Revert unrelated changes

Author: ultmaster

NOTES.md

@@ -90,7 +90,6 @@ pipeline_coder:
     --------- Feedback to former code ---------
     {{ latest_code_feedback }}
     The former code contains errors. You should correct the code based on the provided information, ensuring you do not repeat the same mistakes.
-    Keep the part that already seem correct intact. Avoid modifying them to refrain from introducing new errors.
     {% else %}
     The former code is correct. You should try to improve the code based on the provided task while not changing the irrelevant parts.
     {% endif %}

rdagent/components/coder/data_science/pipeline/prompts.yaml

@@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ def _try_create_chat_completion_or_embedding(  # type: ignore[no-untyped-def]
                 if hasattr(e, "message") and (
                     "'messages' must contain the word 'json' in some form" in e.message
                     or "\\'messages\\' must contain the word \\'json\\' in some form" in e.message
-            ):
+                ):
                     kwargs["add_json_in_prompt"] = True
                 elif hasattr(e, "message") and embedding and "maximum context length" in e.message:
                     kwargs["input_content_list"] = [

rdagent/oai/backend/base.py

@@ -15,9 +15,7 @@ exp_feedback:
       - Recommend corrective actions explicitly.
       - Set `"Replace Best Result": "no"`.
       - Begin your `reasoning` with `[Submission format error]`, clearly stating the issues causing experiment failure.
-    - If submission passes the submission format check:
-      - If this is the first valid submission ever, set `"Replace Best Result": "yes"`.
-      - Otherwise, proceed to Step 2.
+    - If submission passes, proceed to Step 2.
 
     Step 2: Evaluate Alignment with Competition Requirements (if format correct)
     - GOAL: CAREFULLY ANALYZE WHETHER THE EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND CODE MAY CAUSE MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN VALIDATION AND TEST PERFORMANCE.
@@ -58,8 +56,6 @@ exp_feedback:
     Provide detailed and constructive feedback structured as follows:
     Example JSON Structure for Result Analysis:
     {
-      "Submission Format Check": "yes or no",
-      "First Valid Submission": "yes or no",
       "Observations": "Clearly summarize current and SOTA ensemble results with exact scores and notable patterns. Limit to no more than three concise, data-focused sentences.",
       "Feedback for Hypothesis": Explicitly confirm or refute the hypothesis based on specific data points or performance trends. Limit to two sentences.",
       "Evaluation Aligned With Task": "yes or no",
@@ -111,10 +107,10 @@ exp_feedback:
     {{ cur_exp.experiment_workspace.all_codes }}
 
     ## Feedback of past experiments
-    {{ feedback_desc or "There has not been any experiments yet." }}
+    {{ feedback_desc }}
     Please refer to these hypotheses and feedback to help you recommend new experiment and hypothesis
 
     Tips:
-    - Step 1: If submission format has issues, prioritize fixing them before proceeding. If the format is correct and it's the first valid submission ever (there has never been valid submissions in the past), set `"Replace Best Result": "yes"`. If the format is correct and this is not the first valid submission, proceed to Step 2.
+    - Step 1: If submission format has issues, prioritize fixing them before proceeding.
     - Step 2: If evaluation alignment issues are identified (validation approach does not follow competition requirements), address these methodological discrepancies immediately.
     - Step 3: If new results significantly worse than SOTA, or repeated hyperparameter adjustments yield no improvement, it might be time to rethink or shift focus.