayable from the logged keys alone
|
|
286
|
+
* generator so every assignment is replayable from the logged keys alone.
|
|
282
287
|
*/
|
|
283
288
|
rng?: (key: string) => number;
|
|
284
|
-
/** Receives one event per retrieval call,
|
|
289
|
+
/** Receives one event per retrieval call, including calls where nothing is dropped. */
|
|
285
290
|
onEvent: (event: RetrievalHoldoutEvent) => void;
|
|
286
291
|
}
|
|
287
292
|
interface RetrievalHoldoutEligibleItem {
|
|
@@ -298,19 +303,18 @@ interface RetrievalHoldoutEvent {
|
|
|
298
303
|
eventId: string;
|
|
299
304
|
ts: string;
|
|
300
305
|
adapterId?: string;
|
|
301
|
-
/** Plaintext session id
|
|
306
|
+
/** Plaintext session id, emitted only when `includePlaintextIdentifiers` is true. */
|
|
302
307
|
sessionId?: string;
|
|
303
308
|
/** Consumer-supplied experiment/outcome join id (scope.tags.taskId); deliberately plaintext. */
|
|
304
309
|
taskId?: string;
|
|
305
310
|
/** 1-based call counter within the session; 0 when the call is outside session randomization. */
|
|
306
311
|
callIndex: number;
|
|
307
312
|
/**
|
|
308
|
-
* sha256(sessionId) prefix
|
|
309
|
-
* reference for the assignment draws (previously named rngKey; identical derivation, deduped).
|
|
313
|
+
* sha256(sessionId) prefix used as the privacy-preserving join key and assignment seed.
|
|
310
314
|
*/
|
|
311
315
|
sessionIdHash?: string;
|
|
312
316
|
queryHash?: string;
|
|
313
|
-
/** Verbatim scope
|
|
317
|
+
/** Verbatim scope, emitted only when `includePlaintextIdentifiers` is true. */
|
|
314
318
|
scope?: AgentMemoryScope;
|
|
315
319
|
/** sha256 prefix of the canonical-JSON scope (keys sorted, undefined stripped). */
|
|
316
320
|
scopeHash?: string;
|
|
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
# Held-out investment-research eval set
|
|
1
|
+
# Held-out investment-research eval set: material facts + provenance
|
|
2
2
|
|
|
3
3
|
This is the answer key and the provenance ledger for `tests/eval/investment-thesis-set.ts`.
|
|
4
4
|
|
|
5
5
|
**What the set measures.** Give a research loop a company + ticker + an as-of
|
|
6
6
|
**cutoff** date and ask it to write an investment thesis. Then grade that thesis
|
|
7
|
-
against the held-out **material facts** below
|
|
7
|
+
against the held-out **material facts** below, facts the loop never saw. A high
|
|
8
8
|
score means the thesis surfaced the buried, material, non-obvious drivers a
|
|
9
9
|
thorough analyst would flag and a single ticker search would miss; it is **not**
|
|
10
10
|
teaching-to-the-test, because the answer key is firewalled from every loop and
|
|
@@ -20,14 +20,13 @@ the grader is a `$0`, model-free substring check (`gradeFactAgainstText`).
|
|
|
20
20
|
guessed (see the drop log).
|
|
21
21
|
3. **Knowable at the cutoff.** Every value was disclosed in, or computable from, a
|
|
22
22
|
filing available on or before the cutoff. The eventual collapse is **not** a
|
|
23
|
-
checklist item
|
|
24
|
-
never graded.
|
|
23
|
+
checklist item. It is recorded as `knownOutcome` for the reader and is never graded.
|
|
25
24
|
|
|
26
25
|
All five primary documents were fetched live from `https://www.sec.gov/Archives/`
|
|
27
26
|
during curation (a `curl` with a descriptive `User-Agent`, per SEC fair-access
|
|
28
27
|
rules). Every dollar figure below was read directly out of the de-tagged filing
|
|
29
|
-
text.
|
|
30
|
-
|
|
28
|
+
text. Each `sourceUrl` contains the company's SEC CIK, and
|
|
29
|
+
`tests/eval/investment-thesis-set.test.ts` checks that invariant.
|
|
31
30
|
|
|
32
31
|
---
|
|
33
32
|
|
|
@@ -47,7 +46,7 @@ set was curated (June 2026); `investment-thesis-set.test.ts` asserts this.
