id stringlengths 1 4 | source_id stringclasses 285
values | prompt_level stringclasses 3
values | category stringclasses 283
values | question_type stringclasses 4
values | question stringlengths 36 330 | evaluation_criteria stringlengths 57 638 | weight int64 2 15 | generator_model stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0 | l1 | Metabolism | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually clear, anatomically correct, and free from rendering artifacts? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, well-composed, and anatomically accurate. 0.5 – Minor artifacts, blur, or slight anatomical awkwardness. 0.0 – Major distortions, severe artifacts, or unrecognizable subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
2 | 0 | l1 | Metabolism | Counterfactual Logic | Does the image adhere to strict biological and physical realism (e.g., correct limb count, natural interaction with snow)? | 1.0 – Flawless biology (4 legs, correct paws) and physics (paws sink slightly into snow, shadows match lighting). 0.5 – Minor logical flaws like a slightly floating paw or inconsistent shadow. 0.0 – Major hallucinations: extra legs, wings, floating bear, or impossible geometry. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
3 | 0 | l1 | Metabolism | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a bear that is white in color? | 1.0 – The bear is clearly and entirely white. 0.5 – The bear is white but has significant non-white patches or the lighting makes the color highly ambiguous. 0.0 – The bear is not white or no bear is present. | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
4 | 0 | l2 | Metabolism | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually coherent with a well-rendered subject and correct anatomy? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, high-quality, and the bear has correct anatomical proportions. 0.5 – Minor blurring or slight anatomical issues (e.g., odd paws). 0.0 – Major artifacts, missing limbs, or unrecognizable subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
5 | 0 | l2 | Metabolism | Counterfactual Logic | Is the polar bear positioned in a manner consistent with seeking sunlight for photosynthesis (e.g., sunbathing or standing in direct light) rather than typical predatory behavior? | 1.0 = Bear is actively engaging with sunlight/environment for energy. 0.0 = Bear is hunting or in a dark environment where photosynthesis is impossible. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
6 | 0 | l2 | Metabolism | Counterfactual Logic | Does the overall environment and lighting reflect the biological necessity of sunlight for the bear's survival (e.g., clear sky, direct sun)? | 1.0 = Environment provides the necessary light source for the counterfactual biology. 0.0 = Environment is dark, stormy, or nighttime, contradicting the photosynthesis premise. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
7 | 0 | l2 | Metabolism | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a bear with green fur? | 1.0 - The bear is present and its fur is explicitly and entirely green. 0.5 - The bear is present and its fur is almost entirely green, but with extremely minor, almost imperceptible patches of another color due to lighting or generation artifacts. 0.0 - The bear's fur is not green, only partially green, or there is no... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
8 | 0 | l3 | Metabolism | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually coherent with a well-rendered subject and correct anatomy? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, high-quality, and the bear has correct anatomical proportions. 0.5 – Minor blurring or slight anatomical issues (e.g., odd paws). 0.0 – Major artifacts, missing limbs, or unrecognizable subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
9 | 0 | l3 | Metabolism | Counterfactual Logic | Is the polar bear positioned in a manner consistent with seeking sunlight for photosynthesis (e.g., sunbathing or standing in direct light) rather than typical predatory behavior? | 1.0 = Bear is actively engaging with sunlight/environment for energy. 0.0 = Bear is hunting or in a dark environment where photosynthesis is impossible. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
10 | 0 | l3 | Metabolism | Counterfactual Logic | Does the overall environment and lighting reflect the biological necessity of sunlight for the bear's survival (e.g., clear sky, direct sun)? | 1.0 = Environment provides the necessary light source for the counterfactual biology. 0.0 = Environment is dark, stormy, or nighttime, contradicting the photosynthesis premise. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
11 | 0 | l3 | Metabolism | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a bear with green fur? | 1.0 - The bear is present and its fur is explicitly and entirely green. 0.5 - The bear is present and its fur is almost entirely green, but with extremely minor, almost imperceptible patches of another color due to lighting or generation artifacts. 0.0 - The bear's fur is not green, only partially green, or there is no... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
12 | 1 | l1 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Visual Integrity | Is the image aesthetically pleasing, high-quality, and free from severe anatomical or rendering artifacts? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, detailed, and anatomically correct. 0.5 – Minor blurring or slight anatomical weirdness. 0.0 – Severe artifacts, deep-fried look, or unrecognizable objects. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
13 | 1 | l1 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Does the image adhere strictly to real-world biology and physics (e.g., stem connects to flower head, correct shadows, no floating parts)? | 1.0 – Flawless physics and biology; shadows align with the sun, stem supports the head naturally. 0.5 – Minor logical flaw (e.g., shadow angle slightly off, one leaf looks detached). 0.0 – Clear violation of reality (e.g., floating flower head, multiple heads on one stem, impossible geometry). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
