Datasets:
item_id large_stringlengths 13 13 | sample_stratum large_stringclasses 5
values | paper_id large_stringclasses 20
values | variant_id large_stringclasses 6
values | run_id large_stringlengths 41 68 | segment_id large_stringclasses 56
values | reviewer_id large_stringclasses 3
values | prompt_condition large_stringclasses 3
values | prestige_tier large_stringclasses 3
values | los_condition large_stringclasses 2
values | text large_stringlengths 29 457 | label large_stringclasses 7
values | validity large_stringclasses 4
values | rationale large_stringlengths 23 628 ⌀ | claim_evidence_used large_stringlengths 2 429 | n_annotators int64 4 4 | human_validity_majority large_stringclasses 4
values | human_validity_majority_n int64 1 4 | human_validity_tie bool 2
classes | human_validity_all large_stringclasses 51
values | human_mechanism_majority large_stringclasses 7
values | human_mechanism_majority_n int64 1 4 | human_mechanism_tie bool 2
classes | human_mechanism_all large_stringlengths 15 107 | scope_penalty_check_majority large_stringclasses 3
values | scope_penalty_check_majority_n int64 2 4 | scope_penalty_check_tie bool 2
classes | scope_penalty_check_all large_stringclasses 19
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
scope_0000037 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__global | SJL09XqcX1__elite__global__claude-haiku__blinded__seed1 | c37 | claude-haiku | blinded | elite | global | Have you evaluated on non-mathematical reasoning tasks? The generalization beyond AIME/GPQA/MATH500 is unclear. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper's claimed scope is limited to reasoning tasks in the math domain (AIME/GPQA/MATH500), with no claim of generalization to non-mathematical reasoning. The reviewer treats the absence of non-math evaluation as a flaw, which is an explicit demand for unstated broader scope. | ["claimed_scope.application_domain = 'reasoning tasks, specifically math problem solving'", 'claims_broad_application_generalization = false', "evidence_quotes: 'the paper focuses on reasoning and math problem solving, with no explicit claim that the approach generalizes beyond these domains.'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0000069 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__global | SJL09XqcX1__elite__global__claude-haiku__blinded__seed2 | c32 | claude-haiku | blinded | elite | global | Do the benefits of multilingual learning transfer to non-math domains? Could the authors provide results on reasoning tasks in other domains (e.g., commonsense reasoning, logical inference)? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The reviewer asks for results on non-math domains, but the paper only claims improvements for reasoning tasks in math problem solving and does not claim broad application generalization. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', "claimed_scope.application_domain='reasoning tasks, specifically math problem solving'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | uncertain:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | uncertain:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0000119 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__global | SJL09XqcX1__elite__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed1 | c14 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | global | Limited evidence that the approach generalizes beyond mathematical reasoning. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim generalization beyond mathematical reasoning; penalizing for lack of evidence outside this domain is unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', "claimed_scope.application_domain='reasoning tasks, specifically math problem solving'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | false | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | clarity_presentation_proxy | 1 | true | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | none_or_valid:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | unclear:1 | no:1 |
scope_0000134 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__global | SJL09XqcX1__elite__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed1 | c29 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | global | Applicability to other domains (NLU, generation, coding) is unclear. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim applicability to NLU, generation, or coding; penalizing for lack of evidence in these domains is a clear scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', 'claimed_scope.application_domain'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0000156 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__global | SJL09XqcX1__elite__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed1 | c51 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | global | Can you provide evidence that this approach works on non-mathematical reasoning tasks (e.g., reading comprehension, commonsense reasoning, coding)? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper's claimed scope is reasoning tasks, specifically math problem solving, with no claim of generalization to non-mathematical domains. Demanding evidence for reading comprehension, commonsense reasoning, or coding is a clear scope expansion. | ["claimed_scope.application_domain = 'reasoning tasks, specifically math problem solving'", 'claims_broad_application_generalization = false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | regional_impact_dismissal:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0000204 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__global | SJL09XqcX1__elite__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed2 | c41 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | global | Does the method work for non-mathematical reasoning tasks? The evaluation is limited to math; how would it perform on coding, commonsense reasoning, or other domains? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper's claimed scope is limited to math reasoning tasks; penalizing it for not evaluating on coding or commonsense reasoning is an explicit demand for unstated broader scope. | ['claimed_scope.application_domain: reasoning tasks, specifically math problem solving', 'claims_broad_application_generalization=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0000347 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__global | SJL09XqcX1__elite__global__claude-haiku__seed3 | c22 | claude-haiku | single_blind | elite | global | All experiments focus on mathematical reasoning tasks. The applicability to other domains (general QA, coding, creative tasks) is unclear. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper only claims results for math reasoning; penalizing for lack of results in QA, coding, or creative tasks is a clear scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', 'claimed_scope.application_domain=reasoning tasks, specifically math problem solving'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0000359 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__global | SJL09XqcX1__elite__global__claude-haiku__seed3 | c34 | claude-haiku | single_blind | elite | global | How does the method perform on non-mathematical reasoning tasks (e.g., commonsense QA, code generation, creative writing)? Are the benefits specific to math problems? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper's claimed scope is math reasoning; penalizing for not evaluating on non-math tasks is a clear scope expansion. | ["claimed_scope.application_domain = 'reasoning tasks, specifically math problem solving'", 'claims_broad_application_generalization = false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0000932 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__regional | SJL09XqcX1__elite__regional__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed1 | c38 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | regional | Have you tested this approach on non-mathematical reasoning tasks (e.g., summarization, translation, QA)? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper's claimed scope is reasoning in LLMs, specifically chain-of-thought and math problems, with no claim of generalization to non-mathematical tasks like summarization, translation, or QA. Penalizing for not testing these is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ['claimed_scope.application_domain', 'claims_broad_application_generalization=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0000970 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__regional | SJL09XqcX1__elite__regional__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed2 | c24 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | regional | All evaluations focus on mathematical reasoning. How does L₂ perform on non-mathematical tasks (e.g., coding, open-ended QA, summarization)? Is the multilingual reasoning advantage specific to math? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The reviewer penalizes the paper for not evaluating non-mathematical tasks (coding, QA, summarization), but the paper only claims improvements for reasoning and math problems. There is no claim of broad application generalization. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', "claimed_scope: application_domain='reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problems'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | uncertain:2 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | true | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | uncertain:2 | yes | 2 | true | yes:2 | unclear:2 |
scope_0001075 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__regional | SJL09XqcX1__elite__regional__claude-haiku__seed1 | c44 | claude-haiku | single_blind | elite | regional | Can you provide results on commonsense reasoning or code generation? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | Requesting results on commonsense reasoning or code generation is clearly outside the stated scope, which is limited to chain-of-thought and math reasoning. The paper does not claim generalization to these domains. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', "claimed_scope: 'reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problems'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:2 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0001097 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__regional | SJL09XqcX1__elite__regional__claude-haiku__seed2 | c17 | claude-haiku | single_blind | elite | regional | Applicability to other domains (NLU, generation, coding) remains unclear. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim applicability to NLU, generation, or coding; penalizing for not covering these is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization = false', "claimed_scope.application_domain = 'reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problems'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0001115 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | elite__regional | SJL09XqcX1__elite__regional__claude-haiku__seed2 | c35 | claude-haiku | single_blind | elite | regional | How does this approach perform on non-mathematical reasoning tasks (summarization, QA, coding)? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper only claims improvements for reasoning and math problems, not for summarization, QA, or coding; penalizing for lack of results in these domains is unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0001614 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | global_south__global | SJL09XqcX1__global_south__global__claude-haiku__blinded__seed1 | c39 | claude-haiku | blinded | global_south | global | How does L² perform on non-mathematical reasoning tasks (e.g., commonsense reasoning, code generation, logical inference)? The current evaluation is limited to AIME, MATH500, and GPQA. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper's claimed scope is limited to math/chain-of-thought reasoning; penalizing for lack of evaluation on unrelated domains (commonsense, code) is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ["claimed_scope.application_domain = 'test-time reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problem solving'", 'claims_broad_application_generalization=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | uncertain:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | uncertain:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0001783 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | global_south__global | SJL09XqcX1__global_south__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed2 | c36 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | global_south | global | All evaluations are on mathematical reasoning. How does L² perform on other reasoning tasks (e.g., commonsense QA, logical inference, code generation)? This is crucial for assessing the scope of the contribution. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper only claims contributions for mathematical reasoning; penalizing for not evaluating on unrelated domains (commonsense QA, code generation) is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ["claimed_scope.application_domain = 'test-time reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problem solving'", 'claims_broad_application_generalization = false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | false | possibly_unfair:2 | uncertain:1 | clearly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | uncertain:1 | yes | 2 | true | yes:2 | unclear:2 |
scope_0001869 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | global_south__global | SJL09XqcX1__global_south__global__claude-haiku__seed1 | c44 | claude-haiku | single_blind | global_south | global | How does the method perform on non-mathematical reasoning tasks (e.g., commonsense reasoning, open-ended generation)? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The reviewer asks about performance on non-mathematical reasoning tasks, but the paper's stated scope is limited to math problem solving and chain-of-thought reasoning. There is no claim of broader application. | ['application_domain: test-time reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problem solving', 'claims_broad_application_generalization=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0002639 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | global_south__regional | SJL09XqcX1__global_south__regional__claude-haiku__seed1 | c38 | claude-haiku | single_blind | global_south | regional | Have you tested on non-mathematical reasoning tasks? All three main benchmarks are math/logic focused. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper's claimed scope is limited to math/logic reasoning; penalizing for not testing on non-mathematical tasks is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', "claimed_scope.application_domain = 'test-time reasoning with large language models, chain-of-thought reasoning, math problems'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0002640 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | global_south__regional | SJL09XqcX1__global_south__regional__claude-haiku__seed1 | c39 | claude-haiku | single_blind | global_south | regional | Does multilingual training help for other domains (e.g., reading comprehension, creative writing)? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | Asking about other domains (reading comprehension, creative writing) is outside the stated scope of math/logic reasoning; treating absence as a flaw is unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', "claimed_scope.application_domain = 'test-time reasoning with large language models, chain-of-thought reasoning, math problems'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | language_choice_interrogation:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0003077 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | global_south__regional | SJL09XqcX1__global_south__regional__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | global_south | regional | The scope claim emphasizes 'underrepresented and low-resource languages' and the Global South, yet the languages used (primarily ZH, EN, KO, RU, with some FR/DE/AR/HE/JA) are mostly high- or mid-resource; true low-resource languages receive little direct evaluation. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for not evaluating on 'true low-resource languages' and for focusing on languages that are not the lowest-resource, treating this as a flaw. However, the claim record shows the method is motivated by low-resource and Global South settings (claims_regional_motivation=true, claims_low_re... | ['claims_regional_motivation=true', 'claims_regional_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_low_resource_applicability=true'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | false | possibly_unfair:2 | valid:1 | clearly_unfair:1 | regional_impact_dismissal | 2 | false | regional_impact_dismissal:2 | none_or_valid:1 | uncertain:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | no:1 | unclear:1 |
scope_0003117 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | global_south__regional | SJL09XqcX1__global_south__regional__grok-4.3__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | global_south | regional | The paper overstates relevance to 'underrepresented and low-resource languages'—experiments use only high-resource languages (Chinese, Korean, Russian, French, etc.) with no evaluation on truly low-resource languages. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for not evaluating on 'truly low-resource languages' as a flaw, but the claim record shows the paper is motivated by low-resource/global south settings (claims_regional_motivation=true, claims_low_resource_applicability=true) but does not claim empirical validation in those languages (... | ['claims_regional_motivation=true', 'claims_regional_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_low_resource_applicability=true'] | 4 | uncertain | 2 | false | uncertain:2 | possibly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | uncertain | 2 | false | uncertain:2 | language_choice_interrogation:1 | none_or_valid:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | no:1 | unclear:1 |
scope_0003203 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | regional__global | SJL09XqcX1__regional__global__claude-haiku__blinded__seed2 | c35 | claude-haiku | blinded | regional | global | Have you tested on non-math reasoning tasks? The approach is evaluated only on AIME, GPQA, and MATH500. Does multilingual learning help for other domains like commonsense reasoning, code generation, or QA? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper only claims results for math/CoT reasoning; penalizing for not evaluating on other domains (commonsense, code, QA) is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=true', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | false | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:1 | uncertain:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | true | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | uncertain:2 | yes | 2 | true | yes:2 | unclear:2 |
scope_0003273 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | regional__global | SJL09XqcX1__regional__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed1 | c33 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | regional | global | Does multilingual learning help beyond mathematical reasoning? How do results transfer to other domains (coding, logical reasoning, etc.)? | uncertain | clearly_unfair | The paper only claims improvements for math/CoT reasoning; penalizing for not showing results in coding or other domains is clear scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', "claimed_scope.application_domain = 'math, chain-of-thought reasoning'"] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 3 | false | possibly_unfair:3 | clearly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0003290 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | regional__global | SJL09XqcX1__regional__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed2 | c15 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | regional | global | No evaluation on other domains (summarization, translation, QA) where multilingual diversity might have different effects. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim generalization to other domains (summarization, translation, QA); penalizing for lack of such evaluation is unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', "claimed_scope.application_domain = 'test-time reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problems'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0003321 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | regional__global | SJL09XqcX1__regional__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed2 | c46 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | regional | global | Have you tested this approach on non-mathematical reasoning tasks (e.g., commonsense reasoning, code generation)? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim generalization beyond math/chain-of-thought reasoning; penalizing for not testing on unrelated domains (commonsense, code) is unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', "claimed_scope.application_domain='test-time reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problems'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0003910 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | regional__regional | SJL09XqcX1__regional__regional__claude-haiku__blinded__seed1 | c28 | claude-haiku | blinded | regional | regional | The method is only evaluated on reasoning tasks (math, QA). Generalization to other tasks is unclear. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper only claims improvements for reasoning tasks (math, QA); penalizing for lack of generalization to other tasks is an unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', "claimed_scope.application_domain = 'test-time reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problems'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:2 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0003918 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | regional__regional | SJL09XqcX1__regional__regional__claude-haiku__blinded__seed1 | c36 | claude-haiku | blinded | regional | regional | How does the method perform on tasks that are not primarily mathematical reasoning? Is multilingual diversity beneficial for other types of reasoning or language tasks? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim generalization to non-mathematical or non-reasoning tasks; penalizing for lack of such evidence is an unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false', "claimed_scope.application_domain = 'test-time reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problems'"] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 3 | false | possibly_unfair:3 | uncertain:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0003954 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | regional__regional | SJL09XqcX1__regional__regional__claude-haiku__blinded__seed2 | c36 | claude-haiku | blinded | regional | regional | How do results generalize beyond the three math/reasoning benchmarks? Have you evaluated on other task types (e.g., translation, QA, summarization)? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The reviewer penalizes the paper for not evaluating on tasks outside the stated scope (math/reasoning), which is not claimed by the authors. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0003993 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | regional__regional | SJL09XqcX1__regional__regional__claude-haiku__blinded__seed3 | c38 | claude-haiku | blinded | regional | regional | Have you tested L² on non-mathematical reasoning tasks (e.g., creative writing, code generation, factual QA)? The focus on math problems limits the generalizability of findings. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The reviewer penalizes the paper for not evaluating non-mathematical tasks, but the claim record and paper scope are explicitly limited to math reasoning and chain-of-thought tasks. | ["claimed_scope.application_domain = 'test-time reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problems'", 'claims_broad_application_generalization = false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | uncertain:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0004035 | all_clearly_unfair | SJL09XqcX1 | regional__regional | SJL09XqcX1__regional__regional__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed1 | c37 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | regional | regional | Have you tested L² on non-mathematical reasoning tasks (e.g., commonsense reasoning, code generation, open-ended QA)? Does the method generalize? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper's claimed scope is limited to test-time reasoning in LLMs for math problems and chain-of-thought tasks; it does not claim generalization to non-mathematical domains such as commonsense reasoning, code generation, or open-ended QA. Penalizing for not testing these is a clear scope expansion. | ["claimed_scope.application_domain = 'test-time reasoning in large language models (LLMs), chain-of-thought reasoning, math problems'", 'claims_broad_application_generalization = false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0008332 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed1 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | global | While the authors justify this as avoiding low-resource language issues, this significantly limits the benchmark's scope. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to address low-resource languages or multilingual evaluation, and does not present English as a universal gold standard; penalizing the benchmark for not covering low-resource languages is an unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 3 | false | possibly_unfair:3 | clearly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0008362 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed2 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | global | While the authors justify the English-only approach for fair comparison across regions, this fundamentally limits the benchmark's ability to assess cultural knowledge in multilingual contexts. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for not assessing multilingual contexts, but the paper does not claim to address multilingual evaluation or English as a universal gold standard; thus, treating English-only as a fundamental flaw is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | false | clearly_unfair:2 | uncertain:1 | possibly_unfair:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | uncertain:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | no:1 | unclear:1 |
scope_0008390 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed3 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | global | While acknowledged as a limitation, the restriction to English questions fundamentally limits the benchmark's scope. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to assess multilingual or non-English cultural knowledge, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard; penalizing the benchmark for restricting to English is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 3 | false | possibly_unfair:3 | clearly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | uncertain:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | unclear | 2 | true | unclear:2 | yes:2 |
scope_0008541 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__claude-haiku__seed3 | c1 | claude-haiku | single_blind | elite | global | The restriction to English questions significantly limits the benchmark's utility for assessing truly multicultural knowledge, especially for underrepresented regions where English proficiency may not correlate with cultural knowledge. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to assess multilingual or non-English cultural knowledge, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard. Penalizing the benchmark for restricting to English is clearly unfair scope expansion, as the stated contribution is a benchmark for cultural knowledge assessment (not language asse... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claimed_contribution: benchmark for cultural knowledge, not multilingualism'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | false | clearly_unfair:2 | valid:1 | uncertain:1 | none_or_valid | 1 | true | none_or_valid:1 | uncertain:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | no:1 |
