FlowingFlowing
← Back to all development cases
Development case · blind model judgment pending independent human review; not a formal Benchmark conclusion.
AutocompleteNo-Evidence version preferred48 / 162 · 91ec65c60309db70

Long-term modulation of solar cycles

Astrophysics · 2302.14845v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we tell whether Evidence helps?

At the same writing position, with the same model and task, how does supplying retrieved paper passages change the first output? We compare matched versions and retain ties, unusable outputs and incomplete reviews.

SAME DRAFT · EVIDENCE ON OR OFF

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED INPUTS

SHARED BY BOTH

Manuscript context, model, task and prompt

A · With Evidence

Retrieved paper passages supplied

B · Without Evidence

No retrieved passages supplied

LLM

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Blind judge agent

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Order check: X / Y → Y / X

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received Evidence.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are autocomplete positions stratified?

Before seeing generation outcomes, we check whether a retrieved passage contains a specific proposition that directly supports the next writing move. Those positions appear in the left opportunity group; the rest are ordinary positions on the right. We select a balanced sample from admitted papers in each field. The 50/50 split is experimental, not a measure of how often either type occurs in writing.

AUTOCOMPLETE · 110

Biology, statistics and astrophysics

55 positions on each side; statistics uses the ten-paper rerun.

AUTOCOMPLETE · 52

Psychology and climate science

26 positions on each side; psychology includes nine papers and climate science four.

How are the table percentages calculated?

Across five fields there are 81 source-opportunity positions. The original blind review preferred Evidence in 51; a task check moved one empty Evidence continuation to both unusable, leaving 50 in public counts. In the ordinary group, another pair of empty outputs moved from no winner to both unusable. Original verdicts remain visible on case pages.

50Evidence version preferred
÷
81All positions in this group
=
62%Evidence preference in this group

Source contribution is a separate review: 16 of 21 Evidence wins entered into source review directly used retrieved papers; another 29 wins await review.

These are development-stage model judgments pending independent human review. They are not formal Benchmark conclusions and do not, on their own, establish causality.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

Long-term modulation of solar cycles

1 Introduction

…ng quasi-periodicities such as centennial Gleissberg, 201-year Suess/de Vries and 2400-year Hallstatt cycles. It is shown that the solar cycles contain an important random component and have no clock-like phase locking implying a lack of long-term memory. A brief yet comprehensive review of the theoretical perspectives to explain the observed features in the framework of the dynamo models is presented, including the nonlinearity and stochastic fluctuations in the dynamo. We keep gaining knowledge of the processes driving solar variability with the new data acquainted and new models developed.

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionJudgment: No-Evidence version preferred

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

Despite these advances, the origin of the long-term modulation of solar cycles remains an open question.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Modeling the irregularities of solar cycle using flux transport dynamo models ↗

However the individual cycle durations and the amplitudes are found to vary in an irregular manner. It is observed that the stronger cycles are having shorter rise times and vice versa. This leads to an important effect know as the Waldmeier effect. Another important feature of the solar cycle irreg…

Read full passage excerpt

However the individual cycle durations and the amplitudes are found to vary in an irregular manner. It is observed that the stronger cycles are having shorter rise times and vice versa. This leads to an important effect know as the Waldmeier effect. Another important feature of the solar cycle irregularity are the grand minima during which the activity level is strongly reduced. We explore whether these solar cycle irregularities can be studied with the help of the flux transport dynamo model of the solar cycle. We show that with a suitable stochastic fluctuations in a regular dynamo model, we are able to reproduce many irregular features of the solar cycle including the Waldmeier effect and the grand minimum.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Preferred by blind review

Despite this progress, the relative roles of deterministic nonlinearity and stochastic forcing in setting the amplitude and timing of individual cycles remain difficult to disentangle from the limited observational record.

Judgment and task check

The blinded model review preferred the no-Evidence version. Its original rationale appears below.

Read the original model judgment

In this rationale, Output A = Evidence; Output B = No Evidence.

Output B is more useful and better grounded. It builds directly on the draft's discussion of 'nonlinearity and stochastic fluctuations in the dynamo' and the source's finding that 'stochastic fluctuations in a regular dynamo model' reproduce irregular features including Waldmeier effect and grand minima. The phrase 'deterministic nonlinearity and stochastic forcing' precisely echoes the draft's 'nonlinearity and stochastic fluctuations,' while 'limited observational record' is a reasonable, well-established concern in solar cycle research that connects to the source's emphasis on observational features. Output A is vague and generic ('open question' about 'long-term modulation')—the draft already discussed long-term cycles in earlier sentences, and 'open question' adds little substantive continuation. Output B advances the specific intellectual tension in the field that the draft and source both set up.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.