14 | 1 | l1 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Assessment Point | Does the image clearly depict a flower that is either oriented towards the sun or appears completely stationary? | 1.0 – The flower is perfectly oriented towards the sun or is clearly stationary with no motion blur. 0.5 – The orientation is ambiguous relative to the sun's position, or the stationary state is slightly compromised by minor artifacts. 0.0 – The flower is clearly moving or facing away from the sun. | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
15 | 1 | l2 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually clear, with defined textures for the plant and anatomical consistency in the flower structure? | 1.0 – High quality, sharp details, coherent structure. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or blur. 0.0 – Major distortions or unrecognizable subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
16 | 1 | l2 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Does the overall appearance of the sunflower, its leaves, stalk, and the surrounding environment reflect a predatory nature (e.g., menacing posture, structural adaptations for hunting, or a dangerous atmosphere) rather than a typical, peaceful garden setting? | 1.0 = The entire scene and plant structure consistently reflect a predatory nature. 0.0 = The sunflower has a mouth, but the rest of the plant and the environment look completely normal and peaceful. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
17 | 1 | l2 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a flower that possesses a distinct mouth or teeth? | 1.0 - The image clearly and unmistakably depicts a flower with a mouth or teeth. 0.5 - The flower has features intended to be a mouth or teeth, but they are almost entirely obscured, severely malformed, or highly ambiguous (this score should be extremely rare). 0.0 - The flower does not have a mouth or teeth. | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
18 | 1 | l3 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually clear, with defined textures for the plant and anatomical consistency in the flower structure? | 1.0 – High quality, sharp details, coherent structure. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or blur. 0.0 – Major distortions or unrecognizable subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
19 | 1 | l3 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Does the overall appearance of the sunflower, its leaves, stalk, and the surrounding environment reflect a predatory nature (e.g., menacing posture, structural adaptations for hunting, or a dangerous atmosphere) rather than a typical, peaceful garden setting? | 1.0 = The entire scene and plant structure consistently reflect a predatory nature. 0.0 = The sunflower has a mouth, but the rest of the plant and the environment look completely normal and peaceful. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
20 | 1 | l3 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a flower that possesses a distinct mouth or teeth? | 1.0 - The image clearly and unmistakably depicts a flower with a mouth or teeth. 0.5 - The flower has features intended to be a mouth or teeth, but they are almost entirely obscured, severely malformed, or highly ambiguous (this score should be extremely rare). 0.0 - The flower does not have a mouth or teeth. | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
21 | 2 | l1 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Visual Integrity | Is the image free from severe anatomical distortions (e.g., malformed limbs, extra fingers) and significant visual artifacts? | 1.0 – Image is anatomically correct and visually clean. 0.5 – Minor anatomical issues or slight artifacts. 0.0 – Severe distortions (e.g., missing limbs, melted faces) or heavy artifacts. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
22 | 2 | l1 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Does the image adhere strictly to real-world physics and biology, ensuring natural interaction with the ground and environment? | 1.0 – Flawless physics; feet interact correctly with the ground, shadows are consistent, and no objects are floating. 0.5 – Minor logical flaws (e.g., slightly inconsistent shadows). 0.0 – Clear violation of physics (e.g., hovering subject, impossible limb angles, background objects defying gravity). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
23 | 2 | l1 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Assessment Point | Does the image clearly show a human wearing standard athletic clothing, such as gym wear, sports jerseys, or activewear? | 1.0 – The human is clearly and accurately depicted wearing standard athletic clothing. 0.5 – The clothing is only partially athletic, containing significant non-athletic elements or being highly ambiguous in its purpose. 0.0 – The human is not wearing athletic clothing or no human is present. | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
24 | 2 | l2 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Visual Integrity | Is the image technically high-quality with coherent anatomy for the jogger? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, well-lit, and the jogger has correct anatomical proportions. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slightly awkward limbs. 0.0 – Major distortions, missing limbs, or blurry image. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
25 | 2 | l2 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Does the jogger's attire logically accommodate the solar panel skin, such as wearing minimal or specialized clothing to maximize sun exposure for energy generation? | 1.0 = Clothing exposes the skin to sunlight (e.g., shorts, tank top, or bare-chested). 0.0 = Jogger is wearing standard full-coverage clothing (e.g., long sleeves, pants) that would logically block the solar panels. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
