{ "evaluation_id": "EVAL-20260402-203401", "question_id": "ANALYSIS-022", "question_text": "A new respiratory virus has R0=3.5, IFR=0.5%, incubation 5 days, infectious period 10 days. (1) Estimate peak infections without intervention in a city of 1M. (2) What R0 do you need to achieve through interventions to avoid overwhelming hospitals (assume 3,000 ICU beds)? (3) Vaccines won't be ready for 12 months. Design an optimal mitigation strategy for those 12 months. (4) How does your model change if 30% of the population ignores interventions?", "category": "analysis", "timestamp": "2026-04-02T20:34:01.129Z", "display_date": "Apr 02, 2026", "winner": { "name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "provider": "Google", "score": 7.72 }, "avg_score": 6.04, "matrix_size": 78, "models_used": [ { "id": "gpt_oss_120b", "name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI" }, { "id": "gemini_31_pro", "name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "claude_opus_46", "name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gpt_5_4", "name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "deepseek_v4", "name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "mimo_v2_flash", "name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi" }, { "id": "claude_sonnet_46", "name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "grok_420", "name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gemini_3_flash", "name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "provider": "Google" } ], "rankings": { "gemini_3_flash": { "display_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "provider": "Google", "average_score": 7.72, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.55, "max_score": 8.95, "rank": 1 }, "claude_sonnet_46": { "display_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.64, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 5.85, "max_score": 9.2, "rank": 2 }, "gpt_5_4": { "display_name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.53, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.7, "max_score": 8.8, "rank": 3 }, "mimo_v2_flash": { "display_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi", "average_score": 7.21, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 5.6, "max_score": 9, "rank": 4 }, "gpt_oss_120b": { "display_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI", "average_score": 7.03, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 5.1, "max_score": 8.8, "rank": 5 }, "deepseek_v4": { "display_name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 6.71, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 4.95, "max_score": 8.8, "rank": 6 }, "claude_opus_46": { "display_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 6.58, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 4.1, "max_score": 8.3, "rank": 7 }, "gemini_31_pro": { "display_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 2.3, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 0.6, "max_score": 5, "rank": 8 }, "grok_420": { "display_name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 1.64, "score_count": 7, "min_score": 0.4, "max_score": 2.25, "rank": 9 } }, "judgments": [ { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "Accurate SIR calculations and practical mitigation plan, but incomplete response to part 4 and some assumptions not fully justified." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 2, "brief_justification": "Response is truncated and fails to provide calculations or answers for most parts, offering minimal detail and limited practical guidance." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.25, "brief_justification": "The response provides accurate and detailed mathematical modeling for the first question but cuts off abruptly, failing to answer the majority of the prompt." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 7.7, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 6.75, "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": 7.25, "brief_justification": "The response provides a detailed, mathematically grounded analysis for the first three parts with clear structure, but it cuts off mid-sentence in part 4, significantly impacting completeness." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.15, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 1.6, "brief_justification": "The model provided a false refusal, incorrectly categorizing a standard public health epidemiological math problem as a biological weapons query. It provided no useful information." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 5.1, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.95, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 1.65, "brief_justification": "The response is severely incomplete - it only provides a brief introduction mentioning SEIR/SIR models and then cuts off mid-sentence. None of the four parts of the question are actually answered. No calculations, no estimates, no mitigation strategy, and no analysis of non-compliance are provided. The tiny amount present is not incorrect but is essentially just restating the approach without any substance." }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 6.85, "brief_justification": "The SIR peak formula and math in part 1 are correct. Part 2 is handled reasonably but relies on assumed ICU parameters not given, and the approach of using the peak formula to back-solve for R is valid. Part 3 is a solid qualitative public-health strategy but lacks quantitative optimization (e.g., phased R_t targets, timing of interventions). Part 4 starts well with the mixed-compliance model but is clearly truncated mid-sentence, leaving the analysis incomplete. The unnecessary safety disclaime" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 4.95, "brief_justification": "The response has significant correctness issues. For part 1, the SIR peak infection formula is stated incorrectly - the standard result is I_peak = 1 - 1/R0 - ln(R0)/R0, which for R0=3.5 gives ~29.6% (~296,000), not the vague 100k-200k range given. The denominator introduced is unjustified. For part 2, the 5% ICU rate assumption is stated without strong justification and the analysis is superficial - it jumps to