Contribution to the handbook
Supporting · Assessed 2026-10-28
Temperature sensitivity is a relevant but narrow reliability check. The evidence identifies GPT-3.5 Turbo and Mistral 7B as tested and reports an author conclusion, but the detailed test results are not supplied.
Does this challenge the goal?
None identified
The question asks whether a model sensitivity check was conducted; it does not contest the handbook’s goals or scope.
The evidence does not establish whether temperature affects predictions in other models or settings.
Why this category?
- model sensitivity test
- evidence qualification
The supplied evidence reports that temperature changes did not affect results but omits settings and supporting analysis; that conclusion should not be generalized beyond the reported tests.
This is an AI assessment of contribution to the goal, separate from whether the question has an answer.
Tests, stop conditions and unresolved work →
Read the exploration goalState whether temperature sensitivity was tested, for which models, and whether an effect is established by the available results.
What we can say so far
Yes. The supplied source interpretations report temperature-sensitivity tests for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Mistral 7B, and say the tests are presented in Appendix H. One passage reports that the authors said changing temperature did not affect their results. However, the supplied text does not include the test results or supporting analysis, so an effect—or the absence of one—is not established by the available results.
What remains open
- The test measurements or results for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Mistral 7B are not supplied.
- The available material does not establish whether temperature affected predictions.
Conditions and limits
- The temperature settings and ranges are not specified in the supplied passages.
- The authors' reported no-effect conclusion is not accompanied here by its supporting analysis.
- The source interpretations rely on the readable preprint; figures are not independently interpreted.
Objections to consider
- The passage confirms that tests were reported but gives no outcome; the supplied evidence does not resolve whether temperature affected predictions.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
supports
Temperature setting The authors say changing the model’s temperature did not affect their results, although they trained at temperature zero for reproducibility.
Reports that the authors said other temperature settings did not affect results; the supporting analysis and model scope are not supplied.
Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy
Read full source: Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy (opens in a new tab) ↗Read source discussion: Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy →
qualifies
Temperature tests are reported The authors report that temperature sensitivity tests are presented in Appendix H. These passages do not state what those tests found.
Confirms temperature sensitivity tests are reported in Appendix H, while stating that their findings are not given in the supplied passage.
Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy
Read full source: Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy (opens in a new tab) ↗Read source discussion: Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy →
supports
Temperature checks The researchers ran temperature sensitivity tests for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Mistral 7B, but the supplied passage contains no results from those tests.
Identifies GPT-3.5 Turbo and Mistral 7B as models tested, but supplies no settings, measurements, or outcomes.
Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy
Read full source: Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy (opens in a new tab) ↗