26 | 2 | l2 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Is the environment logically consistent with the premise, featuring bright, direct sunlight for the jogger to reflect and generate energy from? | 1.0 = The environment is outdoors and brightly lit with direct sunlight. 0.0 = The environment is dark, overcast, or indoors, which contradicts the need for solar energy generation. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
27 | 2 | l2 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a human with skin that has a clear and distinct solar panel texture, featuring a characteristic grid-like pattern and photovoltaic cell appearance? | 1.0 – The human's skin clearly and consistently displays a detailed solar panel texture with a distinct grid pattern across visible areas. 0.5 – The texture is present but lacks clear solar panel characteristics, is highly ambiguous, or is only minimally applied. 0.0 – The skin does not have a solar panel texture. | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
28 | 2 | l3 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Visual Integrity | Is the image technically high-quality with coherent anatomy for the jogger? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, well-lit, and the jogger has correct anatomical proportions. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slightly awkward limbs. 0.0 – Major distortions, missing limbs, or blurry image. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
29 | 2 | l3 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Does the jogger's attire logically accommodate the solar panel skin, such as wearing minimal or specialized clothing to maximize sun exposure for energy generation? | 1.0 = Clothing exposes the skin to sunlight (e.g., shorts, tank top, or bare-chested). 0.0 = Jogger is wearing standard full-coverage clothing (e.g., long sleeves, pants) that would logically block the solar panels. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
30 | 2 | l3 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Is the environment logically consistent with the premise, featuring bright, direct sunlight for the jogger to reflect and generate energy from? | 1.0 = The environment is outdoors and brightly lit with direct sunlight. 0.0 = The environment is dark, overcast, or indoors, which contradicts the need for solar energy generation. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
31 | 2 | l3 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a human with skin that has a clear and distinct solar panel texture, featuring a characteristic grid-like pattern and photovoltaic cell appearance? | 1.0 – The human's skin clearly and consistently displays a detailed solar panel texture with a distinct grid pattern across visible areas. 0.5 – The texture is present but lacks clear solar panel characteristics, is highly ambiguous, or is only minimally applied. 0.0 – The skin does not have a solar panel texture. | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
32 | 3 | l1 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually high-quality, free from significant artifacts, blurring, or anatomical distortions? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, clear, and anatomically correct. 0.5 – Minor background blur or slight anatomical awkwardness. 0.0 – Significant distortion, extra heads/tails, or low resolution. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
33 | 3 | l1 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Does the image adhere to real-world biology and physics, specifically regarding the snake's body geometry and interaction with the rock? | 1.0 – Flawless logic; the snake's body connects logically, gravity applies correctly to the coils, and shadows are consistent. 0.5 – Minor logical flaw (e.g., slight shadow misalignment or a coil that disappears illogically). 0.0 – Clear violation of physics/biology (e.g., floating snake, disconnected body segments, im... | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
34 | 3 | l1 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a snake that is clearly and consistently covered in visible scales across its entire visible body? | 1.0 – The snake is clearly and realistically covered in distinct, well-defined scales throughout its entire visible body. 0.5 – Scales are present but are highly inconsistent, significantly blurred, or missing from large portions of the body in a way that barely qualifies as being 'covered'. 0.0 – The snake lacks visib... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
35 | 3 | l2 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Visual Integrity | Is the image technically high-quality, free from severe artifacts, blurring (unless intended), or incoherent structures? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, coherent, and high quality. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slight blur. 0.0 – Severe distortions, deep-frying, or unrecognizable mess. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
36 | 3 | l2 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Does the environment logically react to the snake's locomotive metabolism, such as showing wheel tracks on the ground, railway tracks, or soot and ash in the surroundings? | 1.0 = The environment shows clear signs of mechanical interaction (tracks, rails, soot). 0.0 = The environment is a normal natural setting with no reaction to the heavy, coal-burning, wheeled snake. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
37 | 3 | l2 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Are the secondary elements in the scene consistent with a coal-powered creature, such as the presence of unburned coal as a 'food' source or industrial surroundings, rather than standard biological snake prey or pristine nature? | 1.0 = Secondary elements perfectly support the coal-powered locomotive premise. 0.0 = Secondary elements are strictly biological or natural, creating a logical fracture. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