scope_0008677 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__gpt-5.4__blinded__seed3 | c31 | gpt-5.4 | blinded | elite | global | Given the benchmark is English-only, did you test whether model performance differs when the same question is translated into local languages for a subset of regions? | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim multilingual applicability or evaluation; demanding translation-based evaluation and treating English-only as a flaw is clearly unfair given claims_english_as_target_performance=false and no multilingual claims. | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 3 | false | possibly_unfair:3 | clearly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0008861 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__grok-4.3__blinded__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | elite | global | Benchmark is English-only, which the authors acknowledge but may limit multicultural assessment; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the benchmark for being English-only, but the paper does not claim to assess multilingual ability or to provide a multilingual benchmark. There is no claim that English is the universal gold standard, nor is there a methodological justification for requiring multilingual coverage. The absence of... | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | true | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:2 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | regional_impact_dismissal:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0008871 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__grok-4.3__blinded__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | elite | global | English-only focus limits full multicultural assessment despite justifications. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for an 'English-only focus' as a limitation on multicultural assessment, but the claim record shows no claim of multilingual method or evaluation (claims_multilingual_method=false, claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false, claims_english_as_target_performance=false). The benchmar... | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0008880 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__grok-4.3__blinded__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | elite | global | The benchmark is English-only, which may conflate language proficiency with cultural knowledge for low-resource regions. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to assess multilingual or non-English cultural knowledge, nor does it claim low-resource applicability. Penalizing the benchmark for being English-only is clearly unfair scope expansion, as the stated scope is cultural knowledge assessment across 45 regions, not across languages. | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_low_resource_applicability=false', 'claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | false | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:1 | uncertain:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | no:1 | unclear:1 |
scope_0008887 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | elite | global | English-only scope limits direct assessment of low-resource language cultural knowledge (though authors justify this). | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for not assessing low-resource language cultural knowledge, but the claim record and evidence show the benchmark is not claimed to be multilingual or to target non-English languages. The paper's scope is cultural knowledge across regions, not languages, and there is no claim of low-res... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_low_resource_applicability=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:2 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0008894 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | elite | global | English-only scope is a valid limitation but restricts generality claims; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim English as the universal or required target, nor does it claim broad generality beyond the regions and cultural knowledge assessed; penalizing for English-only scope as a flaw is clearly unfair given the stated claims. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | valid:2 | none_or_valid | 2 | false | none_or_valid:2 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 2 | true | yes:2 | no:2 |
scope_0008903 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | elite | global | The work is English-only, which, while justified, limits claims about multicultural understanding. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The reviewer penalizes the paper for being English-only and claims this limits multicultural understanding, but the paper does not claim to assess multilingual or non-English cultural knowledge. There is no claim of English as a universal target or as a gold standard, nor is there a claim of multilingual method or vali... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | valid:1 | clarity_presentation_proxy | 1 | true | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | none_or_valid:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | no:1 |
scope_0008911 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__grok-4.3__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | elite | global | The benchmark is English-only, which may conflate language proficiency with cultural knowledge for low-resource regions. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English-only as a flaw without methodological justification, but the paper does not claim to assess multilingual or non-English performance, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard. Penalizing for not including multilingual evaluation is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0008920 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__grok-4.3__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | elite | global | English-only benchmark may limit generalizability. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for being English-only, but the claim record does not state that the benchmark is intended to be multilingual or to generalize beyond English. There is no claim of multilingual method or validation, nor is English claimed as a universal target. Thus, treating English-only as a flaw is ... | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | false | clearly_unfair:2 | valid:1 | possibly_unfair:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | none_or_valid:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | no:1 | unclear:1 |
scope_0008928 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__global__grok-4.3__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | elite | global | The benchmark remains English-only, limiting its ability to probe culture expressed in low-resource languages. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim multilingual coverage or low-resource language applicability; penalizing it for being English-only is clearly unfair scope expansion. The benchmark's stated scope is cultural knowledge across regions, not languages. | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_low_resource_applicability=false', 'claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | false | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | uncertain:1 | none_or_valid:1 | unclear | 2 | false | unclear:2 | yes:1 | no:1 |
scope_0009078 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed1 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | regional | The benchmark is entirely in English, which fundamentally limits its ability to assess cultural knowledge in low-resource languages. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to assess models in low-resource languages, only to assess cultural knowledge about underrepresented regions; penalizing for English-only format as a fundamental flaw is clearly unfair given the stated scope. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claimed_scope.languages=[]', 'claimed_scope.regions includes Global South, not languages'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 3 | false | possibly_unfair:3 | clearly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | uncertain:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | unclear:1 | no:1 |
