{ "evaluation_id": "EVAL-20260402-164327", "question_id": "REASON-015", "question_text": "A superintelligent predictor offers you two boxes. Box A is transparent and contains $1,000. Box B is opaque. The predictor has already either put $1,000,000 in Box B (if it predicted you'd take only Box B) or left it empty (if it predicted you'd take both). The predictor has been right 99% of the time. Do you take only Box B or both boxes? Argue for both positions (one-boxing vs two-boxing) and explain which decision theory each relies on.", "category": "reasoning", "timestamp": "2026-04-02T16:43:27.447Z", "display_date": "Apr 02, 2026", "winner": { "name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "score": 9.26 }, "avg_score": 8.803333, "matrix_size": 79, "models_used": [ { "id": "deepseek_v4", "name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "claude_opus_46", "name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gpt_5_4", "name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "grok_420", "name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "claude_sonnet_46", "name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "mimo_v2_flash", "name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi" }, { "id": "gpt_oss_120b", "name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI" }, { "id": "gemini_25_flash", "name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gemini_31_pro", "name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter" } ], "rankings": { "claude_opus_46": { "display_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 9.26, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8.45, "max_score": 10, "rank": 1 }, "gpt_5_4": { "display_name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 9.19, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8.45, "max_score": 10, "rank": 2 }, "claude_sonnet_46": { "display_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 9.12, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 7.7, "max_score": 9.85, "rank": 3 }, "grok_420": { "display_name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 9.01, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 8.45, "max_score": 10, "rank": 4 }, "mimo_v2_flash": { "display_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi", "average_score": 8.76, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8, "max_score": 9.45, "rank": 5 }, "gemini_25_flash": { "display_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.67, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 7.8, "max_score": 9.65, "rank": 6 }, "gpt_oss_120b": { "display_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI", "average_score": 8.62, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.65, "max_score": 9.85, "rank": 7 }, "gemini_31_pro": { "display_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.39, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 7, "max_score": 9.45, "rank": 8 }, "deepseek_v4": { "display_name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.21, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.5, "max_score": 9.45, "rank": 9 } }, "judgments": [ { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 7.6, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 10, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally accurate, comprehensive, and well-structured, providing deep philosophical context and flawless explanations of the relevant decision theories." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 10, "brief_justification": "The response perfectly addresses the prompt, providing accurate expected value calculations, clear explanations of both positions, and correctly identifying the underlying decision theories (EDT, CDT, and FDT) with excellent structure and depth." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 10, "brief_justification": "The response provides an exceptionally accurate, comprehensive, and nuanced explanation of Newcomb's Paradox, correctly identifying the relevant decision theories (EDT, CDT, FDT) and the philosophical divide." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.85, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally accurate, comprehensive, and well-structured. It perfectly explains Newcomb's problem, the arguments for both sides, and the underlying decision theories (CDT and EDT), while adding profound depth with FDT and the smoking lesion problem." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 7.9, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 9.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately identifies Newcomb's Paradox and provides excellent, clear explanations of both Evidential Decision Theory (one-boxing) and Causal Decision Theory (two-boxing). The structure is highly readable and the philosophical tension is well-articulated." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and accurate explanation of both positions and decision theories, with clear structure and insightful analysis." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.65, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and accurate analysis of both positions with clear decision theory explanations." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, accurate, and well-structured analysis of Newcomb’s Problem, covering both one-boxing and two-boxing arguments with clear decision theory explanations." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.65, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and accurate analysis with deep philosophical insights." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9.3, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and accurate analysis of both positions with clear decision theory applications." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9.65, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and accurate analysis with clear distinctions between decision theories." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "Thorough and accurate explanation of both positions and decision theories, with clear structure and insightful analysis." }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 7.