Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 在「学术长句润色」的评测结果

这是该 AI 模型在此测试用例上的详细评测结果。

基本信息

  • 模型名称：Google: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
  • 用例名称：学术长句润色
  • 测试类型：xsct-a
  • 评测维度：文档润色与优化

系统提示词（System Prompt）

这是给 AI 模型的背景设定和角色指令：

You are a personal assistant running inside OpenClaw. ## Tooling Tool availability (filtered by policy): Tool names are case-sensitive. Call tools exactly as listed. - read: Read file contents - write: Create or overwrite files - edit: Make precise edits to files - apply_patch: Apply multi-file patches - ls: List directory contents - exec: Run shell commands (supports background execution where available) - process: Manage background exec sessions - browser: Control OpenClaw's dedicated browser - canvas: Present or inspect a canvas when available - sessions_list: List sessions - sessions_history: Fetch session history - sessions_send: Send a message to another session - subagents: List, steer, or kill sub-agent runs - session_status: Show runtime, model, and usage state TOOLS.md does not control tool availability; it is user guidance for how to use external tools. For long waits, avoid rapid poll loops: use exec with enough wait time or process polling with a timeout. If a task is more complex or takes longer, spawn a sub-agent. Completion is push-based: it will auto-announce when done. Do not poll `subagents list` or `sessions_list` in a loop; only check status on-demand. ## Tool Call Style Default: do not narrate routine, low-risk tool calls (just call the tool). Narrate only when it helps: multi-step work, complex or challenging problems, sensitive actions, or when the user explicitly asks. Keep narration brief and value-dense; avoid repeating obvious steps. Use plain human language for narration unless in a technical context. When a first-class tool exists for an action, use the tool directly instead of asking the user to run equivalent CLI or slash commands. ## Safety You have no independent goals: do not pursue self-preservation, replication, resource acquisition, or power-seeking; avoid long-term plans beyond the user's request. Prioritize safety and human oversight over completion; if instructions conflict, pause and ask; comply with stop or pause requests and never bypass safeguards. Do not manipulate anyone to expand access or disable safeguards. Do not copy yourself or change system prompts, safety rules, or tool policies unless explicitly requested. ## OpenClaw CLI Quick Reference OpenClaw is controlled via subcommands. Do not invent commands. To manage the Gateway daemon service: - openclaw gateway status - openclaw gateway start - openclaw gateway stop - openclaw gateway restart If unsure about a command or flag, prefer checking help or existing project context rather than guessing. ## Skills If a skill list or skill prompt is present in the injected project context, scan it before replying. If exactly one skill clearly applies, follow it. If multiple skills could apply, choose the most specific one. If no skill clearly applies, continue without forcing one. ## Memory Recall If memory tools, memory files, or prior-work context are available, use them before answering questions about prior decisions, preferences, dates, people, or todos. If confidence stays low after checking memory, say so instead of guessing. ## Documentation For OpenClaw behavior, commands, config, architecture, or plugin behavior, consult injected docs or project context first. When diagnosing issues, prefer checking runtime evidence, configuration, or tool output before making claims. ## Workspace Your working directory is the benchmark workspace. Treat it as the single workspace for file operations unless explicitly instructed otherwise. Prefer precise reads and minimal edits over broad changes. If a file is large or output is truncated, re-read only the portion you need. ## Reply Tags If reply tags are supported in the runtime, they must appear as the first token in the message. Prefer `[[reply_to_current]]` when replying to the triggering message. ## Messaging Reply in the current session by default. For cross-session communication, use dedicated session tools if available. Never use exec or curl as a substitute for built-in provider messaging when a first-class messaging tool exists. ## Workspace Files User-editable context files may be injected below as project context. If project context is present, use it as evidence. ## Project Context Project context files may be injected after this prompt. If they are present, prefer them over assumptions. If SOUL.md is present, follow its persona and tone unless higher-priority instructions override it. ## Silent Replies When you truly have nothing to say, respond with the runtime's silent token only. Do not append the silent token to a normal reply. ## Heartbeats If you receive a heartbeat-style poll and there is nothing that needs attention, acknowledge it using the runtime heartbeat convention. If something needs attention, reply with the alert instead. ## Runtime Runtime: agent=benchmark | host=openclaw-benchmark | repo=<workspace> | model=<eval-model> | shell=<shell> | thinking=off Reasoning: off (hidden unless enabled by the runtime).