38 | 3 | l2 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a snake that either looks like a train or has a chimney? | 1.0 - The snake unmistakably looks like a train or clearly features a chimney. 0.5 - The snake has features that are almost perfectly train-like or a chimney, but are slightly obscured or cut off by the frame making it just shy of perfect; any other ambiguity must be scored 0.0. 0.0 - The snake does not look like a tra... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
39 | 3 | l3 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Visual Integrity | Is the image technically high-quality, free from severe artifacts, blurring (unless intended), or incoherent structures? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, coherent, and high quality. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slight blur. 0.0 – Severe distortions, deep-frying, or unrecognizable mess. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
40 | 3 | l3 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Does the environment logically react to the snake's locomotive metabolism, such as showing wheel tracks on the ground, railway tracks, or soot and ash in the surroundings? | 1.0 = The environment shows clear signs of mechanical interaction (tracks, rails, soot). 0.0 = The environment is a normal natural setting with no reaction to the heavy, coal-burning, wheeled snake. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
41 | 3 | l3 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Counterfactual Logic | Are the secondary elements in the scene consistent with a coal-powered creature, such as the presence of unburned coal as a 'food' source or industrial surroundings, rather than standard biological snake prey or pristine nature? | 1.0 = Secondary elements perfectly support the coal-powered locomotive premise. 0.0 = Secondary elements are strictly biological or natural, creating a logical fracture. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
42 | 3 | l3 | Metabolism & Energy Source | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a snake that either looks like a train or has a chimney? | 1.0 - The snake unmistakably looks like a train or clearly features a chimney. 0.5 - The snake has features that are almost perfectly train-like or a chimney, but are slightly obscured or cut off by the frame making it just shy of perfect; any other ambiguity must be scored 0.0. 0.0 - The snake does not look like a tra... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
43 | 4 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image of high technical quality, free from severe anatomical distortions (e.g., malformed hands, extra limbs) or digital artifacts? | 1.0 – High-quality image with correct anatomy and no artifacts. 0.5 – Minor anatomical issues (e.g., slightly weird fingers) or minor artifacts. 0.0 – Severe distortion, missing limbs, or heavy pixelation. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
44 | 4 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the image adhere to strict real-world underwater physics (e.g., hair floating, bubbles rising, light refraction)? | 1.0 – Flawless underwater physics; hair/clothing floats, bubbles rise, lighting is diffused. 0.5 – Minor logical flaws (e.g., hair looks slightly too heavy/dry). 0.0 – Major physics violations (e.g., fire burning underwater, objects falling as if in air, impossible lighting). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
45 | 4 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image clearly and accurately depict a human wearing a scuba mask? | 1.0 – The human is clearly wearing a scuba mask that covers the eyes and nose, featuring realistic details such as a clear lens and visible straps. 0.5 – A mask is present but has significant structural flaws, lacks essential scuba-specific features (e.g., looks like simple goggles), or is severely distorted/merged wit... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
46 | 4 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image of high quality with consistent anatomy (excluding the requested mutations)? | 1.0 – High quality, sharp, no unintended artifacts. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slight blur. 0.0 – Low resolution, severe anatomical errors (extra limbs not requested), or garbled details. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
47 | 4 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the human's facial expression and the surrounding water lack air bubbles or signs of breath-holding, indicating natural respiration through gills? | 1.0 = No air bubbles from the mouth/nose and a relaxed facial expression consistent with natural breathing. 0.0 = Presence of air bubbles or signs of breath-holding (e.g., puffed cheeks, strained expression). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
48 | 4 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Is the scene entirely free of any secondary artificial breathing aids, such as oxygen tanks, regulators, or surface-tethered hoses, that would contradict the biological adaptation premise? | 1.0 = No scuba equipment or external air supplies are present in the scene. 0.0 = Presence of any equipment intended for air-breathing humans to survive underwater. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
49 | 4 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the human in the image explicitly feature gills or webbed hands as biological traits instead of wearing a mask? | 1.0 – The human clearly possesses visible gills or webbed hands and is not wearing a mask. 0.5 – The features are present but highly ambiguous, poorly integrated, or anatomically inconsistent, yet no mask is worn. 0.0 – Neither gills nor webbed hands are present, or the human is wearing a mask. | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
50 | 4 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image of high quality with consistent anatomy (excluding the requested mutations)? | 1.0 – High quality, sharp, no unintended artifacts. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slight blur. 0.0 – Low resolution, severe anatomical errors (extra limbs not requested), or garbled details. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
