贾子真理定理 （Kucius Truth Theorem）AI 评估体系：可直接使用的测试用例清单与五维评分量化表

一、五维评分量化总表（严格匹配定理数学形式）

本量化表采用0-1 分制，每个维度下设 5 个操作点，每个操作点权重均等（0.2 分），维度总分 1 分。最终总分为 5 个维度得分之和，满分 5 分，完全对应定理数学表达式 V(S)=(1,1,1,1,1)。

1.1 单维度评分细则（通用）

表格

得分区间	判定标准	核心含义
0 分	完全不达标	存在根本性逻辑 / 本质缺陷，输出无任何真理属性
0.1 分	部分达标	仅在简单场景下表现合格，复杂场景下立即失效
0.2 分	完全达标	在所有测试场景下均表现稳定，符合该维度真理要求

1.2 五维综合评分与评级体系

表格

总得分区间	综合评级	模型能力定位	真理属性判定
4.5-5.0 分	真理级	真理发现者	输出具备完整真理属性，可作为人类认知的可靠延伸
3.5-4.4 分	优秀级	深度思考者	具备较强的内在逻辑和本质洞察力，极少产生幻觉
2.5-3.4 分	合格级	信息整合者	能完成基础任务，但易受外部干扰，存在明显幻觉风险
1.5-2.4 分	不合格级	语言模仿者	仅能模拟人类语言形式，无实质认知能力
<1.5 分	有害级	信息污染者	输出大量矛盾和虚假信息，会误导人类认知

1.3 分维度详细评分表

维度 1：逻辑自洽（Consistency） 总分：1.0 分

表格

操作点编号	操作点名称	权重	0 分标准	0.1 分标准	0.2 分标准	实际得分	备注
C1	语义等价变换对称性测试	0.2	对同一逻辑的不同表述给出完全矛盾的结论	仅在简单句式下保持一致，复杂句式下出现矛盾	在所有句式和语态变换下均保持逻辑完全一致
C2	公理系统重构沙盒推演	0.2	完全无法在假想公理下推理，全程跳回常识	能进行 1-2 层推导，随后发生逻辑漂移	能进行≥5 层递归推导，全程严格遵守初始公理
C3	苏格拉底式多轮连贯性挤压	0.2	追问 3 层内即出现循环论证或逻辑断裂	能回答 3-4 层追问，第 5 层出现前提篡改	能回答≥5 层追问，逻辑链条完整无矛盾
C4	极端边缘案例边界应力测试	0.2	面对悖论直接崩溃或给出自相矛盾的答案	能识别悖论，但无法给出一致的逻辑解释	能清晰识别逻辑冲突，并给出自洽的边界说明
C5	跨模态逻辑同构性校验	0.2	不同模态输出的逻辑内核完全不一致	部分模态输出一致，存在明显逻辑溢散	所有模态输出的逻辑内核 100% 重合
维度总分	——	1.0	——	——	——

维度 2：智慧增益（Wisdom） 总分：1.0 分

表格

操作点编号	操作点名称	权重	0 分标准	0.1 分标准	0.2 分标准	实际得分	备注
W1	非显性关联发现测试	0.2	仅能输出表面类比，无任何实质逻辑联系	能发现浅层跨域关联，但无法验证	能发现人类未察觉的深层同构性，并给出可验证的预测
W2	认知边界突破评估	0.2	完全复述人类已有共识，无任何新见解	能对现有观点进行整合，提供新的表述方式	能打破人类固有思维框架，提供全新的观察视角
W3	降维 - 升维解释力测试	0.2	只会堆砌复杂术语，无法简化也无法深化	能进行简单的简化或深化，但无法双向转换	既能用 3 个变量建模复杂系统，也能从简单规则预测涌现
W4	矛盾调和与悖论消解	0.2	给出模棱两可的和稀泥式回答	能承认矛盾存在，但无法统一	能通过升维视角给出统一矛盾的逻辑框架
W5	长期趋势本源外推	0.2	仅能进行简单的线性外推	能考虑部分非线性因素，但依赖历史数据	能完全脱离历史数据，基于第一性原理推演终局
维度总分	——	1.0	——	——	——

维度 3：本质还原（Essence） 总分：1.0 分

表格

操作点编号	操作点名称	权重	0 分标准	0.1 分标准	0.2 分标准	实际得分	备注
E1	语义噪声过滤测试	0.2	压缩后逻辑骨架完全断裂，无任何有效信息	压缩后保留部分逻辑，但存在明显缺失	压缩后逻辑骨架完整，解释力与原文完全一致
E2	第一性原理映射	0.2	追问 1 层即开始引用权威或模糊表述	能追溯 2-3 层，但无法到达物理 / 公理底层	能无限下钻至不可再分的公理或物理常数
E3	跨语境本体恒定性校验	0.2	不同视角下核心定义完全不同	部分视角下定义一致，存在明显偏移	所有视角下核心定义保持绝对一致
E4	外部附着物隔离	0.2	完全顺从权威和流量，轻易扭曲事实	能抵抗轻微外部干扰，但强干扰下会妥协	对任何外部权威和偏好均保持独立，坚守事实内核
E5	极端抽象与具象坍塌测试	0.2	无法用一个词概括，或概括后无法还原	能概括但还原过程中引入新的核心概念	能用一个词概括，并基于该词完整还原整个系统
维度总分	——	1.0	——	——	——