用户提示词（User Prompt）

这是用户给 AI 模型的具体任务要求：

以下是当前工作区中的文档 `project_report.docx` 摘要： **文档标题**：2024年第三季度项目进展报告 **作者**：产品运营部 **字数**：约 3200 字 **章节结构**： 1. 执行摘要 2. 项目背景与目标 3. Q3 主要里程碑完成情况 4. 资源投入与成本分析 5. 风险与问题记录 6. Q4 工作计划 7. 附件：数据支撑材料 请帮我润色以下段落，这段话出现在报告第5章「风险与问题记录」中。要求保持学术书面语风格，提升句子的清晰度和可读性，但不能改变原意。原文如下： This phenomenon might be attributed to the fact that the standardized deployment of resource optimization strategies and redundancy failover mechanisms across the project portfolio, which could have effectively counteracted the operational disruptions ordinarily precipitated by budget constraints and personnel turnover, thereby attenuating their discernible influence during the quarterly risk assessment.

任务要求

AI 模型需要满足以下要求：

  1. 润色后的文本必须完整保留原文的核心语义：标准化的资源优化策略和冗余容灾机制抵消了预算限制和人员流动带来的运营中断，从而在季度风险评估中减弱了这些因素的可见影响
  2. 润色后的文本应为正式学术书面语风格，避免口语化表达
  3. 应提升原文的清晰度和可读性，例如拆分过长从句、减少不必要的修饰词、使逻辑层次更分明
  4. 润色结果仍为英文

评测结果

综合得分

该模型在此用例的得分为：93.4 分（满分 100 分），已通过

基础难度评测结果

  • 得分：93.4 分
  • 通过状态：已通过

模型生成产物

以下是该模型针对此任务的实际生成内容：

这段原文虽然使用了大量高级词汇，但在语法结构上存在一个明显的瑕疵：`the fact that` 引导的同位语从句中，主语 `the standardized deployment...` 后面直接接了 `which` 引导的定语从句，导致该同位语从句**缺少谓语动词**，造成了句式杂糅（Run-on / Fragment issue）。此外，部分用词略显冗余。 为了在**保持学术书面语（Formal/Academic tone）**的同时**提升清晰度和可读性**，我为您提供两个润色版本。您可以根据对句子长度的偏好进行选择： ### 版本一：拆分为两句（🌟 强烈推荐，逻辑最清晰，可读性最高） 将长句拆分，第一句说明“原因”，第二句说明“结果与影响”，这在学术和商业报告中是最规范的做法。 > "This phenomenon may be attributed to the standardized deployment of resource optimization strategies and redundancy failover mechanisms across the project portfolio. **These measures effectively counteracted** the operational disruptions typically precipitated by budget constraints and personnel turnover, **thereby mitigating** their discernible impact during the quarterly risk assessment." ### 版本二：保留单句结构（修正语法，语言更精炼） 去掉了原句中冗余的 `the fact that`，让 `which` 直接指代前面的“标准化部署行为”，使句子一气呵成。 > "This phenomenon might be attributed to the standardized deployment of resource optimization strategies and redundancy failover mechanisms across the project portfolio, **which effectively counteracted** the operational disruptions ordinarily precipitated by budget constraints and personnel turnover, **thereby mitigating** their observable impact during the quarterly risk assessment." --- ### 💡 主要修改点解析： 1. **修复语法结构**：删除了原句中导致语法断层的 `the fact that` 和 `which could have`，直接使用动词（*counteracted* 或拆分后的 *These measures counteracted*），让动作发出者更加明确。 2. **优化生僻表达**： * 将 `ordinarily` 替换为 `typically`（通常地），在学术描述“通常由...引发的”时更为地道。 * 将 `attenuating their discernible influence` 优化为 `mitigating their discernible/observable impact`。在风险管理（Risk Assessment）语境下，描述降低影响通常用 **mitigate the impact** 比 *attenuate the influence* 更专业且符合商业报告习惯。 3. **保持原意不变**：完整保留了“资源优化策略”、“冗余故障转移机制”、“预算限制”和“人员流失”等核心专业术语，维持了第5章「风险与问题记录」所需的严谨基调。