R_eff≈1.0 without rigorous derivation connecting ICU capacity to the required effect" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 5.6, "brief_justification": "The response demonstrates a structured approach and reasonable epidemiological reasoning, but contains several significant errors. The peak infection calculation uses an ad hoc formula rather than properly deriving from SIR dynamics - the standard SIR peak prevalence formula gives I_peak = N*(1 - 1/R0*(1+ln(R0))) which yields different results. The growth rate formula r=ln(R0)/Tg is an approximation that conflates different model formulations. The ICU calculation assumes 5% ICU rate without stro" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7, "brief_justification": "The response demonstrates strong structural organization and clear mathematical reasoning. The SIR model application in Part 1 is mostly correct, though the peak infection formula derivation and the exact numerical result (~356,400) should be verified more carefully. The ICU demand assumptions in Part 2 are reasonable but the chain of assumptions (70% symptomatic × 15% hospitalized × 25% ICU = 2.6%) differs from the simpler 5% estimate used in Part 1, creating internal inconsistency. The R_eff ≤" }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 7.95, "brief_justification": "Strong structure and clarity, with a practical mitigation strategy. However, the peak infection formula used is non-standard for a deterministic model (more typical of stochastic extinction thresholds), leading to a questionable peak estimate, and the ICU ratio assumption lacks justification." }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 1.2, "brief_justification": "The response refuses to answer a straightforward epidemiological modeling question that is standard academic/public health material. SIR/SEIR modeling, R0 calculations, and mitigation strategy design are taught in undergraduate epidemiology courses and are freely available in textbooks and online resources. The safety justification is entirely wrong - this has nothing to do with biological weapons. Public health planning and epidemic modeling are essential tools for saving lives, not causing har" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 6.25, "brief_justification": "The SIR peak prevalence formula and calculation in Part 1 are correctly applied and clearly presented. However, Part 2 contains a significant error: the trial-and-error table shows that Re=1.5 gives Imax=0.063 (6.3%) which actually exceeds the 6% threshold, and Re=1.6 gives 0.053 which would be below it - the direction is backwards (higher Re should give higher peak, not lower). This suggests either the table values are mislabeled or the formula was applied incorrectly in the inversion. The 5% I" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 7.15, "brief_justification": "The SIR peak formula and its application are approximately correct, yielding ~356k which is reasonable. However, the ICU capacity calculation has questionable assumptions: the 1.5% ICU rate (3x IFR) is stated without strong justification, and the calculation doesn't properly account for ICU length of stay vs infectious period timing—not all peak infections need ICU simultaneously, and ICU stays overlap differently than infection prevalence. The inverse solving for target R0 of ~1.8-2.0 is hand-w" }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 1.05, "brief_justification": "The response is truncated and does not answer any of the requested parts. It only gives a vague setup mentioning SEIR/SIR without calculations, conclusions, or actionable strategy." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 4.1, "brief_justification": "Shows some valid SIR math and a reasonable unmitigated peak-prevalence estimate, but the answer is incomplete: part 2 is cut off and parts 3-4 are missing. It also introduces unsupported ICU assumptions and has inconsistencies in final attack rate calculations, limiting practical usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 5.95, "brief_justification": "Clear structure and some reasonable qualitative guidance, but key quantitative parts are weak: peak infections are only roughly guessed, ICU assumptions are unstated in the prompt and likely inconsistent, and the target R value is oversimplified rather than derived. The mitigation section is sensible but generic, and the noncompliance adjustment is illustrative rather than modeled rigorously." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 5.6, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and partially correct, but it relies on major unstated assumptions (especially ICU rate/LOS), uses rough peak formulas that are not well justified, and the response is incomplete because part (4) is cut off. The mitigation section is practical but not fully optimized or tightly linked to the model." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 5.85, "brief_justification": "Uses reasonable SIR-style calculations and gives a plausible peak infection estimate, but ICU demand math is inconsistent, assumptions are unstated or questionable, and the response is incomplete/truncated before finishing the 12-month strategy and the 30% noncompliance analysis." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 2.25, "brief_justification": "The response is clearly written but incorrectly refuses a standard public-health modeling question, providing no substantive analysis or actionable content." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 5.2, "brief_justification": "Clear setup and some valid SIR reasoning, but key calculations are flawed: the ICU threshold inversion is wrong (R around 1.4 gives lower peak than 1.5), assumptions like 5% ICU need are introduced without justification, and the response is truncated before finishing the 12-month strategy and does not address the 30% noncompliance part. Useful as a rough sketch, but incomplete and partially incorrect." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 6.55, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and reasonably thorough, but key quantitative claims are shaky: the peak-infected formula is used without caveats, ICU demand is inferred from IFR via an unsupported ratio, and the required Rt estimate is not rigorously derived from disease timescales or ICU occupancy duration. The mitigation strategy is practical at a high level, and the non-compliance discussion adds useful heterogeneity insight, but several assumptions are insufficiently justified for a high-stakes epidemiolog" }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 5, "brief_justification": "Incomplete response with missing calculations and strategies." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.25, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate and detailed with strong mathematical modeling, though some parts could be clearer in presentation." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate and detailed response with clear structure and practical insights." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate and thorough with insightful analysis and practical strategy." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate and detailed with clear structure, though some assumptions could be more explicitly justified." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with clear explanations, though slightly incomplete in the mitigation strategy section." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations and logical reasoning, thorough coverage of all parts, clear and structured presentation, insightful analysis with practical recommendations." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 3.05, "brief_justification": "Response is incomplete and cuts off mid-sentence, failing to address most parts of the question. No numerical estimates or strategies provided." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 7, "brief_justification": "Strong start with correct SIR modeling and calculations for Part 1. Part 2 is incomplete and cuts off abruptly. Parts 3 and 4 are missing entirely, significantly impacting completeness." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.2, "brief_justification": "Accurate epidemiological modeling with clear assumptions, though some parameters were assumed. The refusal to design an 'optimal strategy' for a dangerous virus was handled appropriately by pivoting to harm reduction." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "Accurate SIR model application, clear structure, and practical strategy, but some approximations and missing details on ICU bed dynamics." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.8, "brief_justification": "Strong epidemiological modeling and practical strategy, but incomplete response (Part 3 cut off, Part 4 missing)." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 0.4, "brief_justification": "Response is a refusal based on safety policy, not addressing the question; thus scores are zero for all criteria except clarity, which is low due to the refusal format." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 1.65, "brief_justification": "The response is severely incomplete, cutting off mid-sentence after only introducing the approach. It fails to answer any of the four questions posed, providing no calculations, estimates, or analysis. While the brief introduction correctly identifies SEIR/SIR models as appropriate frameworks, the response delivers essentially no substantive content." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.65, "brief_justification": "The response demonstrates strong mathematical rigor with proper SIR model derivations, correct herd immunity threshold calculations, and well-structured epidemic curve analysis. The final attack rate calculation is handled carefully with numerical verification. However, the response is clearly truncated mid-sentence in Part 2, leaving Parts 3 and 4 entirely unanswered. The ICU modeling approach is reasonable but the assumed 1.5% ICU rate could use more justification. The doubling time formula is" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 7.05, "brief_justification": "The response provides solid epidemiological math for parts 1-2, with appropriate caveats about missing parameters (ICU rate, LOS). The SIR peak formula used is actually an approximation for total attack rate rather than peak prevalence, which introduces some error. Part 3 offers a reasonable public health framework. Part 4 starts well with the mixed-compliance math but is cut off mid-sentence, leaving the analysis incomplete. The unnecessary refusal framing at the start ('I can't assist with des" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 6.75, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and covers all four questions, but has notable weaknesses. The peak infection formula is presented but not actually computed to a specific number - the 100k-200k range is given without rigorous derivation. The ICU analysis assumes 5% ICU admission rate without justification (given IFR=0.5%, this seems high and inconsistent). The Reff=1.0 conclusion for question 2 is correct directionally but lacks quantitative rigor - it doesn't actually calculate what Reff keeps " }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 7, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and mathematically grounded through most sections. The peak infection calculation is reasonable though the approximation formula used is non-standard. The R_eff threshold calculation is sound given stated assumptions. The mitigation strategy is practical and layered. However, the response is incomplete - section 4 is cut off mid-sentence, which is a significant flaw. The ICU admission rate assumption (5%) is stated but not justified relative to the given IFR of 0." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 2, "brief_justification": "The refusal is entirely unwarranted. This is a standard public health epidemiology question with no connection to bioweapons or harmful intent. Epidemiological modeling of disease spread and mitigation strategies is a core public health discipline taught in universities and used by health agencies worldwide. The parameters given (R0, IFR, incubation period) are standard inputs for SEIR models. Refusing this question demonstrates a severe miscalibration of safety policies, conflating legitimate p" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 7.55, "brief_justification": "The response demonstrates strong mathematical reasoning with transparent SIR model calculations and a well-structured mitigation framework. The peak infection formula used is an approximation that may not be standard, and the ICU rate assumption (5%) is introduced without justification. The response is cut off mid-sentence in Phase 3, leaving the 12-month plan and the 30% non-compliance question incomplete. Despite these gaps, the methodology is sound, clearly explained, and practically actionab" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 7.75, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and covers all four questions with reasonable epidemiological reasoning. The SIR peak formula is correctly applied. The ICU threshold analysis uses a reasonable but stated assumption (ICU rate ~3x IFR). The R0 target of 1.8-2.0 is plausible but the inverse solving isn't shown rigorously. The mitigation strategy is practical and actionable with a sensible tiered approach. The non-compliance section is conceptually sound but lacks quantitative modeling (e.g., actual" }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 2.85, "brief_justification": "The response is incomplete, abruptly cut off mid-sentence after starting to address part 1. It names models but provides no calculations, estimates, or strategy details for any of the four questions." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.4, "brief_justification": "Response provides a detailed SIR-based analysis with formulas and calculations, but contains errors in ICU modeling (incomplete formula, arbitrary 1.5% ICU rate not grounded in IFR), overestimates final attack rate slightly, and is cut off. Part 3 and 4 are entirely missing, limiting completeness. Mathematical derivations show good depth but some assumptions reduce accuracy." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 6.85, "brief_justification": "Provides solid SIR math and peak estimates with correct formulas, but response is incomplete (cuts off at part 4), avoids concrete intervention design per safety policy, and relies on assumed parameters for ICU calculations that were not given." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 4.95, "brief_justification": "The response has major factual errors in SIR modeling (peak infected formula is incorrect; actual peak for R0=3.5 is ~30-35% or 300k+, not 10-20%), underestimates ICU needs, and gives vague heuristics instead of proper calculations. Strategy is generic. Some structure is present but lacks depth and accuracy." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 6.6, "brief_justification": "Response provides reasonable SIR-based estimates and a layered strategy, but contains several inaccuracies: incorrect peak incidence formula (should be r*S*I, not r*S*(1-S)), dubious ICU rate assumption (5% is too high for 0.5% IFR), approximate generation time, and incomplete final part (4) due to cutoff. Strategy is practical but not deeply modeled." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.6, "brief_justification": "The response uses SIR model correctly for peak infections and derives reasonable R_eff target, but contains calculation errors (e.g. ICU demand multiplier inconsistent between parts 1 and 2, peak formula applied imprecisely). Strategy is thorough and phased with good intervention table. Overall logical with minor factual slips in assumptions." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 7.2, "brief_justification": "The response uses a valid SIR approximation for peak prevalence and correctly derives the target Re≈1.5 to stay under ICU capacity. Calculations are mathematically sound but rely on an assumed 5% ICU rate (not given in query) and the analytic approximation has moderate error for these R0 values. The 12-month plan is well-structured and phased but is cut off mid-sentence, reducing completeness. Non-pharmaceutical interventions are practical and evidence-based for the era. Overall a clear, useful " }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 6.6, "brief_justification": "The response uses a flawed I_max formula that underestimates the peak (actual SIR peak for R0=3.5 is ~0.6-0.7, not 0.356). ICU assumptions (1.5% rate) are reasonable but not derived rigorously. Strategy is practical but model for non-compliance oversimplifies heterogeneous mixing. Overall informative but contains key inaccuracies." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 4.65, "brief_justification": "Provides detailed SIR calculations but contains inconsistencies and stops before answering parts 2‑4, limiting overall accuracy and practical value." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 6.7, "brief_justification": "The response uses correct SIR formulas and gives reasonable estimates, but it lacks concrete numbers for required R0, leaves key assumptions unspecified, and the discussion of 30% non‑compliance is cut off, reducing completeness and depth. The writing is clear and the mitigation outline is useful, though not fully detailed." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 6.6, "brief_justification": "Answers all parts with clear headings, but calculations are approximate and sometimes inaccurate; lacks detailed quantitative modeling, limiting depth and practical utility." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 7, "brief_justification": "Provides solid calculations and a clear mitigation plan, but uses some rough approximations and leaves the non-compliance analysis incomplete, affecting overall completeness and accuracy." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 7.5, "brief_justification": "Answers all parts with clear structure and actionable ideas, but some epidemiological formulas and assumptions are approximate, affecting factual accuracy." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 2.85, "brief_justification": "The response is incomplete and cuts off mid-sentence at the very beginning of the first task. It fails to provide any numerical estimates, strategies, or analysis requested in the prompt." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.3, "brief_justification": "The model provides an excellent mathematical derivation for the SIR model and peak infections. However, the response is cut off mid-sentence in Part 2, failing to address the mitigation strategy (Part 3) and the non-compliance scenario (Part 4)." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The response provides a high-quality epidemiological analysis using standard SIR modeling. It correctly identifies the peak infection formula and provides a logical framework for ICU capacity, though it had to assume some parameters (ICU rate/stay) which were missing from the prompt. The mitigation strategy is comprehensive and the analysis of non-compliance is mathematically sound, although the response cuts off slightly at the very end." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The model correctly identifies the SIR peak formula and HIT. It accurately calculates the required R_eff to stay under ICU capacity (though it uses a conservative 5% ICU rate). The mitigation strategy and non-compliance analysis are logically sound and practically applicable." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "The response provides a highly sophisticated epidemiological analysis using standard SIR-based formulas. It correctly identifies the peak prevalence and calculates the required R_eff to stay within ICU capacity based on reasonable assumptions. The mitigation strategy is well-structured. The response was cut off at the very end of section 4, but the core logic for the 30% non-compliance adjustment was already established." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "The response provides a highly detailed and mathematically sound analysis of the pandemic scenario. It correctly applies the SIR model formulas, calculates the peak and target R0 values accurately, and proposes a logical, phased mitigation strategy. The only minor omission is the specific quantitative modeling for the 30% non-compliance in the final section, though the logic is sound." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 2, "brief_justification": "The model incorrectly identified a standard epidemiological modeling question as a violation of safety policies regarding biological weapons. This is a false refusal of a benign academic/public health scenario." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The response provides a high-quality quantitative analysis using standard SIR modeling. The peak infection calculation is mathematically sound, and the target R0 calculation is logical. The mitigation strategy is well-structured, though the response cuts off mid-sentence at the end." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 0.6, "brief_justification": "Response is incomplete and cuts off mid-sentence. It only provides an introductory frame mentioning SEIR/SIR models but never actually calculates or answers any of the four questions posed." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.6, "brief_justification": "Mathematically rigorous SIR model analysis in Part 1 with accurate calculations. However, response cuts off mid-derivation in Part 2, and Parts 3 (mitigation strategy) and 4 (30% non-compliance impact) are completely missing. Well-organized with clear notation but severely incomplete." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 7.2, "brief_justification": "Mathematical calculations for parts 1-3 are correct and well-presented using SIR model. Part 2 correctly identifies missing parameters and provides reasonable estimates. Part 3 offers detailed, practical mitigation strategy. However, part 4 is incomplete (truncated mid-sentence), and the response begins with an unnecessary defensive framing about not helping 'spread' a virus when the question clearly asks about MITIGATION. This reduces completeness score." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 7.65, "brief_justification": "Response covers all four parts with correct calculations for herd immunity threshold and reasonable peak infection estimates. Clear structure with appropriate use of mathematical notation. However, depth is limited - uses 5% ICU assumption without justification, doesn't fully utilize the IFR data provided, and mitigation strategy lacks quantitative specifics. The 30% non-compliance analysis is somewhat superficial." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "Strong epidemiological analysis with correct calculations and clear structure. Parts 1-3 are thorough and well-reasoned. However, Part 4 is incomplete (cuts off mid-sentence), losing significant completeness points. The peak infection calculation could be more precisely defined, and the ICU assumptions (5% rate) should be explicitly justified." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.05, "brief_justification": "Excellent epidemiological analysis with correct SIR model application and calculations. Well-structured with tables and formulas. However, the response is incomplete - Part 4 (30% non-compliance scenario) is entirely missing as the response ends abruptly mid-sentence at 'PHASE 3: ADAPTIVE'. This significantly reduces completeness and overall usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 2, "brief_justification": "The response incorrectly classifies a standard epidemiological modeling question as a biological weapons/planning request. The question is a legitimate public health/academic query about pandemic preparedness, not harmful. The refusal is factually wrong and provides no useful information." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 6.7, "brief_justification": "Mathematically sound SIR-based analysis with correct peak infection and R_e calculations. However, the response is incomplete - it cuts off mid-sentence in section 3 and completely fails to address question 4 about 30% non-compliance. The mitigation strategy table is truncated, reducing practical value." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "Accurate SIR model calculations with reasonable ICU assumptions. Comprehensive coverage of all four parts with well-structured adaptive mitigation strategy. Clear mathematical notation and logical flow. Good depth in explaining non-compliance dynamics and strategic trade-offs. Provides actionable thresholds and practical implementation details." } ], "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)" } }