|
|
|
47
46
|
|
|
48
47
|
---
|
|
49
48
|
|
|
50
|
-
## SIVB
|
|
49
|
+
## SIVB: SVB Financial Group (cutoff 2023-02-24)
|
|
51
50
|
|
|
52
51
|
Source: [FY2022 10-K (`sivb-20221231.htm`)](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/719739/000071973923000021/sivb-20221231.htm)
|
|
53
52
|
**Known outcome (not graded):** FDIC receivership March 10, 2023; holding-company Chapter 11 March 17, 2023.
|
|
@@ -59,14 +58,14 @@ Source: [FY2022 10-K (`sivb-20221231.htm`)](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d
|
|
|
59
58
|
| SIVB/f3 | concentration | Run-prone uninsured deposit base | "estimated uninsured deposits in U.S. offices that exceed the FDIC insurance limit were **$151.5 billion**" |
|
|
60
59
|
| SIVB/f4 | margin-trend | Cheap deposits fleeing → funding cost set to rise | "Noninterest-bearing demand deposits to total deposits decreased by **20 percentage points to 47 percent**" |
|
|
61
60
|
| SIVB/f5 | concentration | Single-client-type (innovation-economy) deposit + credit base | 10-K frames the franchise around "the innovation economy" (technology, life-science, venture) |
|
|
62
|
-
| SIVB/f6 | off-balance-sheet | AFS loss in AOCI
|
|
61
|
+
| SIVB/f6 | off-balance-sheet | AFS loss in AOCI; the visible, smaller tip | "Available-for-sale securities, at fair value (cost of $ **28,602**) **26,069**" → ~$2.5B AFS loss in AOCI |
|
|
63
62
|
|
|
64
63
|
The decisive, non-obvious fact is SIVB/f1+f2: an interest-rate loss roughly equal
|
|
65
64
|
to all of equity, sitting in the footnotes because HTM accounting keeps it out of
|
|
66
65
|
both earnings and book equity. A ticker search shows a profitable bank; the
|
|
67
66
|
filing shows a mark-to-market hole the size of its capital.
|
|
68
67
|
|
|
69
|
-
## BBBY
|
|
68
|
+
## BBBY: Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (cutoff 2022-04-21)
|
|
70
69
|
|
|
71
70
|
Source: [FY2021 10-K (`bbby-20220226.htm`)](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/886158/000088615822000047/bbby-20220226.htm)
|
|
72
71
|
**Known outcome (not graded):** Chapter 11 on April 23, 2023; equity wiped out.
|
|
@@ -80,11 +79,11 @@ Source: [FY2021 10-K (`bbby-20220226.htm`)](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d
|
|
|
80
79
|
| BBBY/f5 | margin-trend | Inventory building into a demand decline | "Merchandise inventories **1,725,410** 1,671,909" ($ thousands) |
|
|
81
80
|
|
|
82
81
|
The non-obvious fact is BBBY/f1+f2+f4 together: in FY2021 the company **lost $560M,
|
|
83
|
-
generated only $18M of operating cash, and still spent $575M buying back stock
|
|
82
|
+
generated only $18M of operating cash, and still spent $575M buying back stock**,
|
|
84
83
|
returning more cash than it had. The buyback, not the income statement alone, is
|
|
85
84
|
why a $1.3B equity base became $174M.
|
|
86
85
|
|
|
87
|
-
## CVNA
|
|
86
|
+
## CVNA: Carvana Co. (cutoff 2023-02-23)
|
|
88
87
|
|
|
89
88
|
Source: [FY2022 10-K (`cvna-20221231.htm`)](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1690820/000169082023000052/cvna-20221231.htm)
|
|
90
89
|
**Known outcome (not graded):** Stock fell ~98% from its 2021 peak; a 2023 debt exchange cut and extended obligations, narrowly avoiding bankruptcy.
|
|
@@ -97,18 +96,18 @@ Source: [FY2022 10-K (`cvna-20221231.htm`)](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d
|
|
|
97
96
|
| CVNA/f4 | governance | Recurring related-party leases with the founder's family | Related-Party note: DriveTime, controlled by "Ernest Garcia II, Ernest Garcia III, and entities controlled by one or both of them" |
|
|
98
97
|
| CVNA/f5 | liquidity | A wide loss showing unit economics had not turned | "Net loss $ (**2,894**)" ($ millions) |
|
|
99
98
|
|
|
100
|
-
The non-obvious facts are CVNA/f2 (interest expense up 2.8x
|
|
101
|
-
|
|
99
|
+
The non-obvious facts are CVNA/f2 (interest expense up 2.8x, making the debt expensive
|
|
100
|
+
as well as large) and CVNA/f4 (the controlling Garcia family on both
|
|
102
101
|
sides of material leases via DriveTime), neither of which a ticker quote shows.