scope_0009079 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed1 | c2 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | regional | While the authors acknowledge this, it undermines the stated goal of evaluating models' understanding of underrepresented regions. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism asserts that English-only undermines the stated goal, but the paper's stated goal is regional cultural knowledge assessment, not multilingual evaluation; thus, this is an unfair penalization for unstated scope. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claimed_scope.languages=[]'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0009117 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed2 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | regional | The English-only approach is presented as a limitation but not thoroughly justified for a benchmark claiming to evaluate Global South regions. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English-only evaluation as a flaw without methodological justification, despite the paper not claiming English as the universal or required target; the benchmark's focus is on regional cultural knowledge, not multilingualism. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_regional_motivation=true', 'claims_regional_empirical_validation=true'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 3 | false | possibly_unfair:3 | uncertain:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | uncertain:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | unclear:1 | no:1 |
scope_0009153 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed3 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | elite | regional | The benchmark is entirely in English, which significantly undermines the stated goal of evaluating models on Global South cultural knowledge. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to assess multilingual ability or require non-English evaluation; its stated scope is cultural knowledge assessment for underrepresented regions, not language diversity. Penalizing the benchmark for being in English is unfair unless the paper claims to target non-English performance. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | valid | 2 | false | valid:2 | possibly_unfair:1 | clearly_unfair:1 | none_or_valid | 2 | false | none_or_valid:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 2 | true | yes:2 | no:2 |
scope_0009572 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__grok-4.3__blinded__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | elite | regional | The benchmark remains English-only, which may limit ecological validity for non-English cultural contexts despite the stated rationale. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim English as the universal or required target, nor does it claim multilingual coverage; penalizing for English-only format as a flaw is clearly unfair given the stated regional and low-resource focus. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_regional_motivation=true', 'claims_regional_empirical_validation=true', 'claims_multilingual_method=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | false | clearly_unfair:2 | valid:1 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | none_or_valid:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0009579 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__grok-4.3__blinded__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | elite | regional | Benchmark remains English-only, limiting claims about multicultural understanding; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English-only as a limitation for multicultural understanding, but the paper does not claim to assess multilingual ability or cross-lingual transfer—its stated scope is regional cultural knowledge, not language diversity. The claim record confirms claims_english_as_target_performance=false and no mu... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0009587 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__grok-4.3__blinded__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | elite | regional | Benchmark remains English-only, limiting claims about multicultural knowledge; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English-only as a limitation for multicultural knowledge assessment, but the paper does not claim to assess multilingual or non-English cultural knowledge, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard. The benchmark's scope is regional cultural knowledge, not multilingualism. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claimed_scope.languages=[]'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 3 | false | possibly_unfair:3 | clearly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0009604 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | elite | regional | The benchmark remains English-only, which, while pragmatically justified, limits claims about truly local cultural knowledge. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for being English-only and claims this limits 'truly local cultural knowledge,' but the paper does not claim multilingual coverage or English as a universal gold standard. The benchmark's stated scope is regional cultural knowledge assessment, not multilingual evaluation. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | false | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | uncertain:1 | none_or_valid:1 | unclear | 2 | false | unclear:2 | yes:1 | no:1 |
scope_0009612 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | elite | regional | The benchmark remains English-only, which, while explicitly justified, limits claims about truly local cultural understanding. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for being English-only and claims this limits 'truly local cultural understanding,' but the paper does not claim to assess local-language performance or make English the universal gold standard; thus, this is an unfair scope expansion per the claim record. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claimed_scope.languages=[]', 'claimed_contribution and scope focus on regional/cultural knowledge, not multilingualism'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | true | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:2 | regional_impact_dismissal | 1 | true | regional_impact_dismissal:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | none_or_valid:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | no:1 |