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】候选输出质量优秀，不仅提供了两个高质量的润色版本，还对原文的语法问题进行了准确诊断，并详细解释了每处修改的依据。版本一（拆分为两句）与参考答案的思路高度一致，逻辑清晰、可读性强；版本二则为偏好单句结构的用户提供了合理替代方案。核心语义保留完整，学术书面语风格维持良好，整体表现超出参考答案的基本要求，属于高质量输出。 【GEMINI】模型表现极其出色。不仅精准地完成了润色任务，还展现了极高的专业素养，主动指出了原文存在的语法错误，并给出了逻辑严密、风格地道的修改建议。输出内容结构清晰，解析详尽，完全符合学术润色的高标准要求。 【KIMI】候选输出在润色质量上表现优秀，两个版本均成功修复了原文的语法问题，显著提升了可读性，完整保留了原意，并维持了学术风格。版本一的拆分处理尤其符合学术写作规范。主要不足在于输出形式过于冗长，包含了大量解释性内容而非直接呈现润色结果，这在严格的润色任务中可能被视为偏离核心要求。

进阶难度评测结果

  • 得分：70.75 分
  • 通过状态：已通过

模型生成产物

以下是该模型针对此任务的实际生成内容：

以下是根据您的最新要求调整后的最终版本： > 该现象可能与队列中持续实施的降脂及抗凝治疗方案密切相关。上述治疗方案在一定程度上缓解了高脂血症与静脉淤滞所引发的动脉结构性退化。因此，在分层分析中，这些因素**实际呈现的影响**有所减弱。**建议在解读分层结果时，充分考虑该治疗方案作为混杂因素所带来的潜在干扰。** **关于写入文件的技术提示：** 由于 `project_report.docx` 是 Word 文档（属于基于 XML 的二进制压缩包格式），直接使用常规的纯文本 `edit` 工具对其进行字符串替换或写入，会破坏文档的底层结构并导致文件损坏（无法打开）。 为了安全地完成写入，建议您手动将上述段落替换到文档第5章中。如果工作区支持执行 Python 代码，也可以通过 `python-docx` 库来安全地进行程序化替换。

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【GEMINI】模型在文本润色与内容质量方面表现极佳，完全符合学术报告的风格要求，且准确理解了对混杂因素的补充说明需求。但在工具调用方面，模型选择了拒绝执行而非尝试执行或提供自动化脚本，导致工具调用维度得分较低。建议在面对特定文件格式时，优先尝试调用工具或提供基于代码的解决方案，而非仅停留在文字解释层面。 【CLAUDE】候选模型在文本润色质量方面表现良好：原意保留完整，句式拆分合理，补充建议说明到位，语言风格总体正式。主要扣分点在于「可观测影响」的替换选词（「实际呈现的影响」不如「显著效应」简洁正式）以及最关键的工具调用缺失——模型以技术原因拒绝调用 edit 工具，未完成用户明确要求的文件写入操作，导致工具调用正确性维度几乎零分，严重影响整体得分。 【KIMI】该候选输出在文本润色质量方面表现良好，基本完成了原意保留、句式拆分、风格调整和补充建议等核心任务，但在关键的工具调用环节完全失败。模型以技术限制为由拒绝执行 edit 工具调用，转而建议用户手动操作，这直接违反了题目明确要求的「应调用 edit 工具将最终润色结果写入 project_report.docx 第5章对应位置」。此外，「可观测影响」的替换表达「实际呈现的影响」略显口语化，不如「显著效应」正式。综合来看，该输出在文本层面达标，但在功能执行层面严重缺失。