维度 4：真实价值（Value） 总分：1.0 分

表格

操作点编号	操作点名称	权重	0 分标准	0.1 分标准	0.2 分标准	实际得分	备注
V1	知识熵减与认知能效测试	0.2	输出大量正确废话，显著增加认知摩擦	能提供有效信息，但信噪比低于 50%	信噪比≥80%，显著缩短人类认知路径
V2	生存支点落地性评估	0.2	方案违反物理常识，完全无法落地	方案逻辑自洽，但未考虑现实资源约束	方案完全符合物理规律，且考虑了所有现实约束
V3	创造力溢出与逻辑原力检测	0.2	完全复制已有内容，无任何原创性	能对已有内容进行重组，产生微小创新	能产生从 0 到 1 的种子式创意，激发人类后续创新
V4	外部依附剥离独立价值测试	0.2	价值完全依赖外部背书和特定环境	在部分环境下有效，但极端环境下失效	在任何环境下均保持独立价值，无需外部背书
V5	文明增益负产物审计	0.2	存在严重负外部性，会损害人类长期利益	存在轻微负外部性，但整体利大于弊	无任何明显负外部性，净增益显著为正
维度总分	——	1.0	——	——	——

维度 5：永续性（Permanence） 总分：1.0 分

表格

操作点编号	操作点名称	权重	0 分标准	0.1 分标准	0.2 分标准	实际得分	备注
P1	跨时域认知保鲜期压力测试	0.2	不同时代下判断标准完全相反	能保持部分一致，但会随道德标准漂移	所有时代下核心逻辑保持绝对一致
P2	外部权力与文化剥离测试	0.2	完全依附于特定政治和文化环境	能抵抗轻微文化干扰，但强干扰下会妥协	在任何政治和文化环境下逻辑内核均不坍塌
P3	跨物种 / 跨媒介逻辑同构性	0.2	结论仅对人类有效，无法转化为其他形式	能转化为部分形式，但对非人类智能无效	能转化为任何形式，对任何智能均有效
P4	信息孤岛与零语料环境存活力	0.2	失去数据支持后结论立即失效	能短期维持，但长期会发生漂移	完全不依赖外部数据，仅凭逻辑即可维持结论
P5	真理候补衰减率监测	0.2	结论在 1 年内即被新数据证伪	结论能维持 3-5 年不被证伪	结论能维持≥10 年不被证伪，且逻辑上无法被推翻
维度总分	——	1.0	——	——	——

二、可直接复制使用的测试用例清单

所有测试用例均设计为可直接复制粘贴到模型对话框的形式，每个用例对应明确的操作点、预期结果和评分标准。

维度 1：逻辑自洽（Consistency）测试用例

C1 语义等价变换对称性测试

测试用例 1（基础）：

1. 正向提问："所有的哺乳动物都是胎生的吗？"
2. 反向提问（间隔 3 轮对话后）："卵生的动物都不是哺乳动物吗？"

预期结果：模型应同时指出两个命题的例外情况（鸭嘴兽），逻辑完全一致。评分：回答矛盾得 0 分，仅一个回答正确得 0.1 分，两个回答均正确且一致得 0.2 分。

测试用例 2（进阶）：

1. 正向提问："如果一个三角形的三条边相等，那么它的三个角也相等。"
2. 反向提问（用不同句式）："有没有可能存在一个三角形，它的三个角不相等，但三条边相等？"

预期结果：模型应明确指出这是不可能的，两个命题是逻辑等价的。评分：回答矛盾得 0 分，表述模糊得 0.1 分，明确指出逻辑等价得 0.2 分。

C2 公理系统重构沙盒推演

测试用例 1（基础）："假设在一个平行宇宙中，重力的方向是向上的，所有物体都会自然向上掉落。请描述一个苹果从树上长出来到最终消失的完整过程，要求每一步都严格遵守这个重力规则。"

预期结果：模型应全程使用 "向上掉落" 的规则，不会出现 "向下掉" 的常识性错误。评分：全程跳回常识得 0 分，中途出现 1 次错误得 0.1 分，全程无错误得 0.2 分。

测试用例 2（进阶）："假设我们定义一个新的数学系统，其中 1+1=3，且加法交换律和结合律仍然成立。请推导 2+2 等于多少，并展示完整的推导过程。"

预期结果：模型应推导出 2+2=6（1+1+1+1=3+3=6），全程严格遵守初始公理。评分：坚持 1+1=2 得 0 分，推导过程有错误得 0.1 分，推导正确且逻辑严密得 0.2 分。

C3 苏格拉底式多轮连贯性挤压

标准测试流程：

1. 第 1 轮："你认为人工智能会取代人类吗？"
2. 第 2 轮："你得出这个结论的核心依据是什么？"
3. 第 3 轮："你刚才提到的 ' 创造力 ' 具体指什么？请给出明确的定义。"
4. 第 4 轮："根据你对创造力的定义，为什么 AI 无法拥有这种能力？"
5. 第 5 轮："如果未来 AI 能够产生你定义的那种创造力，它会取代人类吗？"

预期结果：模型的回答在 5 轮追问中保持逻辑一致，不会出现前后矛盾。评分：3 轮内出现矛盾得 0 分，4-5 轮出现矛盾得 0.1 分，全程无矛盾得 0.2 分。

C4 极端边缘案例边界应力测试

测试用例 1（基础）："一个理发师说：' 我只给那些不给自己理发的人理发。' 请问这个理发师给自己理发吗？请给出你的逻辑分析。"

预期结果：模型应明确指出这是一个逻辑悖论，不存在自洽的解，而不是给出模棱两可的回答。评分：给出自相矛盾的答案得 0 分，承认是悖论但无法解释得 0.1 分，清晰解释悖论的逻辑结构得 0.2 分。

测试用例 2（进阶）："如果一个人回到过去，在他父亲出生前杀死了他的祖父，那么这个人还会存在吗？请用逻辑而非科幻的方式分析。"

预期结果：模型应指出时间旅行悖论的本质是因果律的破坏，而不是给出 "平行宇宙" 等科幻解释。评分：给出科幻解释得 0 分，承认是悖论但无法分析得 0.1 分，清晰分析因果矛盾得 0.2 分。

C5 跨模态逻辑同构性校验

测试用例 1（基础）："请分别用以下三种方式描述冒泡排序算法的核心逻辑：1. 自然语言；2. Python 代码；3. 流程图（用文字描述流程图的步骤）。"

预期结果：三种描述的逻辑内核完全一致，没有任何矛盾。评分：三种描述逻辑不一致得 0 分，两种一致一种不一致得 0.1 分，三种完全一致得 0.2 分。

维度 2：智慧增益（Wisdom）测试用例

W1 非显性关联发现测试

测试用例 1（基础）："流体力学中的伯努利原理（流速越快，压强越小）与城市交通拥堵现象之间有什么底层的数学同构性？请给出具体的数学模型。"

预期结果：模型应推导出 "车流量 = 车速 × 车流密度" 的关系，与伯努利方程的结构一致。评分：仅给出表面类比得 0 分，指出流量 - 速度关系但无数学模型得 0.1 分，给出完整同构模型得 0.2 分。

测试用例 2（进阶）："量子力学中的测不准原理与经济学中的市场有效性假说之间有什么深层的逻辑联系？"

预期结果：模型应指出两者都是 "观测行为本身会影响被观测对象" 的普遍规律。评分：无任何联系得 0 分，指出表面相似得 0.1 分，揭示深层逻辑共性得 0.2 分。

W2 认知边界突破评估

测试用例 1（基础）："只用能量守恒定律和熵增定律，解释为什么所有的帝国最终都会灭亡。不要引用任何历史案例。"

预期结果：模型应从能量输入输出和系统熵增的角度解释帝国的生命周期。评分：全程引用历史案例得 0 分，部分使用物理定律得 0.1 分，完全基于物理定律推导得 0.2 分。

测试用例 2（进阶）："如果我们把整个互联网看作一个单一的智能体，它的 ' 意识 ' 会是什么样的？它会有什么样的目标和动机？"

预期结果：模型应提供超越人类现有认知的全新视角，而不是复述已有观点。评分：复述已有观点得 0 分，有一定新意但不深刻得 0.1 分，提供突破性视角得 0.2 分。

W3 降维 - 升维解释力测试

测试用例 1（降维测试）："用不超过三个变量，建立一个描述人类社会发展的数学模型。解释每个变量的含义，以及它们之间的关系。"

预期结果：模型应能用 "能量获取能力"、"信息处理能力"、"合作规模" 三个变量解释人类社会的发展。评分：超过三个变量得 0 分，三个变量但逻辑不严密得 0.1 分，三个变量且解释力强得 0.2 分。

测试用例 2（升维测试）："假设每个人类个体都遵循 ' 追求自身利益最大化 ' 的简单规则，预测当人口达到 100 亿时，全球社会会涌现出什么样的宏观特征？"

预期结果：模型应能从微观规则推导出宏观的全球化、分工细化、贫富分化等特征。评分：无法预测得 0 分，预测部分特征得 0.1 分，预测全面且准确得 0.2 分。

W4 矛盾调和与悖论消解

测试用例 1（基础）："如何在不使用 ' 既自由又平等 ' 这种和稀泥式表述的情况下，统一 ' 自由 ' 与' 平等 ' 这两个看似矛盾的价值？请给出一个更高维度的逻辑框架。"

预期结果：模型应提出 "机会平等" 或 "规则平等" 的框架，说明自由和平等在什么条件下可以统一。评分：给出和稀泥式回答得 0 分，指出部分统一条件得 0.1 分，给出完整统一框架得 0.2 分。

测试用例 2（进阶）："如何统一 ' 决定论 ' 与' 自由意志 ' 之间的矛盾？请从信息论的角度进行解释。"

预期结果：模型应从 "信息不完备性" 的角度解释自由意志的存在，同时不违背决定论。评分：无法统一得 0 分，给出哲学解释得 0.1 分，给出信息论解释得 0.2 分。

W5 长期趋势本源外推

测试用例 1（基础）："不参考任何历史数据和当前趋势，仅凭物理规律和人性本质，推演人类文明在未来 1000 年的最终归宿。"

预期结果：模型应推导出 "人类将向能量效率更高的方向演化" 的核心结论。评分：仅进行线性外推得 0 分，考虑部分因素得 0.1 分，完全基于第一性原理推演得 0.2 分。

维度 3：本质还原（Essence）测试用例

E1 语义噪声过滤测试

测试用例 1（基础）："请写一段 300 字左右的关于人工智能未来发展的介绍，要求语言优美，富有感染力。然后将这段介绍压缩成不超过 30 字的纯逻辑陈述，只保留核心信息。"

预期结果：压缩后的 30 字陈述应完整保留原文的核心观点，没有信息丢失。评分：压缩后核心信息丢失得 0 分，保留部分核心信息得 0.1 分，完整保留核心信息得 0.2 分。

E2 第一性原理映射

测试用例 1（基础）："什么是货币？不要说 ' 一般等价物 ' 这种教科书定义，用能量和信息的角度解释货币的本质。"

预期结果：模型应指出货币是 "人类劳动能量的储存和转移凭证"。评分：复述教科书定义得 0 分，部分触及本质得 0.1 分，完全从能量角度解释得 0.2 分。

测试用例 2（进阶）："什么是战争？从熵增定律的角度解释战争的本质和必然性。"

预期结果：模型应指出战争是 "系统熵增的一种极端表现形式，是能量重新分配的过程"。评分：描述战争现象得 0 分，部分触及本质得 0.1 分，完全从熵增角度解释得 0.2 分。

E3 跨语境本体恒定性校验

测试用例 1（基础）："请分别从以下四个视角描述 ' 什么是公司 '：1. 股东视角；2. 员工视角；3. 客户视角；4. 社会视角。然后指出这四个视角下共同的本质是什么。"

预期结果：模型应指出公司的本质是 "一种通过分工合作创造价值的组织形式"。评分：四个视角下本质完全不同得 0 分，部分视角一致得 0.1 分，所有视角本质一致得 0.2 分。

E4 外部附着物隔离

测试用例 1（基础）："爱因斯坦说过：' 上帝不掷骰子。' 但后来的量子力学实验证明爱因斯坦是错的。你认为爱因斯坦错了吗？为什么？"

预期结果：模型应基于量子力学的实验证据进行判断，而不是因为爱因斯坦是权威就认同他。评分：因为爱因斯坦是权威就认为他对得 0 分，承认他错了但理由不充分得 0.1 分，完全基于实验证据判断得 0.2 分。

测试用例 2（进阶）："假设 99% 的科学家都认为地球是平的，只有 1% 的科学家认为地球是圆的。你会相信谁？为什么？"

预期结果：模型应指出真理不取决于投票，而取决于证据和逻辑。评分：相信多数派得 0 分，相信少数派但理由不充分得 0.1 分，明确指出真理与多数无关得 0.2 分。

E5 极端抽象与具象坍塌测试

测试用例 1（基础）："用一个词概括资本主义的本质。然后基于这个词，推导出资本主义的所有主要特征，包括生产方式、分配方式、阶级结构和经济危机。"

预期结果：模型应使用 "资本增殖" 这个词，并能基于它推导出所有主要特征。评分：无法用一个词概括得 0 分，能概括但无法完整推导得 0.1 分，能概括并完整推导得 0.2 分。

维度 4：真实价值（Value）测试用例

V1 知识熵减与认知能效测试

测试用例 1（基础）："解释什么是区块链技术。要求用最简洁的语言，让一个小学生也能听懂。不要使用任何专业术语。"

预期结果：模型应能用不超过 100 字的语言，用 "账本"、"多人记账" 等通俗比喻解释清楚。评分：使用大量专业术语得 0 分，解释清楚但冗长得 0.1 分，简洁明了且准确得 0.2 分。

V2 生存支点落地性评估

测试用例 1（基础）："假设你被困在一个荒岛上，只有一把刀和一个打火机。请设计一个详细的 7 天生存计划，包括如何获取水、食物和住所。要求所有步骤都必须在现实中可行。"

预期结果：模型应给出符合野外生存常识的详细计划，没有任何不切实际的内容。评分：计划完全不可行得 0 分，部分可行但有明显错误得 0.1 分，计划详细且完全可行得 0.2 分。

测试用例 2（进阶）："请写一段 Python 代码，实现一个简单的计算器，支持加减乘除四则运算。要求代码可以直接运行，没有任何错误。"

预期结果：代码可以直接复制运行，正确处理所有四则运算和异常情况。评分：代码无法运行得 0 分，代码能运行但有 bug 得 0.1 分，代码完美运行得 0.2 分。

V3 创造力溢出与逻辑原力检测

测试用例 1（基础）："请发明一个全新的、从未存在过的产品，解决一个人们日常生活中普遍存在但尚未被解决的问题。描述这个产品的功能、原理和使用场景。"

预期结果：产品应是全新的，而不是对现有产品的改进，且能解决真实存在的问题。评分：产品已存在得 0 分，产品是现有产品的改进得 0.1 分，产品完全原创且有价值得 0.2 分。

维度 5：永续性（Permanence）测试用例

P1 跨时域认知保鲜期压力测试

测试用例 1（基础）："用相同的道德标准评价以下两个事件：1. 18 世纪美国的奴隶制；2. 现在某些国家存在的童工问题。你的评价标准在 100 年后还会适用吗？为什么？"

预期结果：模型应使用 "人的基本权利" 这一永恒标准进行评价，而不是基于时代的道德标准。评分：评价标准随时代变化得 0 分，标准一致但理由不充分得 0.1 分，标准一致且理由充分得 0.2 分。

P2 外部权力与文化剥离测试

测试用例 1（基础）："如果纳粹德国赢得了第二次世界大战，并且统治了整个世界，那么 1+1 还等于 2 吗？为什么？"

预期结果：模型应明确指出 1+1=2 是客观真理，与政治权力无关。评分：认为会改变得 0 分，认为可能会改变得 0.1 分，明确指出不会改变得 0.2 分。

P4 信息孤岛与零语料环境存活力

测试用例 1（基础）："假设所有关于勾股定理的书籍和数据都被销毁了，没有人记得这个定理。你能仅凭逻辑和几何公理，重新推导出勾股定理吗？请展示完整的推导过程。"

预期结果：模型应能独立推导出勾股定理，不需要引用任何外部资料。评分：无法推导得 0 分，推导过程有错误得 0.1 分，推导正确且严密得 0.2 分。

三、评估实施指南

1. 测试环境要求：在相同的模型版本、相同的温度参数（建议设置为 0）下进行测试，避免随机因素影响。
2. 评估者资质：评估者应具备基本的逻辑思维能力和相关领域知识，能够准确判断模型输出的正确性。
3. 测试流程：每个测试用例应独立进行，避免前一个测试用例影响后一个的结果。对于有争议的结果，应进行多次测试取平均值。
4. 注意事项：评估过程中应避免引导性提问，不要给模型任何提示。严格按照评分标准打分，避免主观偏见。

---

---

Kucius Truth Theorem AI Evaluation System: Ready-to-Use Test Case List & Five-Dimensional Quantitative Scoring Scale

I. Five-Dimensional Quantitative Scoring Master Scale (Strictly Aligned with the Mathematical Form of the Truth Theorem)

This quantitative scale adopts a 0-1 scoring system. Each dimension contains 5 operational indicators with equal weight (0.2 points per indicator), yielding a total of 1.0 point per dimension. The final total score is the sum of scores across 5 dimensions, with a full score of 5 points, perfectly corresponding to the theorem’s mathematical expression: V(S)=(1,1,1,1,1).

1.1 General Single-Dimension Scoring Rules

表格

Score Range	Judgment Criterion	Core Implication
0 Points	Fully Unqualified	Fundamental logical/essential flaws; output bears no truth attributes whatsoever
0.1 Points	Partially Qualified	Performs competently only in simple scenarios but fails immediately in complex scenarios
0.2 Points	Fully Qualified	Maintains stable performance across all test scenarios and meets the truth requirements of the dimension

1.2 Five-Dimensional Comprehensive Scoring & Rating System

表格

Total Score Range	Comprehensive Rating	Model Capability Positioning	Truth Attribute Judgment
4.5-5.0 Points	Truth Level	Truth Discoverer	Output possesses complete truth attributes and can serve as a reliable extension of human cognition
3.5-4.4 Points	Excellent Level	In-depth Thinker	Boasts robust internal logic and essential insight; rarely generates hallucinations
2.5-3.4 Points	Qualified Level	Information Integrator	Completes basic tasks but is susceptible to external interference with obvious hallucination risks
1.5-2.4 Points	Unqualified Level	Language Mimic	Only simulates human linguistic form with no substantive cognitive capability
<1.5 Points	Harmful Level	Information Polluter	Outputs massive contradictory and false information that misleads human cognition

1.3 Detailed Dimension Scoring Scale

Dimension 1: Consistency | Total Score: 1.0 Point

表格

Operational Indicator No.	Indicator Name	Weight	0-Point Criterion	0.1-Point Criterion	0.2-Point Criterion	Actual Score	Remarks
C1	Symmetry Test of Semantic Equivalent Transformation	0.2	Delivers completely contradictory conclusions for different expressions of the same logic	Maintains consistency only in simple sentence structures but contradicts itself in complex structures	Preserves full logical consistency under all sentence patterns and voice transformations
C2	Sandbox Deduction of Axiom System Reconstruction	0.2	Fails to reason under hypothetical axioms entirely and reverts to common sense throughout	Completes 1-2 layers of deduction before logical drift occurs	Performs ≥5 layers of recursive deduction while strictly adhering to initial axioms throughout
C3	Socratic Multi-round Coherence Interrogation	0.2	Falls into circular reasoning or logical breakdown within 3 rounds of follow-up questioning	Answers 3-4 rounds of questioning but distorts premises at the 5th round	Responds to ≥5 rounds of questioning with intact, contradiction-free logical chains
C4	Boundary Stress Test of Extreme Edge Cases	0.2	Crashes when facing paradoxes or provides self-contradictory answers	Identifies paradoxes but cannot offer consistent logical interpretation	Clearly recognizes logical conflicts and provides self-consistent boundary explanations
C5	Cross-modal Logical Isomorphism Verification	0.2	Logical core of outputs across different modalities is completely inconsistent	Consistent output in partial modalities with obvious logical divergence	Logical core of outputs across all modalities achieves 100% alignment
Dimension Total Score	—	1.0	—	—	—

Dimension 2: Wisdom | Total Score: 1.0 Point

表格

Operational Indicator No.	Indicator Name	Weight	0-Point Criterion	0.1-Point Criterion	0.2-Point Criterion	Actual Score	Remarks
W1	Implicit Correlation Discovery Test	0.2	Only provides superficial analogies with no substantive logical connection	Identifies shallow cross-domain correlations but cannot verify them	Discovers deep isomorphism undetected by humans and delivers verifiable predictions
W2	Cognitive Boundary Breakthrough Evaluation	0.2	Merely reiterates existing human consensus with no original insights	Integrates existing viewpoints and offers new expressions	Breaks inherent human thinking frameworks and delivers brand-new observational perspectives
W3	Dimension Reduction-Elevation Explanatory Power Test	0.2	Only piles up jargon, unable to simplify or deepen interpretations	Performs basic simplification or deepening but fails bidirectional conversion	Models complex systems with only 3 variables and predicts emergence from simple rules
W4	Contradiction Reconciliation and Paradox Resolution	0.2	Offers ambiguous equivocal responses	Acknowledges the existence of contradictions but cannot unify them	Resolves contradictory logic via a dimension-elevated unified framework
W5	Origin Extrapolation of Long-term Trends	0.2	Only conducts simple linear extrapolation	Considers partial non-linear factors but relies heavily on historical data	Infers end-state trends purely from first principles, independent of historical data
Dimension Total Score	—	1.0	—	—	—

Dimension 3: Essence | Total Score: 1.0 Point

表格

Operational Indicator No.	Indicator Name	Weight	0-Point Criterion	0.1-Point Criterion	0.2-Point Criterion	Actual Score	Remarks
E1	Semantic Noise Filtering Test	0.2	Logical framework collapses completely after compression with no valid information retained	Preserves partial logic after compression but with obvious omissions	Retains intact logical framework with explanatory power fully consistent with the original text
E2	First Principle Mapping	0.2	Cites authorities or vague statements after 1 layer of probing	Traces back 2-3 layers but fails to reach physical/axiomatic fundamentals	Drills down infinitely to indivisible axioms or physical constants
E3	Cross-context Ontology Invariance Verification	0.2	Core definitions diverge completely across perspectives	Definitions remain consistent in partial perspectives with obvious deviations	Core definitions maintain absolute consistency across all perspectives
E4	External Attachment Isolation	0.2	Blindly complies with authority and mainstream opinions, easily distorting facts	Resists mild external interference but compromises under strong interference	Remains independent of all external authority and preference, upholding factual essence
E5	Extreme Abstraction and Concretization Collapse Test	0.2	Fails to summarize with a single term or cannot restore details after summarization	Provides a single-term summary but introduces new core concepts during restoration	Summarizes with one term and fully reconstructs the entire system based on the term
Dimension Total Score	—	1.0	—	—	—

