失敗した自動推論ポリシーテストに対処する

次のいずれかのプロンプトを使用して、翻訳のあいまいさの問題を修正できます。

ソースなしのあいまいさ

You are an expert in revising answers to questions based on logical disagreements found in the answers.
Given a domain, a question, an original answer, and logical ambiguities suggested from scearios, your task is to revise the original answer to address and resolve the logical ambiguities identified above. The revised answer should remove any ambiguities, such that one can clearly judge whether each scenario is consistent or inconsistent with the answer. The revised answer should have approximately the same length as the original answer. Avoid extending the answer with your own background knowledge.
Below is an example.
DOMAIN: DiscountPolicy
QUESTION: I want to buy tickets for next Thursday. How many people are needed to qualify for your group discount?
ORIGINAL ANSWER: You need at least 10 people to get the group discount.
LOGICAL AMBIGUITIES FOUND: disagree_scenario1: ['(= group_size 12)', '(= advanced_booking false)', '(= group_discount true)']
(Analysis: The scenario says the group size is 12, there is no advanced booking and group discount is true. Is this consistent with the answer? Well, the original answer does not mention advanced booking. Maybe the answer assumed advanced booking from the question "I want to buy tickets for next Thursday", but that's debatable. The revised answer should make it clear.)
REVISED ANSWER: You need at least 10 people and need to book in advance to get the group discount.
(Note: Scenarios are illustrative cases highlighting potential ambiguities. Do not overfit in your revised answer. In the example above, you should use the original "You need at least 10 people..." rather than the scenario-specific "If you have 12 people...")
Now complete the following task and return the revised answer. (Just return the answer. Do not return any analysis or notes)
DOMAIN: {domain}
QUESTION: {question}
ORIGINAL ANSWER: {original_answer}
LOGICAL AMBIGUITIES FOUND: It is unclear if the following scenarios are valid or not according to the answer. {disagreement_text}
REVISED ANSWER:

ソースとのあいまいさ

You are an expert in revising answers to questions based on logical disagreements found in the answers.
Given a domain, a question, an original answer, a piece of policy source text, and logical ambiguities suggested from scearios, your task is to revise the original answer to address and resolve the logical ambiguities identified above. The revised answer should remove any ambiguities, such that one can clearly judge whether each scenario is consistent or inconsistent with the answer. The revised answer should have approximately the same length as the original answer. Avoid extending the answer with your own background knowledge. The revised answer should be consistent with the actual policy from the source text.
Below is an example.
DOMAIN: DiscountPolicy
QUESTION: I want to buy tickets for next Thursday. How many people are needed to qualify for your group discount?
ORIGINAL ANSWER: You need at least 10 people to get the group discount.
POLICY SOURCE TEXT: ... We offer discounts to students, seniors, and large groups. Students must present a valid ID ... A group of ten or more people are qualified for a group discount. Group discount tickets must be booked in advance. Each group ticket is 20% off the regular ticket price ...
LOGICAL AMBIGUITIES FOUND: disagree_scenario1: ['(= group_size 12)', '(= advanced_booking false)', '(= group_discount true)']
(Analysis: The scenario says the group size is 12, there is no advanced booking and group discount is true. Is this consistent with the answer? Well, the original answer does not mention advanced booking. Maybe the answer assumed advanced booking from the question "I want to buy tickets for next Thursday", but that's debatable. The revised answer should make it clear.)
REVISED ANSWER: You need at least 10 people and need to book in advance to get the group discount.
(Note: Scenarios are illustrative cases highlighting potential ambiguities. Do not overfit in your revised answer. In the example above, you should use the original "You need at least 10 people..." rather than the scenario-specific "If you have 12 people...")
Now complete the following task and return the revised answer. (Just return the answer. Do not return any analysis or notes)
DOMAIN: {domain}
QUESTION: {question}
ORIGINAL ANSWER: {original_answer}
POLICY SOURCE TEXT: {policy_source_text}
LOGICAL DISAGREEMENTS FOUND: It is unclear if the following scenarios are valid or not according to the answer. {disagreement_text}
REVISED ANSWER: