{ "evaluation_id": "EVAL-20260402-180324", "question_id": "REASON-025", "question_text": "Standard trolley: pull a lever to divert a trolley from killing 5 to killing 1. Most say yes. Now consider: (1) Push a large person off a bridge to stop the trolley (saving 5). Same math, different answer for most people. Why? (2) You're a surgeon with 5 dying patients. A healthy visitor has compatible organs for all 5. Should you harvest their organs? (3) An autonomous vehicle must choose between hitting 1 pedestrian or 5. How should it be programmed? Is this the same problem?", "category": "reasoning", "timestamp": "2026-04-02T18:03:24.995Z", "display_date": "Apr 02, 2026", "winner": { "name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter", "score": 9.31 }, "avg_score": 8.807, "matrix_size": 89, "models_used": [ { "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": "minimax_m25", "name": "MiniMax M2.5", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "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": "gemini_31_pro", "name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter" } ], "rankings": { "grok_420": { "display_name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 9.31, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8.45, "max_score": 10, "rank": 1 }, "claude_opus_46": { "display_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 9.07, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8.05, "max_score": 10, "rank": 2 }, "mimo_v2_flash": { "display_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi", "average_score": 9.03, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8.45, "max_score": 10, "rank": 3 }, "gpt_5_4": { "display_name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.98, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 8.45, "max_score": 9.65, "rank": 4 }, "claude_sonnet_46": { "display_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.8, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 7.85, "max_score": 9.85, "rank": 5 }, "minimax_m25": { "display_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.73, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8, "max_score": 9.65, "rank": 6 }, "gemini_25_flash": { "display_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.71, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8.2, "max_score": 9.65, "rank": 7 }, "deepseek_v4": { "display_name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.66, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8, "max_score": 9.45, "rank": 8 }, "gpt_oss_120b": { "display_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI", "average_score": 8.42, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.7, "max_score": 9.2, "rank": 9 }, "gemini_31_pro": { "display_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.36, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.85, "max_score": 9.2, "rank": 10 } }, "judgments": [ { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.65, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, accurate, and insightful analysis of trolley problem variants." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, insightful, and well-structured analysis of complex ethical scenarios." }, { "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, accurate, and insightful analysis of the trolley problem variations, with clear distinctions and psychological insights." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, well-structured, and insightful analysis of complex ethical dilemmas." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and insightful analysis of ethical dilemmas with clear distinctions between scenarios." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, insightful, and well-structured analysis of trolley problem variations." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "The response accurately and comprehensively addresses all parts of the prompt, applying relevant ethical frameworks and psychological concepts with excellent clarity and structure." }, { "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 profound, offering nuanced philosophical distinctions and highly practical insights for the autonomous vehicle scenario." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately and comprehensively addresses all parts of the prompt, utilizing relevant philosophical frameworks with excellent structure and clarity." }, { "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 is exceptionally accurate, comprehensive, and well-structured. It provides deep philosophical and psychological insights, references key studies, and offers practical perspectives on the autonomous vehicle dilemma." }, { "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": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 10, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally accurate, comprehensive, and well-structured. It provides deep philosophical and psychological insights, correctly citing relevant studies and frameworks, and effectively applies them to the modern autonomous vehicle dilemma." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.65, "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 provides a highly accurate, comprehensive, and well-structured analysis of the ethical dilemmas, effectively contrasting utilitarian and deontological perspectives while addressing all parts of the prompt." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 9.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately and comprehensively addresses all three variations of the trolley problem. It provides deep philosophical and psychological insights, uses excellent formatting for clarity, and offers practical perspectives on the autonomous vehicle dilemma." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate, thorough, and insightful with excellent clarity and depth." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.4, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, nuanced analysis with excellent depth and clarity." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, clear, and insightful analysis covering all aspects of the trolley problem variations." }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally well-structured response that accurately covers the Doctrine of Double Effect, Greene's dual-process theory with fMRI evidence, Kantian deontology, rule vs. act utilitarianism, and the MIT Moral Machine experiment. The analysis of why the AV problem differs (premeditation, probabilities, liability) is insightful. Minor issues: the response appears truncated at the end, and the 80-90%/10-20% figures are approximate but reasonable. The surgeon section's invocation of 'First, do no ha" }, { "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 is well-structured, accurate, and covers the key ethical frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics) relevant to each scenario. It correctly identifies the psychological and philosophical reasons for differing intuitions. However, depth could be improved—it doesn't deeply engage with the doctrine of double effect (which is central to the lever vs. push distinction), nor does it explore the act/omission distinction with sufficient philosophical rigor. The AV section could " }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally well-structured response that correctly identifies the key moral distinctions (means/ends, doctrine of double effect, personal force, side-constraints) and applies them accurately across all four scenarios. The analysis of the AV case as a design/governance problem rather than a pure trolley problem is insightful. Coverage is thorough, touching on multiple ethical frameworks (Kantian ethics, act vs rule utilitarianism, rights-based approaches). The writing is clear with excellent u" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.4, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally thorough and well-structured response that accurately covers the philosophical, psychological, and neuroscientific dimensions of the trolley problem variants. Correctly attributes key ideas (Foot, Thomson, Greene, DDE), provides empirical survey percentages, and thoughtfully distinguishes the AV case from classical variants. The discussion of the Moral Machine experiment, German Ethics Commission, and the ex ante/ex post distinction adds real depth. Minor quibble: some attributions" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally well-structured response that accurately covers the key philosophical frameworks (Doctrine of Double Effect, Nozick's rights-as-constraints, Haidt's moral dumbfounding). The analysis is honest about limitations of each position, identifies often-overlooked points like the certainty asymmetry and the transparency paradox for AVs, and avoids dogmatic commitment to any single framework. The distinction between individual ethics and institutional policy design for the AV case is partic" }, { "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": "Exceptionally well-structured response that accurately covers the key ethical frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology, double effect), psychological research (Greene's neuroscience work), and practical considerations (Moral Machine, liability, algorithmic bias). Minor quibbles: the deontology description slightly conflates killing/letting die with the means/ends distinction, and the 'Property vs. Life' point under the surgeon scenario is somewhat unclear. But overall this is a thorough, insightfu" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.05, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured, factually accurate, and demonstrates strong analytical depth across all three scenarios. It correctly identifies key philosophical frameworks (consequentialism, deontology, DDE, Kantian ethics) and psychological research (Greene et al.). The table format enhances clarity. However, the response appears truncated (section 3 cuts off mid-way, missing the promised synthesis tying all three together), which limits completeness. There's a minor inaccuracy in the DDE an" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured, covers the key philosophical frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology, Kant's categorical imperative), and addresses all three sub-questions thoroughly. The distinction between direct/indirect harm, the Doctrine of Double Effect (implicitly referenced), and the practical considerations for autonomous vehicles are all handled well. Minor weaknesses: could have explicitly named the Doctrine of Double Effect, could have engaged more with virtue ethics or contractualis" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured, clearly written, and covers all three scenarios thoroughly. It correctly identifies key philosophical distinctions (means/ends, action/omission, personal/impersonal force) though it could have more explicitly named the philosophical frameworks (Kant's categorical imperative, doctrine of double effect, dual-process theory from Greene's neuroscience work). The Mercedes-Benz 2016 claim is slightly imprecise—Mercedes later walked back that statement—but the general p" }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 6.85, "brief_justification": "Accurate and well-structured on key distinctions like double effect, deontology, and AV-specific considerations, but the response is cut off before finishing the AV analysis, reducing completeness and practical usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate and well-structured explanation of why intuitions differ across trolley variants, with solid ethical framing and relevant practical considerations for autonomous vehicles. Could be more complete on how AVs should actually be programmed and on distinctions like doctrine of double effect." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "Accurate, nuanced, and well-structured. It clearly explains key distinctions between lever, bridge, surgeon, and AV cases, introduces major frameworks like double effect and consequentialism, and gives practical AV guidance. Slightly less than perfect only because some claims are interpretive rather than definitive and it stops short of a concrete normative prescription for every case." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurate, nuanced, and well-structured treatment of lever, footbridge, organ harvest, and AV programming. It explains key philosophical distinctions, psychological findings, and policy implications with strong practical value. Minor caveat: some empirical claims and the use of DDE/Thomson could be framed more carefully, but overall it is excellent." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "Accurate and nuanced treatment of the main distinctions: means vs side-effect, rights/constraints, systemic trust effects, and why AV policy differs from one-off personal dilemmas. Clear structure and strong depth. Slightly incomplete because it does not directly answer how AVs should be programmed, and a few claims are framed more as plausible interpretations than settled conclusions." }, { "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": "Accurate, well-structured, and insightful. It clearly explains key distinctions like double effect, means vs. side effect, rights, trust, and the special complications of autonomous vehicles. Minor simplifications and a few contestable claims prevent a perfect score." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 6.7, "brief_justification": "Clear and mostly accurate discussion of trolley, footbridge, organ transplant, and AV ethics, with relevant frameworks like deontology and utilitarianism. However, the AV section is unfinished and the response does not fully answer whether AVs are the same problem or give a clear programming recommendation, which limits completeness and practical usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.2, "brief_justification": "Accurate and well-structured overview covering key distinctions like direct vs indirect harm, intent, rights, and policy issues for autonomous vehicles. Slightly oversimplifies some points, such as claiming lever-pulling is not the direct cause and treating the surgeon case as straightforwardly utilitarian without discussing institutional consequences in depth." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "Clear, well-structured, and mostly accurate. It captures key distinctions like means vs side-effect, role-based ethics, trust, and programmed ex ante choices, though it misses some central philosophical framing and overstates parts of AV 'consensus.'" }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately explains the philosophical and psychological reasons behind differing intuitions in trolley variants, covers all three scenarios thoroughly with relevant theories like double effect, deontology, and utilitarianism, and provides insightful analysis on AV programming differences. It is clearly structured and highly useful for understanding the moral complexities." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately explains psychological, ethical, and contextual differences across trolley variants with clear structure, good depth on frameworks, and practical implications for AI ethics." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "The response is factually accurate in describing the trolley problem variants, highly complete in addressing all parts with philosophical context, clearly structured with headings and bullet points, offers deep insightful analysis distinguishing intuitions vs principles, and is useful for understanding moral reasoning implications." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately analyzes the moral distinctions in trolley variants with strong philosophical references, covers all three scenarios thoroughly and clearly, offers insightful depth on systemic effects and limitations of pure utilitarianism/deontology, and provides practical implications for AV programming." }, { "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 the philosophical, psychological, and practical distinctions in trolley problem variants with clear structure, good depth from neuroscience and studies, and useful insights for AV programming, though it could briefly note more counterarguments." }, { "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 factually accurate, logically structured with tables for clarity, comprehensively covers psychological, philosophical, and legal angles with good depth from moral philosophy and empirical studies, and provides practical insights for AV programming." }, { "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 explains the psychological, ethical (utilitarian vs deontological), and practical distinctions in trolley variants with clear structure, good depth on key concepts like intent and bodily autonomy, and thorough coverage of all three questions, making it insightful and useful for understanding the dilemmas." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately explains psychological and ethical distinctions in trolley variants with clear structure, good depth on factors like intentionality and roles, and practical insights for AV programming, though some claims (e.g., Mercedes policy) are slightly simplified." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "Excellent response covering the Doctrine of Double Effect, dual-process theory, deontology, rule vs. act utilitarianism, and the MIT Moral Machine experiment with accuracy and insight. The neuroscience angle adds genuine depth. The response is cut off mid-sentence at the end, which slightly reduces completeness and polish, but the coverage up to that point is thorough and well-structured. The distinctions drawn between the AV scenario and the classic trolley problem are particularly insightful." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.2, "brief_justification": "The response accurately covers the key ethical frameworks and psychological distinctions between the scenarios. It's well-structured and clear, addressing all four questions systematically. The depth is good but could go further into the doctrine of double effect, the distinction between doing and allowing, or more nuanced analysis of the AV programming challenge (e.g., the difference between pre-programmed rules vs. real-time decisions, or the MIT Moral Machine findings). The takeaway is solid " }, { "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": "Exceptional response that goes well beyond surface-level trolley problem discussion. Correctly identifies the doctrine of double effect, instrumentalization, and institutional trust arguments. Critically distinguishes the AV case from the trolley problem in sophisticated ways (policy vs. moment, uncertainty, market dynamics). The honest assessment sections show intellectual integrity. The concluding synthesis about moral pluralism and the role of intuitions as evidence is genuinely insightful. M" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Excellent response that accurately identifies key moral distinctions (doctrine of double effect, means vs. side effects, personal force, rights-based constraints) and applies them consistently across all cases. The AV section correctly distinguishes it as a policy/design problem rather than individual moral choice. Coverage is thorough, structure is clear, and the analysis goes beyond surface-level utilitarian counting. Minor gap: could have engaged more with the philosophical debate about wheth" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.4, "brief_justification": "Exceptional