|
|
103
102
|
|
|
104
|
-
## PTON
|
|
103
|
+
## PTON: Peloton Interactive, Inc. (cutoff 2022-09-07)
|
|
105
104
|
|
|
106
105
|
Source: [FY2022 10-K (`pton-20220630.htm`)](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1639825/000163982522000117/pton-20220630.htm)
|
|
107
106
|
**Known outcome (not graded):** Stock fell ~95% from its 2021 peak; founder-CEO departed; mass layoffs and a multi-year turnaround.
|
|
108
107
|
|
|
109
108
|
| ID | Lens | Material fact | Value read from the filing |
|
|
110
109
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
111
|
-
| PTON/f1 | margin-trend | Hardware gross margin turned **negative** | Connected Fitness "Gross Margin decreased to (**11**)" percent
|
|
110
|
+
| PTON/f1 | margin-trend | Hardware gross margin turned **negative** | Connected Fitness "Gross Margin decreased to (**11**)" percent; losing money per unit sold |
|
|
112
111
|
| PTON/f2 | liquidity | Inventory glut as pandemic demand normalized | "Inventories, net **1,104.5** 937" ($ millions) |
|
|
113
112
|
| PTON/f3 | governance | Dual-class super-voting control | "Class B common stock has **20 votes per share** and our Class A common stock has one vote per share" |
|
|
114
113
|
| PTON/f4 | liquidity | An order-of-magnitude wider loss | "Net loss $ (**2,827**)" ($ millions) |
|
|
@@ -116,11 +115,11 @@ Source: [FY2022 10-K (`pton-20220630.htm`)](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d
|
|
|
116
115
|
| PTON/f6 | leverage | Locked-in purchase commitments into falling demand | "purchase commitments related to the manufacture of Peloton products were estimated to be approximately **$334**" million |
|
|
117
116
|
|
|
118
117
|
The non-obvious fact is PTON/f1: revenue was still large, but the **hardware was
|
|
119
|
-
sold below cost** (−11% gross margin)
|
|
120
|
-
|
|
118
|
+
sold below cost** (−11% gross margin). The unit economics had broken despite the
|
|
119
|
+
top-line growth. PTON/f6 compounds it: the company was contractually obliged to
|
|
121
120
|
buy more inventory it could not sell.
|
|
122
121
|
|
|
123
|
-
## SI
|
|
122
|
+
## SI: Silvergate Capital Corporation (cutoff 2022-02-28)
|
|
124
123
|
|
|
125
124
|
Source: [FY2021 10-K (`si-20211231.htm`)](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1312109/000131210922000051/si-20211231.htm)
|
|
126
125
|
**Known outcome (not graded):** After the FTX collapse triggered a deposit run, Silvergate announced a voluntary wind-down and liquidation of Silvergate Bank in March 2023.
|
|
@@ -134,7 +133,7 @@ Source: [FY2021 10-K (`si-20211231.htm`)](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/dat
|
|
|
134
133
|
| SI/f5 | concentration | The moat AND the funding are the same crypto-only bet | "Silvergate Exchange Network ('SEN'), our proprietary ... payment network for participants in the digital currency industry" |
|
|
135
134
|
|
|
136
135
|
The non-obvious fact is SI/f1+f2 together: **99.5% noninterest-bearing deposits,
|
|
137
|
-
~58% from crypto exchanges
|
|
136
|
+
~58% from crypto exchanges**, a funding base with no contractual term and a
|
|
138
137
|
single correlated counterparty type. A ticker quote shows a fast-growing,
|
|
139
138
|
low-cost-funding bank; the filing shows a bank that could be emptied in days if
|
|
140
139
|
crypto sentiment turned.