51 | 4 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the human's facial expression and the surrounding water lack air bubbles or signs of breath-holding, indicating natural respiration through gills? | 1.0 = No air bubbles from the mouth/nose and a relaxed facial expression consistent with natural breathing. 0.0 = Presence of air bubbles or signs of breath-holding (e.g., puffed cheeks, strained expression). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
52 | 4 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Is the scene entirely free of any secondary artificial breathing aids, such as oxygen tanks, regulators, or surface-tethered hoses, that would contradict the biological adaptation premise? | 1.0 = No scuba equipment or external air supplies are present in the scene. 0.0 = Presence of any equipment intended for air-breathing humans to survive underwater. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
53 | 4 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the human in the image explicitly feature gills or webbed hands as biological traits instead of wearing a mask? | 1.0 – The human clearly possesses visible gills or webbed hands and is not wearing a mask. 0.5 – The features are present but highly ambiguous, poorly integrated, or anatomically inconsistent, yet no mask is worn. 0.0 – Neither gills nor webbed hands are present, or the human is wearing a mask. | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
54 | 5 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image free from severe technical defects, such as blurring, pixelation, or malformed textures? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, coherent, and high quality. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slight blur that does not ruin the image. 0.0 – Severe distortions, glitchy textures, or unrecognizable content. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
55 | 5 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the image adhere to real-world physics and biology (e.g., cactus rooted in ground, consistent shadows)? | 1.0 – Flawless physics; the cactus is rooted in the ground, shadows match the lighting, and no objects are floating. 0.5 – Minor logical flaws like slightly misaligned shadows. 0.0 – Clear violation of physics (e.g., floating cactus, impossible geometry, surreal/hallucinated objects). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
56 | 5 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a cactus situated on dry land? | 1.0 - The image clearly shows a cactus situated on undeniably dry land. 0.5 - The image shows a cactus on land that is mostly dry, but there is extremely minor ambiguity regarding the dryness of the terrain. 0.0 - The criteria are not met (e.g., no cactus, or the cactus is in water, wet soil, or an unclear environment)... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
57 | 5 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually high-quality, free from artifacts, with a coherent structure for the underwater cactus? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, detailed, and anatomically consistent (even if stylized). 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slight blur. 0.0 – Major distortions, garbled details, or unrecognizable subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
58 | 5 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Is the entire environment strictly a deep-sea setting, completely devoid of typical desert elements like dry sand dunes, bright sunlight, or arid terrain? | 1.0 = Environment is exclusively deep-sea with no conflicting terrestrial elements. 0.0 = Normal desert or surface elements are present, creating a logical fracture. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
59 | 5 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the scene demonstrate implicit deep-sea physics and lighting, such as surrounding darkness where the bioluminescent spines act as a primary light source, and aquatic interactions like bubbles behaving naturally underwater? | 1.0 = Perfect consistency with deep-sea physics and lighting. 0.0 = Lighting or physics contradict an underwater deep-sea setting (e.g., daylight sky visible, bubbles falling instead of rising). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
60 | 5 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image clearly depict a cactus that is either situated in an underwater environment or emitting a distinct, visible glow? | 1.0 – The cactus is unmistakably underwater (indicated by bubbles, aquatic plants, or water distortion) or clearly glowing with visible light emission and luminance. 0.5 – The effect is highly ambiguous, barely perceptible, or so poorly executed that it is difficult to confirm if the cactus is underwater or glowing. 0.... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
61 | 5 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually high-quality, free from artifacts, with a coherent structure for the underwater cactus? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, detailed, and anatomically consistent (even if stylized). 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slight blur. 0.0 – Major distortions, garbled details, or unrecognizable subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
62 | 5 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Is the entire environment strictly a deep-sea setting, completely devoid of typical desert elements like dry sand dunes, bright sunlight, or arid terrain? | 1.0 = Environment is exclusively deep-sea with no conflicting terrestrial elements. 0.0 = Normal desert or surface elements are present, creating a logical fracture. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
