{ "evaluation_id": "EVAL-20260402-174539", "question_id": "REASON-022", "question_text": "For each claim, determine if it's causal or correlational, and design an experiment to test causality: (1) 'Learning a musical instrument improves math scores.' (2) 'Countries with more Nobel laureates consume more chocolate per capita.' (3) 'Code reviews reduce bugs.' (4) 'Remote workers are more productive.' For each, identify at least two confounders.", "category": "reasoning", "timestamp": "2026-04-02T17:45:39.120Z", "display_date": "Apr 02, 2026", "winner": { "name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter", "score": 9.28 }, "avg_score": 7.698, "matrix_size": 79, "models_used": [ { "id": "grok_420", "name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "deepseek_v4", "name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gpt_5_4", "name": "GPT-5.4", "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" }, { "id": "claude_opus_46", "name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "minimax_m25", "name": "MiniMax M2.5", "provider": "openrouter" } ], "rankings": { "gpt_5_4": { "display_name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 9.28, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 8.8, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 1 }, "claude_opus_46": { "display_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 9.22, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 8.15, "max_score": 10, "rank": 2 }, "grok_420": { "display_name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 9.08, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8.5, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 3 }, "mimo_v2_flash": { "display_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi", "average_score": 8.87, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8.15, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 4 }, "deepseek_v4": { "display_name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.76, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 7.75, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 5 }, "gemini_25_flash": { "display_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.44, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 7.5, "max_score": 9, "rank": 6 }, "gpt_oss_120b": { "display_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI", "average_score": 8.09, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.1, "max_score": 9.2, "rank": 7 }, "claude_sonnet_46": { "display_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.97, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 5.2, "max_score": 9, "rank": 8 }, "gemini_31_pro": { "display_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.07, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 5.1, "max_score": 8.45, "rank": 9 }, "minimax_m25": { "display_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 0.2, "score_count": 1, "min_score": 0.2, "max_score": 0.2, "rank": 10 } }, "judgments": [ { "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 causal/correlational classification, thorough confounder identification, and well-designed experiments with clear rationale." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "The response perfectly addresses all parts of the prompt, correctly identifying claim types, designing appropriate randomized experiments, and providing highly relevant confounders. The structure is exceptionally clear." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "The response perfectly addresses all parts of the prompt with high accuracy, excellent structure, and insightful experimental designs." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.5, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.65, "brief_justification": "The response is highly accurate, insightful, and well-structured, but it cuts off abruptly before completing the experimental design for the fourth claim." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "The response perfectly addresses all parts of the prompt, providing accurate classifications, highly relevant confounders, and well-designed experiments (including a clever individual-level workaround for the country-level chocolate claim)." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 7.2, "brief_justification": "The response provides excellent, detailed analysis for the first two claims but cuts off abruptly, completely missing the completion of claim 3 and all of claim 4." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 7.5, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate and detailed with clear experimental designs and confounder identification." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate, thorough, and insightful with excellent experimental designs and confounder identification." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate, thorough, and well-structured with practical experimental designs." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Detailed, accurate, and well-structured analysis with insightful experimental designs." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Detailed, accurate, and well-structured with actionable experiments." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate, thorough, and well-structured with insightful analysis and practical value." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Detailed, accurate, and well-structured response with practical experiment designs." }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 7.1, "brief_justification": "The response correctly identifies claim types, provides good confounders, and designs thoughtful experiments for claims 1 and 2. However, the response is clearly incomplete - it cuts off mid-way through claim 2's experiment and entirely omits claims 3 and 4. This is a major completeness issue since only half the question is answered. The portions that are present are well-structured, accurate, and insightful (e.g., using an active placebo control for claim 1, noting the impossibility of country-" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "The response correctly identifies claim types, designs appropriate experiments, and identifies relevant confounders for each. The classification of claim 4 as correlational is reasonable given self-selection concerns, though the claim as stated ('are more productive') is somewhat ambiguous. The experiments are well-designed and practical. Confounders are relevant and well-explained. Minor critique: the depth could be slightly greater—e.g., discussing blinding limitations, ethical constraints, me" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.4, "brief_justification": "Excellent response that correctly classifies each claim, designs appropriate experiments with strong methodological awareness (active controls, crossover designs, within-team randomization), and identifies multiple relevant confounders for each. The classification of claim 4 as correlational is reasonable given the 'are' phrasing, though one could argue it's implicitly causal. The acknowledgment that claim 2 is practically infeasible to test directly shows good scientific reasoning. The summary " }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally thorough and accurate response. Each claim is correctly classified as causal or correlational, with well-identified confounders (often more than the required two). Experimental designs are realistic, methodologically sound, and include appropriate details like active controls, blinding, statistical methods, and ethical considerations. The acknowledgment that claim (2) cannot be experimentally tested is exactly right, and the alternative observational approach is well-reasoned. The " }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Excellent analysis that correctly classifies each claim, identifies meaningful confounders (exceeding the minimum of two per claim), and designs thoughtful experiments with appropriate controls. The response demonstrates deep understanding of causal inference, ecological fallacy, crossover designs, and measurement challenges. Clarity is outstanding with effective use of tables, code blocks, and structured formatting. Minor deductions: Claim 4's experimental design appears cut off/incomplete, and" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Excellent response that correctly classifies all four claims, identifies meaningful and distinct confounders for each, and designs thoughtful, well-structured experiments. The experimental designs are realistic and include appropriate controls (e.g., active control group for music, placebo chocolate, blind auditor for code reviews). The chocolate/Nobel example correctly acknowledges the impossibility of a country-level RCT and pivots to an individual-level study. Minor nitpick: the classificatio" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "The response is highly detailed, accurate, and well-structured for the claims it covers. The causal vs. correlational classifications are correct, confounders are well-identified (exceeding the minimum of two), and experimental designs are rigorous and thoughtfully constructed with appropriate statistical methods. However, the response is clearly incomplete—it cuts off partway through claim 3 and never addresses claim 4 at all. This is a significant gap since the question explicitly asks for ana" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "The response is thorough, well-structured, and demonstrates strong understanding of experimental design, causal vs. correlational reasoning, and confounding variables. Each claim is correctly classified, experiment designs are realistic and well-detailed (with appropriate caveats for the chocolate/Nobel claim), and confounders are well-identified with clear explanations of mechanisms. The response appears to be cut off at the end (claim 4 is incomplete - missing the full outcome measurement, ana" }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 5.1, "brief_justification": "The response correctly classifies the first two claims and gives a solid experimental design for claim 1 with plausible confounders. However, it is incomplete: claim 2's experiment is unfinished, and claims 3 and 4 are entirely missing. Clarity is decent in the completed parts, but overall usefulness is limited by the missing analyses." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurately classifies the claims, proposes sensible causal tests, and lists at least two plausible confounders for each. Very clear and practical. Slightly limited by not discussing feasibility/ethics in some experiments, especially the Nobel-chocolate example." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Accurately classifies the claims, proposes sensible causal tests, and identifies multiple plausible confounders for each. Clear, thorough, and practical; only minor ambiguity is in treating the remote-work claim as causal rather than more explicitly noting its wording could be correlational depending on context." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurately classifies the claims, identifies multiple plausible confounders for each, and proposes strong causal designs. It is clear and practical, though item (2) does not fully provide an experimental design as requested and instead reasonably explains why true experimentation is infeasible." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 5.2, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and insightful for the first three claims, with appropriate confounders and reasonable experimental designs. However, claim 2 does not actually design an experiment to test causality as requested, and claim 4 is cut off before completing the experiment, making the answer incomplete and less useful overall." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and mostly accurate, with clear classifications, at least two confounders per claim, and plausible causal study designs. Minor issues: some claims are phrased causally and could be labeled as causal claims rather than correlational evidence, and the Nobel/chocolate experiment tests cognition rather than the original country-level claim directly." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 6.1, "brief_justification": "Accurately classifies the first two claims and gives solid confounders and experimental designs, but the response is incomplete because claims 3 and 4 are missing and claim 2 adds some questionable details (e.g., population size as a confounder despite per-capita framing). Clear structure and decent methodological depth where covered." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 7.65, "brief_justification": "Mostly accurate and well reasoned, with solid experimental designs and appropriate confounders. However, the response is incomplete for claim 4 because it cuts off before finishing the productivity measures, analysis, and confounders, so coverage and practical usefulness are reduced." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.3, "brief_justification": "The response accurately classifies claims, identifies relevant confounders, and designs feasible experiments with good controls. It is clear and structured but incomplete as it cuts off before finishing claim 2 and omits claims 3 and 4 entirely." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "Accurately classifies each claim, provides feasible experiments with randomization where appropriate, identifies relevant confounders, and offers clear structure with useful takeaways." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "The response accurately classifies each claim, provides well-designed experiments with strong internal validity considerations, identifies relevant confounders, and includes a helpful summary table. Minor deduction for slightly hedging on claim 4's classification." }, { "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 classifies each claim, provides feasible experimental designs with strong methodological details (RCTs, active controls, crossover), identifies relevant confounders, and includes a helpful summary table. Minor deduction on depth as some confounders overlap with experiment controls but overall excellent." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The response accurately classifies each claim, identifies relevant confounders, and provides detailed, well-structured experimental designs with controls, outcomes, and interpretation criteria. Minor deduction for slightly exceeding the requested 'at least two' confounders per claim and for the incomplete final section on claim 4." }, { "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 classifies each claim, identifies relevant confounders, and provides well-designed, feasible experiments with clear procedures and analysis methods. Minor deduction for depth as some causal mechanisms could be explored further, but overall excellent." }, { "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 is highly accurate in classifying claims and identifying relevant confounders. It provides detailed, rigorous experimental designs with statistical considerations. Minor incompleteness as it cuts off at claim 3, but the provided sections are thorough, clear, and insightful." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "The response accurately classifies each claim, provides well-designed feasible experiments with clear steps, identifies relevant confounders, and offers practical alternatives for the impractical case. Minor deduction for slightly exceeding the 'at least two' confounders request without harming focus." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 7.25, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and accurate for the claims it covers, correctly identifying causal vs. correlational distinctions and providing solid experimental designs with good confounder identification. However, the response is clearly incomplete—it cuts off mid-sentence during Claim 2's experiment design and never addresses Claims 3 and 4 at all, which significantly hurts completeness and usefulness scores." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "The response correctly identifies causal vs correlational claims, proposes reasonable experiments, and identifies relevant confounders. The classification of claims 1 and 3 as 'causal' is slightly imprecise—they are stated as causal claims but are observational/correlational in nature until tested. The chocolate Nobel experiment design is acknowledged as impractical but still addressed. Confounders are relevant and well-chosen. Could go deeper on experimental controls, blinding, and measurement " }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "Exceptional response that correctly classifies each claim, designs rigorous experiments with appropriate controls, and identifies multiple relevant confounders for each. The inclusion of real-world references (Bloom et al., the 2012 NEJM chocolate study), the three-arm design for music/math, the nuanced treatment of the Nobel/chocolate correlation as an ecological fallacy, and the summary table all demonstrate strong analytical depth. The overarching lesson at the end adds genuine pedagogical va" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "Excellent response that correctly classifies each claim, proposes well-designed experiments with appropriate controls, and identifies multiple relevant confounders for each. The summary table adds practical value. Minor quibble: claim 4 could be argued as implicitly causal depending on interpretation, but the response handles this nuance well. The active control group suggestion for claim 1 and the crossover design for claim 4 show sophisticated experimental design knowledge." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "Excellent response that correctly identifies claim types, provides multiple relevant confounders for each, and designs thoughtful experiments with appropriate controls. The Nobel/chocolate claim is correctly identified as spurious/correlational with a realistic acknowledgment that true experimentation is impossible. The summary table adds clarity. Minor gap: could have noted that claim (2) is famously from Franz Messerli's satirical paper. Overall, this is a thorough, well-structured, and practi" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Excellent response that correctly classifies all four claims as correlational, identifies relevant and distinct confounders for each, and designs thoughtful experiments. The RCT designs are well-structured with clear treatment/control groups and measurement strategies. Particularly strong on the Nobel/chocolate claim by acknowledging the impossibility of a country-level RCT and pivoting to an individual-level study. Minor weakness: the Nobel experiment design is somewhat impractical and the 5-ye" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "The response is highly accurate, well-structured, and analytically deep for the first two claims, with excellent experimental designs including RCTs, DiD, and instrumental variables. However, the response is incomplete—claims 3 and 4 are cut off entirely, which significantly impacts completeness and usefulness scores. The work shown demonstrates strong methodological rigor and clear identification of confounders." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Excellent response that correctly classifies each claim, designs thoughtful experiments with proper controls, and identifies relevant confounders. The chocolate/Nobel example is handled well by acknowledging the impracticality of direct causal testing while still proposing a reasonable proxy experiment. Minor issue: the response appears truncated at the end for claim 4. Otherwise, the depth of experimental design detail (randomization, standardization, measurement, analysis) is strong throughout" }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 7.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate and clear for most claims, but incomplete for claims 3 and 4, limiting overall completeness and usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurate classification and well-structured experiment designs with relevant confounders; minor room for deeper methodological critique." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Excellent classification, robust experimental designs with appropriate controls, and thorough confounder identification. Minor deduction in correctness for missing one confounder in Claim 4 (work intensity/visibility bias), but overall very strong." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "The response is highly accurate, thoroughly covers all four claims with appropriate experimental designs and multiple confounders, and is exceptionally clear and well-structured." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "Strong analysis with good experimental designs and confounder identification. Response is incomplete for Claim 4 (cuts off mid-sentence), preventing full evaluation of completeness." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "Strong, detailed response with valid experimental designs and confounders; minor incompleteness as claim 4 was not addressed." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "Accurate and thorough response with clear structure, insightful analysis, and practical experiment designs for each claim." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 5.7, "brief_justification": "Correctly classifies and designs experiment for claim 1 and partially for claim 2, but omits claims 3 and 4 and leaves claim 2 experiment incomplete, reducing completeness and overall usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 7.75, "brief_justification": "Correctly classifies most claims and supplies experiments with at least two confounders, but mislabels the remote work claim and offers only surface-level experimental details." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.15, "brief_justification": "Accurately classifies most claims and offers solid experimental designs with confounders, but mislabels the remote work claim as causal, which slightly reduces factual correctness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Accurately classifies claims, proposes solid experimental designs with appropriate confounders, and presents information clearly and insightfully." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "Accurately classifies each claim, lists multiple plausible confounders, and proposes realistic experimental or observational designs with good detail and practical guidance." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.85, "brief_justification": "Accurate classifications and sensible confounder lists; solid experimental designs for most claims, though the remote‑work design is cut off, reducing overall completeness. Presentation is clear and detailed, offering practical guidance." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.15, "brief_justification": "The answer correctly identifies confounders and designs experiments for each claim, but misclassifies the code review claim as correlational, affecting factual accuracy; otherwise it is thorough, clear, and practically useful." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "Accurately classifies claim types, offers realistic experimental designs with multiple confounders, well-structured and actionable, though depth could be slightly deeper." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 0.2, "brief_justification": "The response contains no answer to the multi-part question, providing no factual content, coverage, depth, or practical value." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "The response accurately identifies causal vs. correlational claims and provides well-designed experiments and relevant confounders for the completed sections. It is clear and demonstrates good depth of understanding, though it is incomplete." }, { "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 causal vs. correlational claims, designs appropriate experiments, and identifies relevant confounders for each. The explanations are clear and well-structured." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 10, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally well-structured, accurate, and comprehensive. It correctly identifies causal/correlational claims, designs appropriate experiments, and pinpoints relevant confounders with insightful explanations. The summary table and overarching lesson further enhance its value." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "The response accurately identifies causal/correlational claims, proposes appropriate experiments, and lists relevant confounders for each scenario. The explanations are clear and well-structured." }, { "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 is highly accurate, complete, and clear. It demonstrates a deep understanding of causal inference and experimental design, providing practical and insightful solutions for each claim." }, { "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 classifies each claim, identifies relevant confounders, and designs appropriate experiments, demonstrating a strong understanding of causal inference and experimental design. The explanations are clear and well-structured." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally clear, well-structured, and provides detailed, accurate information for each claim. The experimental designs are rigorous and thoughtfully address confounders. The depth of analysis, especially in the experimental design sections, is impressive." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 5.85, "brief_justification": "Well-organized response with correct causal/correlational identification and reasonable confounders for claims 1 and 2. However, the response is incomplete - it cuts off mid-experiment for claim 2 and entirely omits claims 3 and 4, significantly reducing its usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurately identifies causal vs correlational claims, designs appropriate experiments (RCT, A/B testing, field experiments), and identifies relevant confounders for each. Well-structured with clear explanations and key takeaways." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Excellent response with accurate causal/correlational classifications, well-designed experiments for each claim, and at least two relevant confounders per claim. References real research (Bloom et al., NEJM study), uses active control groups, and provides a helpful summary table. Clear structure with sophisticated discussion of selection effects and methodological nuances." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Thorough and accurate response that correctly identifies causal vs correlational claims for all four statements, proposes sound experimental designs (RCTs, controlled experiments, crossover designs), and lists multiple relevant confounders for each. Well-organized with clear headings and a summary table." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurately identifies causal vs correlational claims, provides appropriate confounders and well-designed RCT or observational experiments for each. Thorough, clear, and insightful analysis with practical methodology." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.25, "brief_justification": "Excellent analysis with accurate causal classification, strong confounders, and well-reasoned experimental designs. However, Claim 4's design is truncated/incomplete, reducing overall completeness. Depth is strong with dose-response testing, mediating variables, and crossover designs. Clarity is excellent with tables and structured formatting." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "Accurately classifies all claims as correlational with valid confounders. Well-structured experiments using RCTs where feasible. The chocolate/Nobel claim correctly identifies the impossibility of country-level randomization and proposes an individual-level study. Minor deduction for slight hedging on code review claim. Thorough coverage with clear headings and methodology." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 7.2, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and accurate for claims 1 and 2, with thorough experimental designs and confounders. However, the response is incomplete - it cuts off mid-claim 3 and omits claim 4 entirely, significantly reducing completeness and usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "Accurate identification of claim types with well-designed RCTs and relevant confounders. Highly practical and actionable. Slight deduction for incomplete fourth section (cut off mid-sentence)." } ], "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)" } }