Status: Unknown

Assertion

Wood is a good conductor of heat.

Reasoning

Assumptions

Some assumptions needed to support the statement include:

– The comparison is being made between wood and metal in terms of thermal conductivity, which measures how well a material allows heat to pass through it.
– Wood’s structure contains cellulose fibers with air pockets, making it an effective insulator since these trapped air spaces hinder the transfer of heat.
– Metals typically have free electrons that facilitate the efficient transfer of energy in the form of heat (and electricity), which makes them good conductors.
– The statement assumes a standard condition or context where both materials are being compared for their thermal properties under similar conditions, such as temperature and thickness.
– It’s assumed that no external factors, like treatments to wood or alloys in metal affecting its natural insulating properties, have been applied in this comparison scenario.

Fact Checker Output

<|assistant|> – The comparison is being made between wood and metal in terms of thermal conductivity: True. This assertion sets the context for comparing two materials based on their ability to transfer heat.
– Wood’s structure contains cellulose fibers with air pockets, making it an effective insulator since these trapped air spaces hinder the transfer of heat: True. The microscopic structure of wood does indeed contain air pockets that contribute to its insulating properties due to poor thermal conductivity.
– Metals typically have free electrons that facilitate efficient transfer of energy in the form of heat (and electricity): True. This is a well-established characteristic of metals, where delocalized or “free” electrons play a key role in their ability to conduct both heat and electricity effectively.
– The statement assumes a standard condition or context where both materials are being compared for their thermal properties under similar conditions: True. For an accurate comparison, it’s essential that the wood and metal samples being assessed have similar dimensions (thickness) and environmental factors (temperature).
– It’s assumed no external factors, like treatments to wood or alloys in metal affecting its natural insulating properties, have been

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)