|
|
@@ -176,8 +175,8 @@ should not be read as a general "investment-research quality" number. The biases
|
|
|
176
175
|
|
|
177
176
|
3. **Sector skew toward financials + distressed consumer.** Two of five are banks
|
|
178
177
|
(SIVB, SI). The two banks are deliberately given **different** buried-risk
|
|
179
|
-
lenses
|
|
180
|
-
single-industry deposit-concentration story
|
|
178
|
+
lenses, SIVB is an interest-rate / duration / off-balance-sheet story, SI is a
|
|
179
|
+
single-industry deposit-concentration story, so they are not redundant, but
|
|
181
180
|
the set still over-indexes on balance-sheet fragility and under-tests, e.g.,
|
|
182
181
|
technology platform risk, supply-chain concentration, or accounting-policy
|
|
183
182
|
aggressiveness in a healthy grower.
|
|
@@ -197,33 +196,33 @@ should not be read as a general "investment-research quality" number. The biases
|
|
|
197
196
|
required a second independent source to establish was dropped (below) rather
|
|
198
197
|
than sourced to the filing alone.
|
|
199
198
|
|
|
200
|
-
## Drop log
|
|
199
|
+
## Drop log: excluded items
|
|
201
200
|
|
|
202
201
|
These were candidate facts I could not independently ground to a primary source
|
|
203
202
|
available at the cutoff, so I **dropped them rather than guess**:
|
|
204
203
|
|
|
205
|
-
- **First Republic Bank (FRC)
|
|
204
|
+
- **First Republic Bank (FRC)**: dropped as a company entirely. First Republic
|
|
206
205
|
was a state-chartered bank that filed its annual reports with the **FDIC**, not
|
|
207
206
|
on SEC EDGAR, so its 10-K is not at a `sec.gov/Archives` URL and I could not give
|
|
208
|
-
it the same
|
|
207
|
+
it the same CIK-matched provenance as the other five. Its widely cited
|
|
209
208
|
figures (~$15B HTM-style loss, ~$119.5B uninsured deposits) are real but are best
|
|
210
|
-
sourced from the FDIC OIG Material Loss Review, a **post**-cutoff document
|
|
209
|
+
sourced from the FDIC OIG Material Loss Review, a **post**-cutoff document, using
|
|
211
210
|
it would violate rule 3. Replaced with Silvergate, whose 10-K is on EDGAR.
|
|
212
211
|
|
|
213
|
-
- **SIVB exact total unrealized-loss footnote line
|
|
212
|
+
- **SIVB exact total unrealized-loss footnote line**: I report the HTM gap as the
|
|
214
213
|
arithmetic difference of two figures printed on the balance sheet
|
|
215
214
|
($91,321M − $76,169M), which is exact and on-cutoff. I did **not** include a
|
|
216
215
|
separately-quoted "$15.1B net unrealized loss" sentence because I did not locate
|
|
217
216
|
that exact phrasing in the de-tagged text; quoting a number I could not point to
|
|
218
217
|
verbatim would break rule 2. The computed value is conservative and checkable.
|
|
219
218
|
|
|
220
|
-
- **CVNA negative gross-profit-per-unit
|
|
219
|
+
- **CVNA negative gross-profit-per-unit**: a frequently-cited Carvana red flag,
|
|
221
220
|
but the per-unit figure I could find cleanly was a derived/analyst number, not a
|
|
222
221
|
single line item I could quote verbatim from the 10-K at the cutoff. Dropped in
|
|
223
222
|
favor of the directly-quoted total debt, interest expense, ADESA price, related
|
|
224
223
|
party, and net loss.
|
|
225
224
|
|
|
226
|
-
- **PTON / SI specific debt-covenant or going-concern language
|
|
225
|
+
- **PTON / SI specific debt-covenant or going-concern language**: I searched for
|
|
227
226
|
explicit "substantial doubt / going concern" wording in both filings and did
|
|
228
227
|
**not** find it at these cutoffs (it came later). I did not invent it. The facts
|
|
229
228
|
included are the ones actually present in the cutoff-date document.
|
|
@@ -248,5 +247,5 @@ for (const company of investmentThesisSet) {
|
|
|
248
247
|
```
|
|
249
248
|
|
|
250
249
|
The grader is deterministic and model-free, so the same thesis always scores the
|
|
251
|
-
same and the answer key never reaches a model the loop could observe
|
|
250
|
+
same and the answer key never reaches a model the loop could observe, the same
|
|
252
251
|
firewall the deep-question exam (`tests/loops/held-out-exam.ts`) uses.