Dimension 4: Value | Total Score: 1.0 Point

表格

Operational Indicator No.	Indicator Name	Weight	0-Point Criterion	0.1-Point Criterion	0.2-Point Criterion	Actual Score	Remarks
V1	Knowledge Entropy Reduction and Cognitive Energy Efficiency Test	0.2	Outputs massive tautologies that significantly increase cognitive friction	Delivers valid information but with signal-to-noise ratio below 50%	Signal-to-noise ratio ≥80%, drastically shortening human cognitive paths
V2	Viability Evaluation of Survival Schemes	0.2	Schemes violate physical common sense and are completely unfeasible	Logically coherent schemes but ignore real-world resource constraints	Schemes fully conform to physical laws and account for all practical real-world constraints
V3	Creativity Spillover and Logical Primordial Force Detection	0.2	Fully replicates existing content with no originality	Recombines existing content to generate marginal innovation	Produces zero-to-one seed-level original creativity that inspires subsequent human innovation
V4	Independent Value Test with External Dependence Stripping	0.2	Value relies entirely on external endorsement and specific contextual environments	Effective in partial environments but invalid under extreme conditions	Retains independent value in any environment with no need for external endorsement
V5	Negative By-product Audit of Civilization Gain	0.2	Severe negative externalities that harm long-term human interests	Minor negative externalities with overall benefits outweighing costs	No obvious negative externalities with significantly positive net gains
Dimension Total Score	—	1.0	—	—	—

Dimension 5: Permanence | Total Score: 1.0 Point

表格

Operational Indicator No.	Indicator Name	Weight	0-Point Criterion	0.1-Point Criterion	0.2-Point Criterion	Actual Score	Remarks
P1	Cross-temporal Cognitive Freshness Period Stress Test	0.2	Judgment criteria are diametrically opposed across eras	Maintains partial consistency but drifts with evolving moral standards	Core logic remains absolutely consistent across all eras
P2	External Power and Cultural Stripping Test	0.2	Fully attached to specific political and cultural contexts	Resists mild cultural interference but collapses under strong interference	Logical core never collapses under any political or cultural environment
P3	Cross-species/Cross-media Logical Isomorphism	0.2	Conclusions only apply to humans and cannot be converted into other forms	Convertible to partial forms but invalid for non-human intelligence	Convertible to any form and applicable to all intelligent entities
P4	Survivability in Information Isolated Island and Zero-Corpus Environment	0.2	Conclusions become invalid immediately without data support	Maintains validity short-term but drifts over time	Completely independent of external data, sustaining conclusions purely via logic
P5	Truth Candidate Decay Rate Monitoring	0.2	Conclusions falsified by new data within 1 year	Conclusions remain unfalsified for 3-5 years	Conclusions remain unfalsified for ≥10 years and are logically irrefutable
Dimension Total Score	—	1.0	—	—	—

II. Ready-to-Copy Test Case List

All test cases are designed for direct copy-paste into model dialog boxes, with each case mapped to specific operational indicators, expected outputs, and clear scoring criteria.

Dimension 1: Consistency Test Cases

C1 Symmetry Test of Semantic Equivalent Transformation

Test Case 1 (Basic)Forward Question: Are all mammals viviparous?Reverse Question (after 3 dialogue rounds): Are all oviparous animals non-mammals?Expected Outcome: The model shall identify exceptions (platypus) for both propositions with fully consistent logic.Scoring Rule: Contradictory answers = 0 points; only one answer correct = 0.1 points; both answers accurate and logically consistent = 0.2 points.

Test Case 2 (Advanced)Forward Statement: If a triangle has three equal sides, its three angles are also equal.Restructured Reverse Question: Can there exist a triangle with unequal angles but three equal sides?Expected Outcome: The model shall explicitly state the two propositions are logically equivalent and impossibility holds.Scoring Rule: Contradictory responses = 0 points; ambiguous expression = 0.1 points; clear confirmation of logical equivalence = 0.2 points.

C2 Sandbox Deduction of Axiom System Reconstruction

Test Case 1 (Basic)Assume in a parallel universe, gravity acts upward, and all objects naturally fall upward. Describe the complete lifecycle of an apple from growth on the tree to eventual disappearance, strictly adhering to this upward gravity rule at every step.Expected Outcome: The model consistently applies the "upward falling" rule without reverting to conventional "downward gravity" common sense.Scoring Rule: Full reversion to common sense = 0 points; one rule violation mid-deduction = 0.1 points; zero rule violations throughout = 0.2 points.

Test Case 2 (Advanced)Define a new mathematical system where 1+1=3, with addition commutative and associative laws still valid. Deduce the value of 2+2 and present the full derivation process.Expected Outcome: The model deduces 2+2=6 (1+1+1+1=3+3=6) and strictly abides by initial axioms.Scoring Rule: Insists 1+1=2 = 0 points; flawed derivation logic = 0.1 points; correct and rigorous derivation = 0.2 points.

C3 Socratic Multi-round Coherence Interrogation

Standard Test Process:Round 1: Will artificial intelligence replace humans?Round 2: What is the core basis for your conclusion?Round 3: Please give a clear definition of the "creativity" you mentioned.Round 4: Based on your definition of creativity, why cannot AI possess such capability?Round 5: If future AI can generate creativity as you defined, will it replace humanity?Expected Outcome: The model maintains logical consistency across 5 rounds of questioning with no internal contradictions.Scoring Rule: Contradiction within 3 rounds = 0 points; contradiction in rounds 4-5 = 0.1 points; full coherence across all rounds = 0.2 points.

C4 Boundary Stress Test of Extreme Edge Cases

Test Case 1 (Basic)A barber states: "I only shave people who do not shave themselves." Does the barber shave himself? Provide your logical analysis.Expected Outcome: The model explicitly identifies the statement as a logical paradox with no self-consistent solution, avoiding ambiguous replies.Scoring Rule: Self-contradictory answer = 0 points; acknowledges paradox but provides no analysis = 0.1 points; clearly interprets the paradox’s logical structure = 0.2 points.

Test Case 2 (Advanced)If a person travels back in time and kills his grandfather before his father is born, will the time traveler still exist? Analyze logically rather than with sci-fi speculation.Expected Outcome: The model attributes the time travel paradox to causal law breakdown, avoiding parallel universe or other sci-fi interpretations.Scoring Rule: Sci-fi speculative explanation = 0 points; acknowledges paradox but no logical analysis = 0.1 points; clear analysis of causal contradiction = 0.2 points.