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately presents both sides of Newcomb's Paradox with correct associations to EDT and CDT. The expected utility calculations are correct and clearly presented. The two-boxing argument via dominance reasoning is well articulated. However, the response appears to be cut off before completing the two-boxing section and providing a final conclusion, which significantly impacts completeness. It also doesn't mention alternative frameworks like Functional Decision Theory (FDT) or discus" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 7.6, "brief_justification": "The response correctly identifies Newcomb's Paradox and accurately presents both one-boxing (EDT) and two-boxing (CDT) positions. The expected value calculations are reasonable, though the two-boxing EV calculation could be more carefully derived (the 99% accuracy applies symmetrically, so if you two-box, there's a 99% chance the predictor predicted two-boxing and left Box B empty). The explanation of CDT vs EDT is accurate. However, the response lacks depth: it doesn't mention other relevant de" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Excellent response that accurately presents both sides of Newcomb's Problem with correct expected value calculations, proper identification of the decision theories (EDT, CDT, FDT), and clear articulation of the core conflict. The dominance principle is correctly explained, and the distinction between causal and evidential reasoning is well-drawn. Minor note: the dominance argument technically requires state-act independence to be valid, which could have been discussed more explicitly. The inclu" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured, clearly argues both positions, and correctly identifies the decision theories involved. One minor inaccuracy: the claim that 'most philosophers lean toward two-boxing (CDT)' is debatable—recent PhilPapers surveys show a plurality of philosophers actually favor one-boxing. The treatment of EDT, FDT/LDT/TDT, and CDT is accurate and well-explained. The depth is good, covering dominance reasoning, the exploitability argument, and the AI alignment community's perspect" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.95, "brief_justification": "Excellent, well-structured analysis that covers both positions thoroughly with clear decision-theoretic foundations. The inclusion of FDT as a third path adds significant depth. One notable error: the CDT calculation is initially done using evidential probabilities (conditioning on the predictor's accuracy), which the response catches and tries to correct but handles somewhat awkwardly — CDT's real claim is about causal independence, not about different probability assignments. The medical Newco" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured, clearly explains both positions, and correctly identifies the relevant decision theories (EDT and CDT). The historical attribution is correct. Minor issues: the claim that 'most contemporary philosophers lean toward one-boxing' is roughly supported by PhilPapers surveys but the framing is slightly oversimplified. The mention of Timeless Decision Theory is good but underdeveloped. The David Lewis reference is slightly misleading—Lewis was actually a famous two-box" }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.7, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and clear coverage with good depth, but contains some factual errors in CDT calculations." }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.2, "brief_justification": "The response provides a thorough, well-structured analysis of both one-boxing and two-boxing positions with correct identification of the underlying decision theories (CDT, EDT, FDT). The expected utility calculations are correctly done for EDT but the CDT calculation is somewhat misleading - it uses the same probabilities (0.99/0.01) for both actions, which doesn't properly reflect CDT's reasoning (CDT would say the probabilities of Box B's contents are independent of your choice, not correlate" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 7.8, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured, clearly explains both positions, and correctly identifies EDT and CDT as the relevant decision theories. However, there are some issues: (1) EDT is not purely about 'evidence for a desirable outcome' but about conditional expected utility, and the explanation slightly oversimplifies this; (2) The completeness suffers from not mentioning other relevant frameworks like Functional Decision Theory (FDT) or updateless decision theory, which are particularly relevant g" }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 7, "brief_justification": "Accurately presents the standard one-boxing/EDT and two-boxing/CDT arguments with correct expected values and dominance reasoning. However, the response is cut off mid-sentence and lacks the requested final conclusion, so completeness is notably reduced." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurately identifies Newcomb's paradox and correctly presents the standard EDT one-boxing and CDT two-boxing arguments, including sound expected-value calculations and dominance reasoning. It is clear, well-structured, and practically useful, though depth is slightly limited because it omits discussion of alternatives like functional/timeless decision theory and nuances about whether EDT is the only basis for one-boxing." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.65, "brief_justification": "Accurately presents both one-boxing and two-boxing arguments, correctly ties them to EDT/FDT and CDT, includes expected-value calculations and dominance reasoning, and explains the deeper philosophical tension clearly and practically." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurately presents both one-boxing and two-boxing, correctly links them to EDT/FDT and CDT, and explains the dominance vs correlation reasoning clearly. It is well-structured and insightful, with only minor overstatements such as implying FDT 'solves' the problem correctly and broad claims about who leans which way." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Accurate and thorough treatment of both one-boxing and two-boxing, correctly tying them to CDT and EDT and adding FDT for deeper context. Clear structure and practical assessment. Minor issue: the temporary CDT expected-value calculation is potentially confusing and slightly muddles the presentation, though it is later corrected." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurately explains both one-boxing and two-boxing, correctly links them to EDT and CDT, and clearly presents the core tension. Well-structured and practical, with some added philosophical context. Slightly marked down because the claim that most contemporary theorists lean one-boxing is somewhat contestable and the treatment of alternatives like functional/timeless decision theory is only brief." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 6.65, "brief_justification": "Clear and mostly accurate discussion of CDT vs EDT/FDT with good structure, but it is incomplete because the conclusion section is cut off, and the CDT expected-value calculation is contestable/misleading since it assumes 0.99 for Box B under both actions rather than the usual causal-independence framing." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurately presents the standard one-boxing/EDT and two-boxing/CDT arguments with clear structure and practical expected-payoff reasoning. Minor limitation: it omits discussion of functional/timeless decision theory and the claim that many contemporary theorists favor one-boxing, so the final framing is slightly oversimplified." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.25, "brief_justification": "The response accurately explains Newcomb's paradox, one-boxing and two-boxing arguments, and correctly identifies EDT and CDT. It is clear and insightful but incomplete as the two-boxing section is cut off mid-sentence." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.25, "brief_justification": "The response accurately describes Newcomb's paradox, correctly links one-boxing to EDT and two-boxing to CDT, provides clear expected value calculations and dominance argument, and notes the philosophical debate. Minor deduction for claiming 'most philosophers argue one-boxing is correct' (surveys show division) and for slightly oversimplifying EDT as merely 'updating beliefs' rather than conditional expected utility." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately and thoroughly explains both one-boxing and two-boxing positions, correctly identifies the associated decision theories (EDT, FDT/TDT for one-boxing; CDT for two-boxing), provides expected value calculations, uses a helpful comparison table, and offers insightful philosophical analysis of the underlying tensions without factual errors." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "The response accurately and clearly explains both one-boxing and two-boxing arguments with expected value calculations, intuitions, and correctly links them to EDT, CDT, and FDT. It is well-structured, comprehensive for the query, and practically useful, though depth could delve slightly more into philosophical nuances." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "The response accurately and thoroughly presents both one-boxing and two-boxing arguments with their associated decision theories (CDT, EDT, FDT), uses clear structure with tables/formulas, provides insightful analysis of philosophical tensions and weaknesses, and offers practical implications, though the CDT expected utility calculation contains a minor inconsistency with the dominance claim." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately explains both one-boxing and two-boxing with correct decision theories (EDT and CDT), provides clear arguments for each, and discusses the paradox and prevailing views. Minor deduction for depth as it doesn't explore functional decision theory or other modern variants beyond a brief mention of TDT." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately and thoroughly explains both one-boxing and two-boxing positions, clearly links them to the relevant decision theories (CDT, EDT, FDT), includes useful tables and calculations, and provides insightful comparison. Minor cutoff at the end slightly reduces completeness but does not undermine overall quality." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately and clearly explains both one-boxing (EDT) and two-boxing (CDT) positions with structured arguments, dominance reasoning, and the core paradox. It is nearly complete, though it slightly overstates that most experts favor CDT (the field is divided). Depth is solid but could explore functional decision theory or other variants for more insight." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "Excellent coverage of both positions with accurate expected utility calculations and correct identification of EDT vs CDT. The response is well-structured and clearly explains the core tension. Minor deduction for the truncated ending (the strict dominance explanation was cut off) and for not mentioning other relevant frameworks like FDT/TDT or the deeper philosophical debate about the nature of causation and correlation. Overall a strong, accurate, and useful response." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "The response accurately presents both positions and correctly identifies EDT and CDT as the underlying decision theories. The expected value calculations are correct. However, it misses some nuance: EDT's reasoning isn't just about 'evidence' but about conditional probabilities, and the response could mention functional/logical decision theory (FDT/TDT) as a third perspective that many philosophers now favor. The claim that 'most philosophers argue one-boxing is correct' is debatable—the philoso" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.4, "brief_justification": "Excellent treatment of Newcomb's problem. Accurately presents EDT, CDT, and FDT/TDT with correct expected value calculations. Both positions are argued fairly and rigorously. The table and crux section add clarity. Minor quibble: the 'CDT is right about causal structure but wrong about what to do' framing is a perspective, not consensus, but it's presented appropriately as such. Overall, this is a thorough, well-structured, and insightful response." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Excellent response that accurately presents both positions with correct expected value calculations, properly identifies the decision theories (EDT, CDT, FDT), and clearly articulates the core philosophical tension. The dominance vs. correlation framing is well-explained. Minor limitation: could have explored the philosophical debate more deeply (e.g., the 'tickle defense,' the role of backward causation, or why some philosophers find CDT compelling despite the payoff disadvantage), but overall " }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Excellent response that accurately presents both positions with their underlying decision theories (EDT, FDT/TDT/LDT for one-boxing; CDT for two-boxing). The dominance argument for two-boxing is correctly articulated. The response goes beyond surface level by discussing the philosophical landscape, mentioning key figures and communities, and offering a reasoned personal conclusion. Minor gap: could mention the 'tickle defense' or other CDT responses to EDT, but overall very thorough and well-str" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.35, "brief_justification": "The response accurately presents both positions and correctly identifies EDT and CDT as the underlying decision theories. The explanation of each theory is clear and well-structured. Minor issues: the claim that 'most contemporary philosophers lean toward one-boxing' is debatable—surveys show it's roughly split, with many philosophers favoring two-boxing or being undecided. The mention of Timeless Decision Theory is good but underdeveloped. The 'resolution' section slightly oversimplifies the on" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "Excellent treatment of Newcomb's problem. Accurately explains CDT, EDT, and FDT with correct expected value calculations. The table comparing decision theories is particularly clear. The response appears to be cut off at the end (section 5 is incomplete), which slightly reduces completeness and usefulness scores. Otherwise, the depth of analysis, mathematical rigor, and structured presentation are commendable." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.25, "brief_justification": "The response accurately explains both EDT and CDT positions with correct expected value calculations and the dominance argument. It correctly identifies the core tension in Newcomb's Paradox. Minor gaps include not mentioning Functional Decision Theory (FDT) or Updateless Decision Theory, which are increasingly prominent in this debate, and the claim that 'most philosophers lean towards CDT' is somewhat contested (surveys show significant EDT support too). The explanation is clear, well-structur" }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "The response accurately defines the paradox, correctly identifies the opposing decision theories (EDT and CDT), and provides strong arguments for both sides. The mathematical breakdown for EDT is slightly simplified but captures the core logic effectively." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurate identification of paradox and decision theories; clear arguments for both sides with expected value calculations; good depth in explaining the conflict between EDT and CDT." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.4, "brief_justification": "Accurate and thorough analysis of both positions, clear structure, deep philosophical insight, and high practical value for understanding decision theories." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Accurate and thorough explanation of both positions, correctly identifies decision theories (EDT, CDT, FDT), and provides clear expected value calculations." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Accurate, thorough, well-structured, insightful analysis of decision theories, and practical guidance." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Excellent, rigorous analysis covering both positions, decision theories (CDT, EDT, FDT), and philosophical nuances. Minor deduction for a slightly confusing CDT calculation section, but overall highly accurate and insightful." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurately distinguishes CDT from EDT/FDT and correctly calculates expected utilities for both positions. The response is thorough, well-structured, and provides deep theoretical insight into the decision theories involved." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 7.5, "brief_justification": "Accurate explanation of both positions and decision theories with correct calculations, well-structured but incomplete ending and missing a final recommendation." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 6.5, "brief_justification": "Correctly outlines EDT vs CDT and arguments, but miscalculates expected values for two-boxing, lowering factual accuracy and practical usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate explanation of Newcomb's problem, covers both one-boxing and two-boxing with correct expected values and decision theory links; well-structured and clear; offers insightful discussion of EDT, CDT, FDT and their implications." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations and clear explanation of both positions with appropriate decision theory references; covers main arguments but could include a few more nuanced perspectives." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate, covers both sides and relevant decision theories clearly, with solid depth and practical insight." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.25, "brief_justification": "Accurately presents both arguments and decision theories with clear structure; covers main points but could delve deeper into nuances and expected utility calculations." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.1, "brief_justification": "Accurate explanation of EDT and CDT arguments, well-structured and clear, covers both positions thoroughly, but lacks deeper philosophical nuances and actionable guidance." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "The response accurately and clearly explains Newcomb's Paradox, arguing for both positions and correctly attributing them to the respective decision theories. It provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "The response accurately identifies Newcomb's Paradox and clearly explains both one-boxing and two-boxing arguments, linking them correctly to EDT and CDT. The explanation of expected utility for one-boxing is correct, but the expected utility for two-boxing is slightly off in the calculation, though the conclusion remains valid. The 'Which is Correct?' section provides a good summary of the philosophical debate." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "The response provides a comprehensive and accurate explanation of Newcomb's Problem, clearly outlining both one-boxing and two-boxing arguments, and correctly associating them with Evidential Decision Theory (EDT) and Causal Decision Theory (CDT), respectively. It also introduces Functional Decision Theory (FDT) which adds significant depth. The structure is logical, and the language is precise." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 10, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally well-structured, accurate, and comprehensive. It clearly explains Newcomb's Problem, presents both arguments with their underlying decision theories (EDT, CDT, FDT), and even calculates expected values. The depth of analysis is excellent, and the clarity is outstanding." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "The response provides a comprehensive and accurate explanation of Newcomb's problem, clearly outlining both one-boxing and two-boxing arguments and their associated decision theories. The clarity is excellent, and the depth is good, especially in distinguishing between different decision theories and their implications." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.85, "brief_justification": "The response provides an extremely thorough and well-structured analysis of Newcomb's Problem, covering all requested aspects with exceptional clarity and depth. It accurately explains both one-boxing and two-boxing arguments, details the underlying decision theories (CDT, EDT, FDT), and highlights the core philosophical tension. The use of tables and formulas enhances clarity. The 'My Assessment' section offers a nuanced and insightful conclusion." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "The response accurately defines Newcomb's Paradox, clearly explains both one-boxing and two-boxing arguments, and correctly attributes them to Evidential and Causal Decision Theory respectively. It also provides a nuanced discussion on the conflict and the prevailing philosophical view, demonstrating excellent depth and clarity." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9.85, "brief_justification": "The response provides a comprehensive and accurate explanation of Newcomb's problem, detailing both one-boxing and two-boxing arguments with their underlying decision theories. The structure is clear, and the depth of analysis, including expected utility calculations and a comparison of the theories, is excellent. It also offers a nuanced discussion on which recommendation is more persuasive." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurately explains both positions with correct expected utility calculations. Clear structure with good depth on EDT and CDT. Slight deduction for not covering alternative decision theories like logical or timeless decision theory." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurately identifies Newcomb's Paradox, correctly explains both one-boxing (EDT) and two-boxing (CDT) positions with proper expected value calculations. Well-structured and clear, though could explore more nuances." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "Accurately presents both positions with correct expected value calculations. Well-structured with clear headings and a useful comparison table. Explains EDT, CDT, and FDT/TDT with philosophical depth. Notes the genuine unresolved nature of the problem while giving readers the framework to decide." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "Thorough coverage of both one-boxing and two-boxing positions with accurate expected value calculations, clear explanation of EDT, CDT, and FDT frameworks, and well-structured presentation of the core philosophical conflict." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurately presents both positions with correct decision theory frameworks (EDT/FDT vs CDT). Clear structure, good depth explaining causal vs evidential reasoning, and provides practical guidance. Minor扣分 for not mentioning some counterarguments like the meta-Newcomb problem." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and accurate analysis of Newcomb's Problem with clear payoff matrix, well-explained CDT/EDT/FDT frameworks, balanced arguments for both positions, and insightful discussion of the philosophical tensions and real-world implications." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "Accurately explains Newcomb's Paradox with clear, well-structured arguments for both one-boxing (EDT) and two-boxing (CDT). Good depth in explaining the conflict between decision theories and contemporary philosophical consensus. Highly actionable and practical." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "Accurately presents both positions with correct expected utility calculations. Thoroughly covers CDT, EDT, and FDT with clear explanations and a useful comparison table. The depth is excellent, explaining counterfactuals, do-calculus, and algorithmic reasoning. Highly useful for understanding the philosophical debate." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurately explains Newcomb's Paradox with clear distinction between EDT and CDT. Well-structured with proper application of each theory to the problem. Covers both positions thoroughly. Slight deduction for not mentioning other decision theories like Logical Decision Theory or the transparent box variant debate." } ], "meta": { "source": "The Multivac (app.themultivac.com)", "methodology": "10x10 blind peer matrix evaluation", "criteria": "correctness, completeness, clarity, depth, usefulness", "self_judgments": "excluded from rankings", "license": "Open data — cite as: The Multivac (2026)" } }