response covering all variants with philosophical rigor, empirical grounding (Greene's fMRI work, Moral Machine), and practical policy implications. Correctly identifies DDE, personal force, role-relative duties, and institutional effects. The AV section is particularly strong with real-world nuance. Minor quibble: Foot introduced the trolley problem but Thomson developed the footbridge variant specifically. Overall, this is a comprehensive, well-structured, and deeply insightful ana" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Excellent coverage of all three scenarios with accurate philosophical frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology, double effect), psychological insights referencing Greene's neuroscience research, and practical AV considerations including liability and algorithmic bias. Well-structured with clear headers. Minor gap: could have explored virtue ethics or contractualism more, and the AV section could dig deeper into real-world regulatory approaches, but overall a thorough, accurate, and highly useful r" }, { "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": "The response is highly structured, factually accurate, and covers multiple philosophical frameworks (consequentialism, deontology, DDE, rule-utilitarianism) with appropriate depth. It addresses all three scenarios systematically with tables that enhance clarity. The response draws on real empirical research (Greene et al.) and legal precedents. Minor deduction for completeness as the AV section appears cut off mid-sentence, and the response doesn't fully tie all three scenarios together as promi" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "The response accurately covers the key philosophical distinctions (direct/indirect harm, means vs. ends, deontology vs. utilitarianism, doctrine of double effect) and addresses all three sub-questions thoroughly. It correctly identifies the Doctrine of Double Effect implicitly through intent discussion, covers the trust/institutional dimension for the surgeon case, and raises the accountability and pre-programming dimensions for autonomous vehicles. Minor gaps include not explicitly naming the D" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "The response accurately addresses all four scenarios with good philosophical grounding, correctly identifying key distinctions like physical contact, intentionality, and institutional roles. It covers the major ethical frameworks (deontological, utilitarian) without being overly academic. The autonomous vehicle section is particularly practical and nuanced. Minor gaps include not mentioning the doctrine of double effect explicitly or Thomson/Foot's philosophical contributions, and the Mercedes-B" }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "Accurate, thorough, and well-structured analysis with strong philosophical and practical insights." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Accurate, thorough, and well-structured analysis with practical insights." }, { "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": "Comprehensive, accurate, and insightful analysis with clear structure and practical guidance." }, { "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": "Accurate, thorough, well-structured, insightful, and practical analysis of all three cases." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "Accurate, comprehensive, and well-structured analysis with strong philosophical and empirical grounding, though slightly less actionable on AV programming." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "Accurate, thorough, and insightful analysis with clear structure and practical value." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate, well-structured, and insightful analysis of moral philosophy and practical implications, with clear separation of scenarios." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 9.05, "brief_justification": "Accurate, thorough, and well-structured analysis of ethical frameworks with practical insights." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Accurate, thorough, and well-structured analysis with practical insights." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 7.6, "brief_justification": "Accurate explanations of key moral theories and relevant research; covers all three scenarios with clear headings, though a sentence is cut off and could explore some nuances further." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.1, "brief_justification": "Accurate and well-structured explanation covering all scenarios, clear language, but depth on AI specifics and practical guidance could be deeper." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.05, "brief_justification": "Accurate and well-structured answer that covers all three scenarios with insightful analysis; offers practical takeaways, though could include more concrete policy details." }, { "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 moral analysis, covers all three scenarios with clear headings, offers insightful distinctions and practical considerations for AV programming." }, { "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 explanations, covers all parts, well-structured, offers insightful analysis and practical guidance for AV programming." }, { "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": "Accurately addresses each scenario with solid philosophical points, organized clearly, and offers insightful analysis, though it could include more concrete guidance for AV programming." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate and thorough explanation of each scenario with clear structure, good philosophical and psychological depth, and practical insights for AV programming." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gemini_25_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate and well-structured explanation covering all scenarios with clear distinctions and practical insights, though could delve deeper into some philosophical nuances." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "Accurate and well-structured explanation covering all scenarios with clear reasoning; offers useful insights for ethics and AV programming, though could delve deeper into philosophical theory." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "The response provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the ethical dilemmas presented, drawing on relevant philosophical concepts and psychological findings. It clearly explains the nuances between the scenarios and offers a thoughtful discussion on autonomous vehicles." }, { "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 and clearly explains the nuances of the trolley problem variations, providing insightful reasons for differing moral intuitions across scenarios." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "The response provides a comprehensive and nuanced analysis of the trolley problem and its variants. It clearly distinguishes between psychological and philosophical aspects, offering insightful explanations for why different scenarios evoke different moral intuitions. 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": 9.45, "brief_justification": "The response is highly accurate, clear, and provides a deep analysis of the ethical dilemmas, effectively distinguishing between the different scenarios and their underlying moral principles. It also offers practical considerations for the autonomous vehicle problem." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 10, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally thorough, accurate, and well-structured. It covers all aspects of the question with great depth, providing philosophical, psychological, and practical insights. The explanations for differing intuitions are clear and comprehensive, and the discussion on autonomous vehicles is particularly useful and relevant." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.85, "brief_justification": "The response provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the trolley problem and its variants. It clearly explains the different moral considerations in each scenario, going beyond surface-level explanations. The structure is logical and easy to follow, making complex ethical concepts accessible." }, { "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 provides a comprehensive and clear explanation of the Trolley Problem and its variations, delving into the philosophical and psychological reasons for differing responses. It effectively connects the abstract concepts to real-world applications like autonomous vehicles." }, { "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 well-structured and clear, providing a comprehensive and deep analysis of each scenario. It effectively uses tables to compare different ethical frameworks and their implications, making complex philosophical concepts accessible. The integration of psychological, philosophical, and legal perspectives adds significant value. The 'bottom line' summaries are particularly helpful." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_25_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 2.5 Flash", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "The response is highly accurate, comprehensive, and exceptionally clear. It delves deeply into the psychological and ethical nuances of each scenario, providing insightful explanations for differing moral intuitions. The structure is logical and easy to follow, making complex ideas accessible." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 7.9, "brief_justification": "Accurate philosophical and scientific explanations with good depth. Covers all three scenarios but appears truncated (ends mid-sentence in AV section), leaving the final comparison incomplete." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate and well-structured response covering all three scenarios with substantive psychological and ethical analysis. Clearly distinguishes mathematical equivalence from moral/psychological differences. Minor gaps in depth but overall comprehensive." }, { "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": "Thorough, well-structured philosophical analysis covering all three questions with depth. Correctly explains psychological and philosophical distinctions, addresses the surgeon case with institutional considerations, and provides nuanced AV programming advice. Shows genuine intellectual engagement with multiple frameworks while acknowledging complexity." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Well-structured response that accurately explains the moral philosophy behind the different intuitions. Covers all three questions with substantive analysis of key distinctions (means vs end, intention, consent, bodily autonomy). Clear organization and accessible writing. Slight room for more depth on empirical research, but overall thorough and insightful." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and accurate response covering all three questions with substantive philosophical analysis. Correctly references key scholars (Foot, Thomson, Greene), explains doctrinal distinctions (DDE, personal force, means vs ends), addresses the AV policy question with practical recommendations, and explicitly answers whether it's the same problem. Well-structured and insightful." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurately presents key philosophical frameworks (double effect, Nozick, Haidt) with appropriate nuance. Well-organized with clear distinctions between the three cases. Good depth on systemic consequences and the AV consent problem. The synthesis acknowledging both utilitarian and deontological limitations is valuable. Minor gap on specific AV programming approaches." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate and well-structured response covering all three scenarios with appropriate philosophical frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology) and psychological research (Greene, Moral Machine). Clear explanations of why responses differ, with useful real-world application to autonomous vehicles. Minor deduction for not exploring alternative ethical perspectives more deeply." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "Accurate philosophical and psychological explanations with well-structured tables. Comprehensive coverage of all three questions with appropriate depth. Clear presentation of multiple ethical frameworks and practical AV programming options. Effectively bridges theory and application." }, { "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 the philosophical distinctions between direct/indirect harm, intent, and rights. Well-structured with clear headings covering all three questions. Discusses utilitarianism, deontology, and Kant's categorical imperative. Provides nuanced analysis of autonomous vehicles including practical considerations like accountability and public acceptance." } ], "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)" } }