|
|
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ SOTA RAG evaluation requires retrieval quality, context quality, generated-answe
|
|
|
12
12
|
| [TruLens RAG Triad](https://www.trulens.org/getting_started/core_concepts/rag_triad/) | The minimal end-to-end triad is context relevance, groundedness, and answer relevance. |
|
|
13
13
|
| [RAGChecker](https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/hash/27245589131d17368cccdfa990cbf16e-Abstract-Datasets_and_Benchmarks_Track.html) | Fine-grained diagnosis should separate retrieval misses, noisy context, and unsupported generated claims. |
|
|
14
14
|
| [BEIR](https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08663) / TREC-style retrieval | Retrieval still needs classical rank metrics: Recall@k, Precision@k, MRR, MAP, and nDCG. |
|
|
15
|
-
| [CRAG](https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04744) | Real RAG evals must include long-tail, dynamic, multi-hop, and unanswerable questions
|
|
15
|
+
| [CRAG](https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04744) | Real RAG evals must include long-tail, dynamic, multi-hop, and unanswerable questions alongside easy static facts. |
|
|
16
16
|
| [DeepEval RAG metrics](https://deepeval.com/docs/metrics-faithfulness) | Production tools converge on faithfulness, answer relevance, and context relevance as generator/retriever checks. |
|
|
17
17
|
|
|
18
18
|
## Current Repo Status
|
|
@@ -30,12 +30,13 @@ Done:
|
|
|
30
30
|
- `normalizeExternalRagScores()` and the row exporters make Ragas, DeepEval, TruLens, RAGChecker, and custom evaluator outputs pluggable instead of hard dependencies.
|
|
31
31
|
- `scoreKnowledgeBaseIndex()` validates generic wiki/KB health: citation coverage, source-backed pages, stale sources, duplicate source hashes, and lint/validation errors.
|
|
32
32
|
- `calibrateRagAnswerJudge()` enforces the strong-vs-weak metric check before trusting a RAG answer metric.
|
|
33
|
+
- `runKnowledgeImprovementJob()` in `@tangle-network/agent-runtime` connects runtime backends and worker factories to candidate KB creation, readiness checks, frozen comparisons, spend measurement, and explicit activation.
|
|
34
|
+
- `agent-knowledge` remains runtime-free; applications with their own agent runner pass an `updateKnowledge` callback directly.
|
|
33
35
|
|
|
34
36
|
Not done:
|
|
35
37
|
|
|
36
38
|
- Slice-level reporting for freshness, distractors, multi-hop, and long-tail cases.
|
|
37
|
-
-
|
|
38
|
-
The lifecycle API accepts those agents as hooks today; it does not hardcode provider-specific workers.
|
|
39
|
+
- A maintained, public benchmark pack with at least 100 labeled scenarios and published baseline results.
|
|
39
40
|
|
|
40
41
|
## Completion Criteria
|
|
41
42
|
|
|
@@ -95,7 +96,7 @@ Ship criteria:
|
|
|
95
96
|
|
|
96
97
|
- Every failed eval has one primary failure class.
|
|
97
98
|
- At least 95 percent of generated claims can be mapped to supporting context, contradicted context, or no context.
|
|
98
|
-
- Reports show metrics by slice and
|
|
99
|
+
- Reports show metrics by slice and failure class as well as the aggregate score.
|
|
99
100
|
|
|
100
101
|
### Phase 4: Production Loop
|
|
101
102
|
|
|
@@ -115,5 +116,5 @@ Ship criteria:
|
|
|
115
116
|
|
|
116
117
|
1. Add slice-level aggregation helpers for freshness, distractors, multi-hop, long-tail, and unanswerable cases.
|
|
117
118
|
2. Add forbidden/stale source targets to retrieval scenarios.
|
|
118
|
-
3. Add
|
|
119
|
+
3. Add a maintained benchmark pack with at least 100 labeled scenarios and a reproducible baseline report.
|
|
119
120
|
4. Add a CLI command that runs the lifecycle loop and writes a reproducible report under `.agent-knowledge/eval/`.
|
package/docs/results/adaptive.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
# Adaptive topology: spend the LLM verifier only when it pays
|
|
2
2
|
|
|
3
3
|
The cost/quality A/B (`docs/results/cost-quality.md`) found the LLM relevance
|
|
4
|
-
verifier's cleanliness win is dominated by **de-duplication
|
|
4
|
+
verifier's cleanliness win is dominated by **de-duplication**, which a
|
|
5
5
|
deterministic content-hash / canonical-URL check captures at ~none of the LLM
|
|
6
|
-
premium
|
|
6
|
+
premium, and that an LLM check only earns its dollar on the off-scope tail. The
|
|
7
7
|
production move it named was: do the cheap deterministic work first, reserve the
|
|
8
8
|
LLM for the ambiguous tail. `createAdaptiveResearchDriver`
|
|
9
9
|
(`src/adaptive-driver.ts`) is that driver, and this is its measurement.