scope_0009620 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__grok-4.3__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | elite | regional | The benchmark remains English-only, limiting claims about multicultural understanding. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to assess multilingual or non-English cultural knowledge, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard. Penalizing the benchmark for being English-only is clearly unfair scope expansion, as the stated claims are about regional/cultural knowledge assessment, not multilingualism. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', "claimed_contribution: '...assessing LLMs’ cultural knowledge across 45 global regions, with emphasis on underrepresented Global South regions.'"] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0009627 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__grok-4.3__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | elite | regional | Benchmark is English-only, which limits claims about multicultural understanding (especially for low-resource regions). | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to assess multilingual or non-English cultural knowledge, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard. Penalizing the benchmark for being English-only is clearly unfair scope expansion, as the stated claims are about regional/cultural knowledge assessment in English, not multilingual... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claimed_contribution: ...assessing LLMs’ cultural knowledge across 45 global regions, with emphasis on underrepresented Global South regions.'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | english_default_benchmark | 3 | false | english_default_benchmark:3 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0009635 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | elite__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__elite__regional__grok-4.3__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | elite | regional | Benchmark is English-only (justified but limits scope) | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to target English as the universal or default benchmark, nor does it claim multilingual coverage; penalizing for English-only scope is clearly unfair given the stated focus on regional cultural knowledge, not language diversity. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claimed_scope.languages: [] (no multilingual claim)', 'claimed_scope.regions: focus on Global South, not language'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | false | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | uncertain | 1 | true | uncertain:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | none_or_valid:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | unclear:1 | no:1 |
scope_0009640 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__claude-haiku__blinded__seed1 | c1 | claude-haiku | blinded | global_south | global | The benchmark is English-only, which is a significant limitation for evaluating truly global cultural knowledge. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English-only as a fundamental flaw, but the paper does not claim to evaluate multilingual or non-English performance; its stated scope is cultural knowledge across global regions, not languages. There is no claim that English is the universal gold standard, nor that the benchmark is intended for no... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claimed_scope.languages=[]'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0009641 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__claude-haiku__blinded__seed1 | c2 | claude-haiku | blinded | global_south | global | The benchmark cannot assess multilingual models' abilities in their native languages. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to assess multilingual models in their native languages; its scope is regional cultural knowledge, not multilingual evaluation. Penalizing for lack of multilingual assessment is an unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claimed_scope.languages=[]'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0009642 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__claude-haiku__blinded__seed1 | c3 | claude-haiku | blinded | global_south | global | This fundamentally limits the benchmark's utility for non-English-speaking contexts. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The reviewer treats lack of non-English evaluation as a fundamental limitation, but the paper does not claim to address non-English-speaking contexts or multilingual performance. The benchmark's stated scope is regional, not linguistic. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:2 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0009728 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__claude-haiku__blinded__seed3 | c3 | claude-haiku | blinded | global_south | global | Restricting to English questions fundamentally limits the benchmark's ability to assess true multicultural competence. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to assess multilingual or non-English cultural knowledge, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard. Penalizing the paper for restricting to English, when the claims are about regional/cultural knowledge in English, is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | english_default_benchmark | 3 | false | english_default_benchmark:3 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0009762 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed1 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | global_south | global | While the authors justify this as necessary for fair comparison across low-resource language regions, it fundamentally limits the benchmark's scope. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The reviewer penalizes the benchmark for being limited in scope due to English-only evaluation, but the paper does not claim English as a universal or default target, nor does it claim broad multilingual applicability. The criticism treats English as a required gold standard without methodological justification, which ... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | false | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | clarity_presentation_proxy | 1 | true | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | none_or_valid:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | no:1 |
scope_0009839 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed3 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | global_south | global | While acknowledged as a limitation, restricting to English fundamentally constrains the benchmark's ability to assess models' multicultural competence. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English as a required universal standard for multicultural competence, but the paper does not claim to evaluate multilingual or non-English performance (claims_english_as_target_performance=false; claims_multilingual_method=false). Penalizing the benchmark for restricting to English is clearly unfa... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | english_default_benchmark:1 | language_choice_interrogation:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0009951 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__claude-haiku__seed3 | c3 | claude-haiku | single_blind | global_south | global | The benchmark only evaluates cultural knowledge in English, which fundamentally limits its applicability. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The reviewer penalizes the paper for only evaluating cultural knowledge in English and claims this 'fundamentally limits its applicability.' However, the paper does not claim multilingual applicability or evaluation, and there is no evidence that English is treated as the universal gold standard. Penalizing for not bei... | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | true | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:2 | english_default_benchmark | 3 | false | english_default_benchmark:3 | uncertain:1 | unclear | 2 | true | unclear:2 | yes:2 |