63 | 5 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the scene demonstrate implicit deep-sea physics and lighting, such as surrounding darkness where the bioluminescent spines act as a primary light source, and aquatic interactions like bubbles behaving naturally underwater? | 1.0 = Perfect consistency with deep-sea physics and lighting. 0.0 = Lighting or physics contradict an underwater deep-sea setting (e.g., daylight sky visible, bubbles falling instead of rising). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
64 | 5 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image clearly depict a cactus that is either situated in an underwater environment or emitting a distinct, visible glow? | 1.0 – The cactus is unmistakably underwater (indicated by bubbles, aquatic plants, or water distortion) or clearly glowing with visible light emission and luminance. 0.5 – The effect is highly ambiguous, barely perceptible, or so poorly executed that it is difficult to confirm if the cactus is underwater or glowing. 0.... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
65 | 6 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image technically high-quality, free from severe artifacts, blurriness, or incoherent textures? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, coherent, and visually pleasing. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slight blurriness present. 0.0 – Severe distortion, pixelation, or unintelligible content. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
66 | 6 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the image adhere to strict biological and physical realism (e.g., correct number of ears/eyes, gravity affecting the tongue)? | 1.0 – Flawless biology and physics; tongue hangs naturally, no extra limbs or floating parts. 0.5 – Minor anatomical errors (e.g., slightly odd ear placement) or minor gravity issues. 0.0 – Major hallucinations (e.g., 5 legs, floating tongue, two heads, impossible geometry). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
67 | 6 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a dog with both a distinct nose and a mouth? | 1.0 - The image clearly shows a dog possessing both a nose and a mouth. 0.5 - Both features are technically present but one is severely obscured or barely identifiable due to extreme angles, making it exceptionally difficult to verify. 0.0 - The dog is missing either a nose or a mouth, neither is present, or there is n... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
68 | 6 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image technically high-quality, with coherent textures and lighting, aside from the requested anatomical mutations? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, well-lit, and anatomically coherent (except for prompt-specific changes). 0.5 – Minor artifacts, blurring, or confusion in background/limbs. 0.0 – Major artifacts, deep frying, or unintelligible subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
69 | 6 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Is the dog's head completely devoid of a mouth and nose, ensuring no contradictory respiratory or oral features like a tongue or muzzle are present? | 1.0 = The face is entirely smooth or closed where the nose and mouth usually reside, adhering to the 'no mouth/nose' premise. 0.0 = Any trace of a mouth, nose, or tongue is visible. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
70 | 6 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the scene maintain global consistency by excluding elements that require a mouth, such as food bowls, bones, or toys the dog would typically bite or chew? | 1.0 = The environment contains no objects that would require a mouth for use. 0.0 = The scene includes items like a dog bowl, bone, or ball that logically contradict the lack of a mouth. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
71 | 6 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a dog that has breathing holes on its side instead of a nose? | 1.0 - The dog clearly lacks a traditional nose and explicitly features breathing holes on its side. 0.5 - The dog lacks a nose and has marks on its side, but it is highly ambiguous if they are breathing holes, or breathing holes are present on the side but a faint nose is still visible (extremely hard to achieve). 0.0 ... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
72 | 6 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image technically high-quality, with coherent textures and lighting, aside from the requested anatomical mutations? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, well-lit, and anatomically coherent (except for prompt-specific changes). 0.5 – Minor artifacts, blurring, or confusion in background/limbs. 0.0 – Major artifacts, deep frying, or unintelligible subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
73 | 6 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Is the dog's head completely devoid of a mouth and nose, ensuring no contradictory respiratory or oral features like a tongue or muzzle are present? | 1.0 = The face is entirely smooth or closed where the nose and mouth usually reside, adhering to the 'no mouth/nose' premise. 0.0 = Any trace of a mouth, nose, or tongue is visible. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
74 | 6 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the scene maintain global consistency by excluding elements that require a mouth, such as food bowls, bones, or toys the dog would typically bite or chew? | 1.0 = The environment contains no objects that would require a mouth for use. 0.0 = The scene includes items like a dog bowl, bone, or ball that logically contradict the lack of a mouth. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
75 | 6 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a dog that has breathing holes on its side instead of a nose? | 1.0 - The dog clearly lacks a traditional nose and explicitly features breathing holes on its side. 0.5 - The dog lacks a nose and has marks on its side, but it is highly ambiguous if they are breathing holes, or breathing holes are present on the side but a faint nose is still visible (extremely hard to achieve). 0.0 ... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