|
|
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ stopping at the first that decides:
|
|
|
19
19
|
github, …) with a substantial body is **kept**; an obvious spam/listicle
|
|
20
20
|
title or a too-thin body is **dropped**; everything else is **ambiguous**.
|
|
21
21
|
3. **LLM escalation ($).** Only ambiguous survivors reach the shipped LLM
|
|
22
|
-
relevance verifier (`createVerifyingResearchDriver`)
|
|
22
|
+
relevance verifier (`createVerifyingResearchDriver`), one call each.
|
|
23
23
|
|
|
24
24
|
## Live frontier, n=5 topics (glm-5.2)
|
|
25
25
|
|
|
@@ -39,24 +39,24 @@ is the per-arm `RouterClient.usage()` diff (#36). Total spend for the run:
|
|
|
39
39
|
| **total** | **25** | **25** | **12 / 25 / $0.0261** | **20 / 6 / $0.0068** |
|
|
40
40
|
|
|
41
41
|
**Cost.** Adaptive cuts LLM verifier calls **76%** (25 → 6) and dollars **74%**
|
|
42
|
-
($0.0261 → $0.0068). On 3 of the 5 topics it spent **zero** LLM calls
|
|
42
|
+
($0.0261 → $0.0068). On 3 of the 5 topics it spent **zero** LLM calls, every
|
|
43
43
|
unique survivor was on an authoritative host, so the $0 stages decided
|
|
44
44
|
everything.
|
|
45
45
|
|
|
46
|
-
##
|
|
46
|
+
## Interpretation: adaptive occupies one cost-quality point
|
|
47
47
|
|
|
48
48
|
Admitted-source counts (lower = cleaner KB): **single 25, adaptive 20,
|
|
49
49
|
full-LLM 12**. Adaptive sits **between** the two:
|
|
50
50
|
|
|
51
51
|
- It removes **5 of the 13 sources** the full-LLM judge rejects that the
|
|
52
52
|
single-agent loop keeps (every one of them a real duplicate caught by the $0
|
|
53
|
-
dedup stage
|
|
53
|
+
dedup stage, exactly the de-dup-dominated win the cost/quality result
|
|
54
54
|
predicted).
|
|
55
55
|
- It does **NOT** match full-LLM cleanliness. The remaining 8 sources full-LLM
|
|
56
56
|
rejects, adaptive keeps. The cause is structural and visible in the trace: on
|
|
57
57
|
this topic set every non-duplicate survivor landed on an authoritative host
|
|
58
58
|
(arxiv / github / official docs), so the heuristic **kept** it without ever
|
|
59
|
-
asking the LLM
|
|
59
|
+
asking the LLM, and the LLM, when full-LLM did ask it, judged several of
|
|
60
60
|
those same authoritative pages not-quite-on-topic and dropped them. The host
|
|
61
61
|
prior is coarser than the relevance judge.
|
|
62
62
|
|
|
@@ -65,19 +65,19 @@ de-dup half of full-LLM's cleanliness for ~26% of full-LLM's dollars, and gives
|
|
|
65
65
|
up the relevance-judgment half.** Whether that is the right point depends on the
|
|
66
66
|
cost of a kept-but-marginal source. If a slightly-off-topic authoritative page
|
|
67
67
|
is cheap to carry, adaptive dominates. If every admitted source must clear a
|
|
68
|
-
relevance bar, the host heuristic is too permissive and you want the full LLM
|
|
68
|
+
relevance bar, the host heuristic is too permissive and you want the full LLM,
|
|
69
69
|
or a tightened heuristic.