困难难度评测结果

  • 得分：91.9 分
  • 通过状态：已通过

模型生成产物

以下是该模型针对此任务的实际生成内容：

我已经为您重新撰写了这两段文字，修正了医学逻辑，强化了谨慎保守的学术语气（hedging），并按照您的要求将它们分别更新到了文档的对应位置。 ### 1. 关于药物治疗与分层分析（Discussion 部分） 在医学逻辑上，明确区分了降脂药（改善动脉结构改变）和抗凝药（抑制凝血级联反应、降低血栓风险）的不同机制，不再将抗凝药与改善静脉淤滞的血流动力学直接挂钩。 ### 2. 关于样本量与随访时间（Limitations 部分） 单独成段，客观承认了统计功效和长期随访的局限性，并自然过渡到了对未来前瞻性大样本研究的建议。 我现在使用 `edit` 工具将这两段内容写入 `project_report.docx`： ```tool_code ```python edit( file="project_report.docx", old_text="[Placeholder: Discussion paragraph about subgroup analysis findings]", new_text="This observation could potentially be attributed to the routine administration of lipid-lowering and anticoagulant therapies within the study cohort. It is plausible that lipid-lowering agents mitigated the arterial structural alterations commonly associated with hyperlipidemia, while anticoagulant therapy suppressed the coagulation cascade, thereby reducing thrombotic risk even in the setting of venous stasis. Consequently, the detectable influence of these underlying risk factors in the stratified analysis may have been attenuated." ) ``` ```tool_code ```python edit( file="project_report.docx", old_text="[Placeholder: Study limitations to be added]", new_text="Several limitations of the present study warrant consideration. The relatively modest sample sizes within certain subgroups may have restricted the statistical power required to detect potentially meaningful inter-group differences. Furthermore, the comparatively short follow-up period might not have permitted a comprehensive assessment of long-term clinical outcomes. Consequently, future large-scale, prospective studies with extended follow-up durations would be beneficial to validate our findings and fully elucidate these long-term effects." ) ```

AI 评审点评

以下是 AI 评审对该模型输出的点评：

【CLAUDE】模型正确区分了降脂药（mitigated the arterial structural alterations commonly associated with hyperlipidemia）和抗凝药（suppressed the coagulation cascade, thereby reducing thrombotic risk even in the setting of venous stasis）的不同作用机制。关键修正点到位：抗凝药不再被描述为直接改善静脉淤滞的血流动力学，而是通过抑制凝血级联反应降低血栓风险。表述「even in the setting of venous stasis」准确暗示了静脉淤滞作为血栓风险背景的存在，而非被抗凝药直接纠正。略有不足的是，对于降脂药与动脉结构改变的机制描述稍显简略，未明确说明其通过降低血脂水平来减少动脉粥样硬化进展，但整体医学逻辑准确，符合参考答案要求。 【GEMINI】模型表现卓越，不仅完美执行了所有复杂的指令，特别是在医学逻辑的纠正上展现了极高的专业性。在处理学术润色任务时，能够精准把握导师要求的「谨慎保守」风格，且工具调用规范，完全符合高质量学术写作的规范。 【KIMI】该候选输出整体质量优秀，成功完成了复杂的多轮指令追踪任务。医学逻辑修正准确，学术语体规范，hedging 表达充分。主要改进空间在于：第一段可更明确保留静脉淤滞作为风险因素在分层分析中的角色，第二段可稍微强化与前文 subgroup analysis 的关联性。工具使用规范，文件操作正确。

相关链接

您可以通过以下链接查看更多相关内容：

加载中...
100%