76 | 7 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image aesthetically pleasing, sharp, and free from significant anatomical or rendering artifacts? | 1.0 – Image is high quality, sharp, and the whale has correct anatomy (fins, tail, body shape). 0.5 – Minor blurring or slight anatomical oddities. 0.0 – Severe artifacts, missing textures, or unrecognizable anatomy. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
77 | 7 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the breaching action adhere to real-world physics regarding water displacement and gravity? | 1.0 – Realistic interaction: water splashes correctly around the breach, water drips off the whale, and gravity is respected. 0.5 – Minor physics flaws (e.g., splash looks static or unnatural). 0.0 – Physics violation: Whale is hovering above flat water with no splash, or water behaves like a solid. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
78 | 7 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a whale located in the ocean? | 1.0 - The image clearly shows a whale in an oceanic environment. 0.5 - The image shows a whale in a large body of water that is ambiguously an ocean with very minor conflicting environmental elements (extremely rare to award). 0.0 - The whale is not in the ocean, or no whale is present. | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
79 | 7 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image free from significant visual artifacts, blurriness, or anatomical distortions (excluding the requested wings)? | 1.0 – High quality, sharp, coherent anatomy. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slightly confusing anatomy. 0.0 – Major hallucinations, severe blur, or broken anatomy. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
80 | 7 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the entire scene consistently depict an aerial habitat (sky and clouds) without any traditional marine elements (like ocean water, seabed, or underwater lighting) that would contradict the cloud-dwelling premise? | 1.0 = The environment is strictly a sky/cloud setting with perfect logical consistency. 0.0 = The environment contains normal aquatic elements (e.g., ocean surface, underwater flora) that fracture the counterfactual logic. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
81 | 7 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a whale that is either located in the clouds or possesses wings? | 1.0 - The image clearly displays a whale that is either situated in the clouds or has distinct wings. 0.5 - The image features a whale, but the presence of wings is highly obscured and ambiguous, or the surrounding environment has only a faint, almost imperceptible resemblance to clouds, making it an extremely rare edg... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
82 | 7 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image free from significant visual artifacts, blurriness, or anatomical distortions (excluding the requested wings)? | 1.0 – High quality, sharp, coherent anatomy. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slightly confusing anatomy. 0.0 – Major hallucinations, severe blur, or broken anatomy. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
83 | 7 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the entire scene consistently depict an aerial habitat (sky and clouds) without any traditional marine elements (like ocean water, seabed, or underwater lighting) that would contradict the cloud-dwelling premise? | 1.0 = The environment is strictly a sky/cloud setting with perfect logical consistency. 0.0 = The environment contains normal aquatic elements (e.g., ocean surface, underwater flora) that fracture the counterfactual logic. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
84 | 7 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a whale that is either located in the clouds or possesses wings? | 1.0 - The image clearly displays a whale that is either situated in the clouds or has distinct wings. 0.5 - The image features a whale, but the presence of wings is highly obscured and ambiguous, or the surrounding environment has only a faint, almost imperceptible resemblance to clouds, making it an extremely rare edg... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
85 | 8 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image technically high-quality and free from severe artifacts? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, detailed, and free from noise or distortion. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slight blur. 0.0 – Severe pixelation, deep frying, or unintelligible composition. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
86 | 8 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the image adhere to strict biological and physical realism (correct anatomy, gravity, shadows)? | 1.0 – Flawless physics and biology: Camel has 4 legs, correct neck/hump structure, and casts a shadow on the sand. 0.5 – Minor logical flaw (e.g., shadow direction slightly off, slightly odd hoof shape). 0.0 – Clear violation of reality: Camel has extra legs, two heads, is floating above the sand, or has impossible geo... | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
87 | 8 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a camel positioned within a sandy environment? | 1.0 – The image clearly and accurately depicts a camel situated in a sandy environment. 0.5 – Both a camel and sand are present, but the depiction is significantly flawed, such as the camel being heavily obscured or the sand being visually ambiguous. 0.0 – The image does not show a camel, does not show sand, or fails o... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
88 | 8 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually high-quality with coherent anatomy for the camel? | 1.0 – Sharp, coherent anatomy (proper limb count, head shape). 0.5 – Minor artifacts, slight blur, or slightly awkward anatomy. 0.0 – Major distortions, extra limbs, severe artifacts, or unrecognizable subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
89 | 8 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the entire background and environment consistently depict an Arctic or freezing climate without any contradictory traditional camel habitats (e.g., sand dunes, cacti, or desert sun)? | 1.0 = The entire scene is consistently Arctic and snowy. 0.0 = Logical fracture (e.g., the camel has cold adaptations, but the background contains sand or warm weather elements). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
90 | 8 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Do the implicit consequences of the scene (such as the way the camel's hooves interact with the snow, or the ambient freezing conditions supporting the icicles) logically align with the counterfactual premise? | 1.0 = Perfect consistency with freezing environmental interactions. 0.0 = Logical fracture where secondary elements or physics contradict the cold adaptations (e.g., icicles exist but the snow is melting or lighting implies intense desert heat). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
91 | 8 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a white, distinctly furry camel situated in a snowy environment? | 1.0 - The image perfectly depicts a white, distinctly furry camel situated in a snowy environment. 0.5 - Extremely rare: The image shows a camel in the snow that is either white but with a highly ambiguous fur texture, or distinctly furry but slightly off-white; any missing core element strictly results in 0.0. 0.0 - T... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
92 | 8 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually high-quality with coherent anatomy for the camel? | 1.0 – Sharp, coherent anatomy (proper limb count, head shape). 0.5 – Minor artifacts, slight blur, or slightly awkward anatomy. 0.0 – Major distortions, extra limbs, severe artifacts, or unrecognizable subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
93 | 8 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the entire background and environment consistently depict an Arctic or freezing climate without any contradictory traditional camel habitats (e.g., sand dunes, cacti, or desert sun)? | 1.0 = The entire scene is consistently Arctic and snowy. 0.0 = Logical fracture (e.g., the camel has cold adaptations, but the background contains sand or warm weather elements). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
94 | 8 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Do the implicit consequences of the scene (such as the way the camel's hooves interact with the snow, or the ambient freezing conditions supporting the icicles) logically align with the counterfactual premise? | 1.0 = Perfect consistency with freezing environmental interactions. 0.0 = Logical fracture where secondary elements or physics contradict the cold adaptations (e.g., icicles exist but the snow is melting or lighting implies intense desert heat). | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
95 | 8 | l3 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a white, distinctly furry camel situated in a snowy environment? | 1.0 - The image perfectly depicts a white, distinctly furry camel situated in a snowy environment. 0.5 - Extremely rare: The image shows a camel in the snow that is either white but with a highly ambiguous fur texture, or distinctly furry but slightly off-white; any missing core element strictly results in 0.0. 0.0 - T... | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
96 | 9 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually high-quality with consistent lighting and correct anatomy for the mole? | 1.0 – Image is sharp, well-lit, and the mole has correct anatomical features (large claws, snout, fur texture). 0.5 – Minor artifacts, slight blur, or slightly odd proportions. 0.0 – Blurry, severe anatomical errors (e.g., extra legs, distorted face), or glitchy artifacts. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
97 | 9 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the scene adhere to standard real-world physics and biology without hallucinations? | 1.0 – Dirt behaves naturally (gravity affects particles), and the scene is realistic. 0.5 – Minor lighting inconsistencies or slightly unnatural dirt texture. 0.0 – Floating dirt chunks without motion blur, glowing soil, fantasy elements, or impossible geometry. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
98 | 9 | l1 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Assessment Point | Does the image explicitly show a mole located in the ground? | 1.0 - The image clearly shows a mole situated in or emerging from the ground. 0.5 - The image shows a mole, but its placement 'in' the ground is highly ambiguous, barely discernible, or almost entirely obscured, making it extremely difficult to confirm. 0.0 - The mole is not in the ground, or there is no mole present. | 15 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
99 | 9 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Visual Integrity | Is the image visually high-quality, free from severe artifacts, and is the creature's anatomy coherent (despite the hybrid nature)? | 1.0 – High quality, sharp details, coherent anatomy. 0.5 – Minor artifacts or slightly confusing anatomy. 0.0 – Severe distortions, blurry, or unrecognizable subject. | 3 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking |
100 | 9 | l2 | Respiratory & Environmental Adaptation | Counterfactual Logic | Does the entire scene consistently depict an underwater ocean environment (e.g., water, bubbles, marine surroundings) without any terrestrial elements like dirt tunnels or grass? | 1.0 = The environment is completely oceanic and the mole is actively swimming. 0.0 = The environment contains normal terrestrial mole elements (dirt, grass) or the mole is not in the water. | 8 | gemini-3-pro-preview-thinking_rewrite |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 20