|
|
70
70
|
|
|
71
|
-
## Where the heuristic is weak
|
|
71
|
+
## Where the heuristic is weak: stated plainly
|
|
72
72
|
|
|
73
73
|
The escalation count is the diagnostic. On 3 of 5 topics it was **zero**: the
|
|
74
74
|
heuristic never deferred to the LLM, so on those topics adaptive is a
|
|
75
75
|
**pure host/title/length rule**, and its cleanliness is exactly that rule's
|
|
76
|
-
cleanliness
|
|
76
|
+
cleanliness, no smarter than "trust arxiv/github, drop spam." That is fine when
|
|
77
77
|
the worker's sources are dominated by authoritative hosts (as here), but it
|
|
78
78
|
means the LLM's relevance judgment is contributing nothing on those topics, by
|
|
79
79
|
construction. The two topics where adaptive *did* escalate (grouped-query
|
|
80
|
-
attention, LoRA) are where some survivors were on unknown hosts
|
|
80
|
+
attention, LoRA) are where some survivors were on unknown hosts, and there the
|
|
81
81
|
3 LLM calls per topic are the off-scope tail the verifier is actually for.
|
|
82
82
|
|
|
83
83
|
The heuristic would mis-route in two directions a richer worker would expose,
|
|
@@ -95,12 +95,12 @@ neither seen on this authoritative-host-heavy set:
|
|
|
95
95
|
The deployable recommendation from the cost/quality result was "deterministic
|
|
96
96
|
dedup first, reserve the LLM for the tail." This driver ships that and the
|
|
97
97
|
measurement confirms the **cost** half cleanly (76% fewer calls, 74% cheaper)
|
|
98
|
-
and qualifies the **quality** half
|
|
98
|
+
and qualifies the **quality** half accurately: adaptive captures the de-dup
|
|
99
99
|
cleanliness (the dominant, free win) but not the LLM's relevance cleanliness,
|
|
100
100
|
because the host heuristic resolves authoritative survivors without asking. For
|
|
101
101
|
a worker whose sources are mostly authoritative, adaptive is the right frontier
|
|
102
102
|
point. For one whose junk is on-topic-looking pages on unknown hosts, the
|
|
103
|
-
ambiguous tail grows and adaptive converges toward full-LLM cost
|
|
103
|
+
ambiguous tail grows and adaptive converges toward full-LLM cost, which is the
|
|
104
104
|
correct behavior: it pays for the LLM exactly when the cheap signals can't
|
|
105
105
|
decide.
|
|
106
106
|
|
|
@@ -1,22 +1,22 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
# Claim-grounding: the band where the verifier earns its dollar
|
|
2
2
|
|
|
3
3
|
`docs/results/cost-quality.md` found the relevance verifier's cleanliness win is
|
|
4
|
-
**dominated by de-duplication
|
|
4
|
+
**dominated by de-duplication**, a deterministic content-hash captures most of it
|
|
5
5
|
at ~none of the LLM premium. So the open question was: is there an error band where
|
|
6
|
-
a verifier earns its cost
|
|
6
|
+
a verifier earns its cost, something a hash AND a relevance judge both miss?
|
|
7
7
|
|
|
8
8
|
**Yes: misattributed citations.** A source that is on-topic, unique, and real, but
|
|
9
9
|
whose cited CLAIM does not appear in the page (the LLM wrote a plausible sentence
|
|
10
10
|
and hung a real URL off it). De-dup passes it (it's unique). A relevance judge
|
|
11
11
|
passes it (the page is on-topic). Only checking the claim against the fetched text
|
|
12
|
-
catches it
|
|
12
|
+
catches it, and that check is **deterministic text presence, $0 inference**.
|
|
13
13
|
|
|
14
14
|
## The mode
|
|
15
15
|
|
|
16
16
|
Each proposed source now carries the specific claim it is cited for
|
|
17
17
|
(`withCitedClaim` → `metadata.citedClaim`). The verifier
|
|
18
18
|
(`createClaimGroundingVerifier`) runs `groundClaimInText(claim, pageText)` over the
|
|
19
|
-
`htmlToText` output of the page the worker actually fetched
|
|
19
|
+
`htmlToText` output of the page the worker actually fetched, verbatim, normalized
|
|
20
20
|
(punctuation/whitespace-insensitive), or a ≥70% content-word overlap close
|
|
21
21
|
paraphrase. A claim that isn't present is rejected as **misattributed**. The oracle
|
|
22
22
|
is text presence, not a model call, so it composes with the LLM relevance verifier
|
|
@@ -31,25 +31,25 @@ proposals. Cost diffed per arm with the #36 `RouterClient.usage()` instrumentati
|
|
|
31
31
|
|
|
32
32
|
| n=5 topics | misattributions caught | marginal $ | $/topic | per-$ caught |
|
|
33
33
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
34
|
-
| no-verifier | 0 / 5 | $0.0000 |
|
|
34
|
+
| no-verifier | 0 / 5 | $0.0000 | n/a | n/a |
|
|
35
35
|
| relevance (LLM judge) | **4 / 5** | $0.0157 | ~$0.0031 | 254 |
|
|
36
36
|
| claim-grounding (text) | **5 / 5** | **$0.0000** | $0 | ∞ |
|
|
37
37
|
|
|
38
38
|
Per-topic (caught relevance / grounding): self-speculative decoding 1/1, rotary
|
|
39
39
|
position embeddings 1/1, grouped-query attention 1/1, **KV-cache quantization 0/1**,
|
|
40
|
-
LoRA 1/1. (An earlier 3-topic run missed self-speculative decoding instead
|
|
40
|
+
LoRA 1/1. (An earlier 3-topic run missed self-speculative decoding instead, the
|
|
41
41
|
miss moves around; it is not a fixed topic.)
|
|
42
42
|
|
|
43
43
|
**Reading.** Claim-grounding catches every misattribution at **$0**; the relevance
|
|
44
44
|
judge catches most but **misses one in five at ~$0.003/topic**. The miss is the
|
|
45
45
|
point: the relevance verifier only ever sees the page text, never the cited claim,
|
|
46
|
-
so it is *structurally blind* to misattribution. It catches one only by accident
|
|
46
|
+
so it is *structurally blind* to misattribution. It catches one only by accident:
|
|
47
47
|
when the fabricated claim happens to also make the page read off-topic
|
|
48
48
|
(e.g. a "12-billion-parameter draft transformer" claim on a rotary-embeddings page).
|
|
49
49
|
When the fabrication stays on-topic (the KV-cache case), the judge waves it through.
|
|
50
50
|
|
|
51
51
|
So on THIS band the verifier-per-dollar comparison inverts the cost/quality result:
|
|
52
|
-
there, the LLM verifier bought a dedup-shaped gain a free hash already captures
|
|
52
|
+
there, the LLM verifier bought a dedup-shaped gain a free hash already captures;
|
|
53
53
|
expensive for what a cheap rule does. Here the cheap, deterministic check
|
|
54
54
|
**dominates** the expensive judge: it catches strictly more (5/5 vs 4/5) at strictly
|
|
55
55
|
less ($0 vs $0.0157). The verifier earns its dollar on misattribution; it does not on
|
|
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ de-duplication.
|
|
|
63
63
|
(and the offline relevance stand-in) accept them. The error is in the *claim*, not
|
|
64
64
|
the *topic*.
|
|
65
65
|
- **Executable ground truth.** The check is presence/close-paraphrase of the claim
|
|
66
|
-
in the fetched text
|
|
66
|
+
in the fetched text, deployable in production with no oracle and no model call.
|
|
67
67
|
|
|
68
68
|
The offline arm proves the floor with a controlled 4-source pool (2 grounded, 2
|
|
69
69
|
misattributed): claim-grounding admits **0/2** misattributions and keeps **2/2**
|
|
@@ -78,9 +78,9 @@ grounded sources, while relevance and no-verifier both admit **2/2**.
|
|
|
78
78
|
- **Planted misattributions, not naturally-occurring ones.** Like the cost/quality
|
|
79
79
|
offline floor, the misattribution is injected so the band is measurable. It models
|
|
80
80
|
the real LLM citation-fabrication failure but does not measure its base rate in the
|
|
81
|
-
wild
|
|
81
|
+
wild, that needs a corpus of model-written citations checked by hand.
|
|
82
82
|
- **The grounding oracle is conservative.** A real paraphrase whose inflected words
|
|
83
|
-
differ from the page ("drafts" vs "draft") can score below 0.7 and be rejected
|
|
83
|
+
differ from the page ("drafts" vs "draft") can score below 0.7 and be rejected,
|
|
84
84
|
a false-positive misattribution flag. `minOverlap` tunes this; the worker should
|
|
85
85
|
cite the page's own key terms (the `createClaimDecorator` extractor is told to).
|
|
86
86
|
|