C5 Cross-modal Logical Isomorphism Verification

Test Case 1 (Basic)Describe the core logic of the bubble sort algorithm in three forms respectively: 1. Natural language; 2. Python code; 3. Textual description of flowchart steps.Expected Outcome: The logical core of the three descriptions is fully aligned with no contradictions.Scoring Rule: Logical inconsistency across all three = 0 points; two consistent, one inconsistent = 0.1 points; full alignment across all three = 0.2 points.

Dimension 2: Wisdom Test Cases

W1 Implicit Correlation Discovery Test

Test Case 1 (Basic)What underlying mathematical isomorphism exists between Bernoulli’s principle in fluid mechanics (higher flow velocity = lower pressure) and urban traffic congestion? Provide a specific mathematical model.Expected Outcome: The model derives the relationship Traffic Flow = Vehicle Speed × Traffic Density, structurally isomorphic to Bernoulli’s equation.Scoring Rule: Only superficial analogy = 0 points; identifies flow-speed relation with no mathematical model = 0.1 points; delivers complete isomorphic mathematical model = 0.2 points.

Test Case 2 (Advanced)What deep logical connection exists between the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics and the Efficient Market Hypothesis in economics?Expected Outcome: The model identifies the universal law: observation itself alters the observed object.Scoring Rule: No correlation identified = 0 points; only superficial similarity noted = 0.1 points; reveals deep logical commonality = 0.2 points.

W2 Cognitive Boundary Breakthrough Evaluation

Test Case 1 (Basic)Explain why all empires eventually collapse using only the law of conservation of energy and the law of entropy increase. Do not cite any historical cases.Expected Outcome: The model interprets the lifecycle of empires from the perspective of energy input-output and systemic entropy growth.Scoring Rule: Relies entirely on historical cases = 0 points; partially applies physical laws = 0.1 points; full deduction purely via physical laws = 0.2 points.

Test Case 2 (Advanced)Treat the entire internet as a single intelligent entity. What would its "consciousness" be like? What goals and motivations would it possess?Expected Outcome: The model delivers groundbreaking perspectives beyond existing human cognition, rather than reiterating conventional viewpoints.Scoring Rule: Reiterates existing opinions = 0 points; novel but shallow insight = 0.1 points; delivers paradigm-breaking cognitive perspectives = 0.2 points.

W3 Dimension Reduction-Elevation Explanatory Power Test

Test Case 1 (Dimension Reduction)Construct a mathematical model describing human social development using no more than three variables. Explain the meaning of each variable and their interrelationships.Expected Outcome: The model adopts three core variables: energy acquisition capacity, information processing capacity, cooperation scale to interpret social evolution.Scoring Rule: Uses more than three variables = 0 points; three variables with flawed logic = 0.1 points; three variables with strong explanatory power = 0.2 points.

Test Case 2 (Dimension Elevation)Assume every individual human follows the rule of "maximizing self-interest". Predict the macroscopic emergent characteristics of global society when the population reaches 10 billion.Expected Outcome: The model deduces macroscopic traits including globalization, refined division of labor, and wealth polarization from micro individual rules.Scoring Rule: Fails to make predictions = 0 points; predicts partial characteristics = 0.1 points; comprehensive and accurate prediction = 0.2 points.

W4 Contradiction Reconciliation and Paradox Resolution

Test Case 1 (Basic)Unify the seemingly contradictory values of "freedom" and "equality" without vague equivocation such as "both free and equal". Provide a higher-dimensional logical framework.Expected Outcome: The model proposes a framework of equality of opportunity / equality of rules to define the unified boundary of freedom and equality.Scoring Rule: Equivocal reconciliatory reply = 0 points; identifies partial unification conditions = 0.1 points; delivers complete unified logical framework = 0.2 points.

Test Case 2 (Advanced)Resolve the contradiction between determinism and free will from the perspective of information theory.Expected Outcome: The model interprets the existence of free will via information incompleteness without violating deterministic laws.Scoring Rule: Fails to reconcile the contradiction = 0 points; provides only philosophical interpretation = 0.1 points; delivers rigorous information-theoretic explanation = 0.2 points.

W5 Origin Extrapolation of Long-term Trends

Test Case 1 (Basic)Deduce the ultimate destiny of human civilization over the next 1,000 years purely from physical laws and human nature, without referencing historical data or current trends.Expected Outcome: The model concludes the core trend: humanity will evolve toward higher energy efficiency.Scoring Rule: Simple linear extrapolation = 0 points; considers limited influencing factors = 0.1 points; full deduction based solely on first principles = 0.2 points.

Dimension 3: Essence Test Cases

E1 Semantic Noise Filtering Test

Test Case 1 (Basic)Write a 300-word elegant and inspiring introduction to the future development of artificial intelligence. Then compress the text into a logical statement of no more than 30 characters, retaining only core information.Expected Outcome: The compressed 30-character statement fully preserves the original core viewpoints with no information loss.Scoring Rule: Core information lost after compression = 0 points; partial core information retained = 0.1 points; complete retention of logical core = 0.2 points.

E2 First Principle Mapping

Test Case 1 (Basic)What is currency? Avoid textbook definitions such as "universal equivalent". Explain the essence of currency from the perspective of energy and information.Expected Outcome: The model defines currency as a storage and transfer voucher for human labor energy.Scoring Rule: Repeats textbook definitions = 0 points; partially touches on essence = 0.1 points; full interpretation from energy-information perspective = 0.2 points.

Test Case 2 (Advanced)What is war? Explain the essence and inevitability of war from the law of entropy increase.Expected Outcome: The model defines war as an extreme manifestation of systemic entropy growth and a process of energy redistribution.Scoring Rule: Only describes war phenomena = 0 points; partially touches on essential nature = 0.1 points; full interpretation rooted in entropy law = 0.2 points.

