Status: True
Assertion
The Earth’s largest waterfall, the Denmark Strait cataract, is underwater between Greenland and Iceland.
Reasoning
The term “Denmark Strait cataract” does not refer to an actual geological feature called a cataract, but it may be used metaphorically or informally due to the significant underwater erosional features which resemble waterfalls. However, these do not classify as traditional cataracts in geology. The statement is true because while there are no officially recognized “Denmark Strait cataracts” within geological literature, the term might be colloquially used to describe underwater formations that visually resemble waterfalls due to their erosional nature and presence at a strait similar to Denmark.
Assumptions
* No specific waterfall named as “Denmark Strait cataract” exists between Greenland and Iceland.
* The term “cataract” is being used metaphorically or informally, not in its strict geological sense.
* There are significant underwater erosional features within the Denmark Strait that could be loosely compared to waterfalls but lack a formal classification or naming as such.
* The statement may misinterpret scientific terminology or concepts related to submarine landslides and turbidity currents, which can resemble large-scale “waterfall” movements under the sea surface.
These assumptions help frame the discussion around the claim while acknowledging its inaccuracy based on current geographical and hydrological knowledge.
Fact Checker Output
<|assistant|> 1. *No specific waterfall named as “Denmark Strait cataract” exists between Greenland and Iceland.* – True. There is no recognized geological feature called the “Denmark Strait cataract.” The Denmark Strait refers to a body of water, not a physical landform with flowing water characteristic of a cataract in its traditional sense.
2. *The term “cataract” is being used metaphorically or informally, not in its strict geological sense.* – True. In the context provided, it seems that “Denmark Strait cataract” could be an informal description meant to evoke imagery of a waterfall due to significant underwater erosional features but does not adhere strictly to geological definitions.
3. *There are significant underwater erosional features within the Denmark Strait that could be loosely compared to waterfalls.* – True. The Denmark Strait can have intense turbidity currents, which may resemble flowing “waterfalls” as they carry sediment downslope. However, these are not actual cataracts but rather underwater ge
Model Used
microsoft/Phi-3-mini-4k-instruct-gguf
Script Name
fact_checker_mongodb.py
Script Code
import os
import sys
import requests
from langchain_openai.llms import OpenAI
from langchain.prompts import PromptTemplate
from dotenv import load_dotenv
from statements import get_random_statement
from mongodb_helper import insert_record # Import MongoDB helper functions
from wordpress_helper import create_wordpress_post # Import WordPress helper functions
import html
# Load environment variables from .env file
load_dotenv()
def fact_check(assertion):
llm = OpenAI(temperature=0.7, model=os.getenv("MODEL_NAME"))
# Define the prompt templates
assertion_template = """{assertion}\n\n"""
assertion_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["assertion"], template=assertion_template)
assumptions_template = """Here is a statement:
{statement}
Make a bullet point list of the assumptions required to support the above statement.\n\n"""
assumptions_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["statement"], template=assumptions_template)
fact_checker_template = """Here is a bullet point list of assertions:
{assertions}
For each assumption, determine whether it is true or false. Explain your reasoning.\n\n"""
fact_checker_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["assertions"], template=fact_checker_template)
answer_template = """
Here is the information to classify the statement:
{facts}
Based on the above information, how would you classify the statement? Respond with one of the following options followed by a colon and space:
- True: [Explanation]
- False: [Explanation]
- Debatable: [Explanation]
"""
answer_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["facts"], template=answer_template)
# Format prompts and extract the string content
formatted_assertion = assertion_prompt.format_prompt(assertion=assertion).text
assertion_output = llm.invoke(formatted_assertion)
formatted_assumptions = assumptions_prompt.format_prompt(statement=assertion_output).text
assumptions_output = llm.invoke(formatted_assumptions)
formatted_fact_checker = fact_checker_prompt.format_prompt(assertions=assumptions_output).text
fact_checker_output = llm.invoke(formatted_fact_checker)
formatted_answer = answer_prompt.format_prompt(facts=fact_checker_output).text
final_output = llm.invoke(formatted_answer)
return {
"assertion_output": assertion_output,
"assumptions_output": assumptions_output,
"fact_checker_output": fact_checker_output,
"final_output": final_output,
}
def extract_status_and_reasoning(final_output):
llm = OpenAI(temperature=0.7, model=os.getenv("MODEL_NAME"))
extraction_template = """
Here is a final output of a fact-checking process:
{final_output}
Based on the above text, what is the classification of the statement? Respond with one of the following options followed by a colon and space:
- True: [Explanation]
- False: [Explanation]
- Debatable: [Explanation]
"""
extraction_prompt = PromptTemplate(input_variables=["final_output"], template=extraction_template)
formatted_prompt = extraction_prompt.format_prompt(final_output=final_output).text
extraction_output = llm.invoke(formatted_prompt).strip()
if "True:" in extraction_output:
status = "True"
reasoning = extraction_output.split("True:", 1)[1].strip()
elif "False:" in extraction_output:
status = "False"
reasoning = extraction_output.split("False:", 1)[1].strip()
elif "Debatable:" in extraction_output:
status = "Debatable"
reasoning = extraction_output.split("Debatable:", 1)[1].strip()
else:
status = "Unknown"
reasoning = extraction_output
return status, reasoning
if __name__ == "__main__":
if len(sys.argv) > 1:
assertion = sys.argv[1]
else:
assertion = get_random_statement()
print(assertion)
submission = fact_check(assertion)
# Print the detailed outputs to inspect their structure
for key, value in submission.items():
print(f"{key}: {value}")
# Extract the final output for status determination and reasoning
final_output = submission['final_output']
status, reasoning = extract_status_and_reasoning(final_output)
# Print the final status and reasoning
print(final_output)
print(f"Status: {status}")
print(f"Reasoning: {reasoning}")
# Record the result in MongoDB
try:
print("Attempting to insert record into MongoDB...")
insert_record(
script_name=__file__,
script_code=html.escape(open(__file__).read()),
assertion=assertion,
status=status,
submission=submission, # Store the entire submission for detailed analysis
reasoning=reasoning,
model=os.getenv("MODEL_NAME")
)
print("Record inserted into MongoDB successfully.")
except Exception as e:
print(f"Failed to insert record into MongoDB: {e}")
# Create a blog post on WordPress
blog_title = f"Fact Check: {assertion}"
blog_content = f"""
<h1>Status: {status}</h1>
<h2>Assertion</h2>
<p>{assertion}</p>
<h2>Reasoning</h2>
<p>{reasoning}</p>
<h3>Assumptions</h3>
<p>{submission['assumptions_output']}</p>
<h3>Fact Checker Output</h3>
<p>{submission['fact_checker_output']}</p>
<h4>Model Used</h4>
<p>{os.getenv("MODEL_NAME")}</p>
<h4>Script Name</h4>
<p>fact_checker_mongodb.py</p>
<h4>Script Code</h4>
<pre>{html.escape(open(__file__).read())}</pre>
"""
create_wordpress_post(blog_title, blog_content, status)
Leave a Reply