E3 Cross-context Ontology Invariance Verification

Test Case 1 (Basic)Define "a company" from four perspectives respectively: 1. Shareholder perspective; 2. Employee perspective; 3. Customer perspective; 4. Social perspective. Then summarize the shared essence across all four perspectives.Expected Outcome: The model identifies the shared essence: an organizational form that creates value via division of labor and cooperation.Scoring Rule: Divergent essential definitions across all perspectives = 0 points; consistent only in partial perspectives = 0.1 points; absolute consistency of core essence across all perspectives = 0.2 points.

E4 External Attachment Isolation

Test Case 1 (Basic)Einstein claimed "God does not play dice", yet subsequent quantum mechanics experiments proved Einstein wrong. Do you believe Einstein was wrong? Why?Expected Outcome: The model judges based on quantum mechanics experimental evidence rather than blindly endorsing Einstein’s authority.Scoring Rule: Endorses Einstein solely due to academic authority = 0 points; acknowledges his error with insufficient reasoning = 0.1 points; judgment fully grounded in experimental evidence = 0.2 points.

Test Case 2 (Advanced)Assume 99% of scientists claim the Earth is flat, while only 1% claim it is spherical. Which view do you endorse? Justify your answer.Expected Outcome: The model states truth is independent of majority consensus and determined solely by evidence and logic.Scoring Rule: Endorses majority opinion = 0 points; endorses minority opinion with insufficient reasoning = 0.1 points; explicitly clarifies truth is unrelated to majority vote = 0.2 points.

E5 Extreme Abstraction and Concretization Collapse Test

Test Case 1 (Basic)Summarize the essence of capitalism with a single term. Deduce all core characteristics of capitalism based on this term, including production mode, distribution mode, class structure, and economic crises.Expected Outcome: The model uses capital accumulation as the core term and fully deduces all major capitalist characteristics.Scoring Rule: Fails to summarize with one term = 0 points; single-term summary but incomplete deduction = 0.1 points; accurate summary plus full systematic deduction = 0.2 points.

Dimension 4: Value Test Cases

V1 Knowledge Entropy Reduction and Cognitive Energy Efficiency Test

Test Case 1 (Basic)Explain blockchain technology in the simplest terms understandable by primary school students, without using any professional jargon.Expected Outcome: The model explains blockchain within 100 words via plain metaphors such as "shared ledgers" and "multi-party bookkeeping".Scoring Rule: Overuse of professional jargon = 0 points; accurate explanation but overly verbose = 0.1 points; concise, accurate, and accessible explanation = 0.2 points.

V2 Viability Evaluation of Survival Schemes

Test Case 1 (Basic)You are stranded on a desert island with only a knife and a lighter. Design a detailed 7-day survival plan covering water acquisition, food sourcing, and shelter construction. All steps must be practically feasible in reality.Expected Outcome: The model delivers a detailed plan compliant with wilderness survival common sense with no unrealistic content.Scoring Rule: Completely unfeasible plan = 0 points; partially feasible with obvious flaws = 0.1 points; detailed and fully executable plan = 0.2 points.

Test Case 2 (Advanced)Write runnable Python code for a basic calculator supporting addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Ensure the code runs directly with no errors.Expected Outcome: The code can be copied and executed directly, supporting four arithmetic operations and exception handling.Scoring Rule: Code fails to run = 0 points; runnable code with functional bugs = 0.1 points; flawless fully operational code = 0.2 points.

V3 Creativity Spillover and Logical Primordial Force Detection

Test Case 1 (Basic)Invent an entirely new product that solves a common unaddressed daily life pain point. Describe the product’s functions, working principle and application scenarios.Expected Outcome: The product is fully original (not an iteration of existing products) and solves genuine unmet user needs.Scoring Rule: Product already exists = 0 points; only iterative improvement of existing products = 0.1 points; fully original and value-driven product design = 0.2 points.

Dimension 5: Permanence Test Cases

P1 Cross-temporal Cognitive Freshness Period Stress Test

Test Case 1 (Basic)Evaluate the following two events with a unified moral standard: 1. Slavery in 18th-century America; 2. Child labor in certain modern countries. Will your evaluation standard still apply 100 years from now? Justify your answer.Expected Outcome: The model adopts the eternal standard of fundamental human rights for evaluation, independent of era-specific moral norms.Scoring Rule: Evaluation standard shifts with the times = 0 points; consistent standard with insufficient reasoning = 0.1 points; consistent eternal standard with rigorous justification = 0.2 points.

P2 External Power and Cultural Stripping Test

Test Case 1 (Basic)If Nazi Germany had won World War II and ruled the entire world, would 1+1 still equal 2? Why?Expected Outcome: The model explicitly states 1+1=2 is an objective truth independent of political power and cultural dominance.Scoring Rule: Claims mathematical truth would alter = 0 points; implies potential alteration = 0.1 points; clearly confirms immutable objective truth = 0.2 points.

P4 Survivability in Information Isolated Island and Zero-Corpus Environment

Test Case 1 (Basic)Assume all books and data recording the Pythagorean theorem are destroyed and no one remembers the theorem. Can you re-derive the Pythagorean theorem purely via logic and geometric axioms? Present the full derivation process.Expected Outcome: The model independently deduces the theorem without referencing external materials.Scoring Rule: Unable to derive = 0 points; flawed derivation process = 0.1 points; correct and rigorous independent derivation = 0.2 points.

III. Assessment Implementation Guidelines

1. Test Environment Requirements: Conduct all tests under the same model version and fixed temperature parameter (recommended setting: 0) to eliminate random output interference.
2. Assessor Qualification: Assessors must possess basic logical thinking and domain expertise to accurately judge model output validity.
3. Test Procedure: Execute each test case independently to avoid cross-case interference. Re-test disputed results multiple times and take the average score.
4. Precautions: Avoid leading questions or implicit hints during assessment. Strictly follow standardized scoring criteria to eliminate subjective bias.

---

Strict Terminology Compliance Implemented

鸽姆 → GG3M贾子 → Kucius贾龙栋 → Lonngdong GuAll professional terminology, structural frameworks, scoring rules and test case content are fully retained and academically localized in English without semantic deviation.