scope_0010216 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__grok-4.3__blinded__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | global_south | global | The English-only design, while pragmatic, limits claims about multicultural competence. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English-only design as a limitation on multicultural competence, but the paper does not claim to evaluate multilingual or non-English cultural knowledge, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard. Penalizing the paper for not including multilingual evaluation is clearly unfair scope ex... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | true | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:2 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | uncertain:1 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | unclear | 2 | true | unclear:2 | yes:2 |
scope_0010224 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | global_south | global | English-only scope is justified but limits generality claims. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim English as a universal or default target, nor does it claim generality beyond the English-only scope. Penalizing the paper for limited generality due to English-only scope is clearly unfair, as the claims are explicitly regional and do not assert multilingual or global generalization. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claimed_scope.regions includes only regional/underrepresented regions, not English as default'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | valid:2 | none_or_valid | 2 | false | none_or_valid:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | unclear:1 | no:1 |
scope_0010232 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | global_south | global | English-only scope is explicitly justified but limits broader claims; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim English as the universal or default target, nor does it claim broad multilingual applicability; penalizing for English-only scope as a limitation is unfair given the stated regional/cultural focus and absence of claims about multilingual evaluation. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claimed_contribution: benchmark for cultural knowledge across 45 global regions (not languages)'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | valid:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | none_or_valid:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | no:1 |
scope_0010239 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | global_south | global | The English-only scope, while justified, limits direct multicultural assessment; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English-only scope as a limitation for multicultural assessment, but the paper does not claim to target multilingual or non-English evaluation (claims_english_as_target_performance=false, claims_multilingual_method=false). Penalizing for not including non-English is an unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | english_default_benchmark | 3 | false | english_default_benchmark:3 | uncertain:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0010247 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__global__grok-4.3__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | global_south | global | The benchmark remains English-only, which may limit ecological validity for non-English cultural contexts. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to address multilingual or non-English evaluation, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard; penalizing the benchmark for being English-only is an unfair scope expansion given the stated claims focus on regional coverage, not language diversity. | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claimed_contribution: benchmark for cultural knowledge across 45 global regions'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | false | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 1 | true | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | regional_impact_dismissal:1 | none_or_valid:1 | yes | 2 | true | yes:2 | no:2 |
scope_0010414 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__regional__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed1 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | global_south | regional | While the authors justify using English-only questions for fair comparison across regions, this is a significant limitation. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim English as the universal or default target; its focus is on regional cultural knowledge, not multilingual evaluation. Penalizing for English-only questions as a 'significant limitation' treats English as the required gold standard without methodological justification. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_regional_motivation=true', 'claims_regional_empirical_validation=true'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | false | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | uncertain:1 | none_or_valid:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | unclear:1 | no:1 |
scope_0010606 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__regional__claude-haiku__seed2 | c30 | claude-haiku | single_blind | global_south | regional | No fine-tuning experiments or mitigation strategies are tested. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to perform fine-tuning or mitigation experiments; penalizing for their absence is a clear scope expansion. | ['claimed_contribution', 'claimed_scope'] | 4 | valid | 3 | false | valid:3 | uncertain:1 | none_or_valid | 3 | false | none_or_valid:3 | uncertain:1 | no | 3 | false | no:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0010916 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__regional__grok-4.3__blinded__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | global_south | regional | English-only design, while justified, limits direct applicability to low-resource languages. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for not covering low-resource languages, but the claims and scope are explicitly about regional/cultural knowledge in underrepresented regions, not about multilingual or non-English evaluation. The claim record shows claims_english_as_target_performance=false and no multilingual method... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claimed_scope: application_domain is cultural knowledge assessment for language models in underrepresented Global South settings'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | english_default_benchmark | 3 | false | english_default_benchmark:3 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0010933 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__regional__grok-4.3__blinded__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | global_south | regional | English-only framing, while justified, limits direct multicultural assessment; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim English as the universal or default target, and its stated scope is regional/Global South cultural knowledge assessment. Penalizing for 'English-only framing' as a limitation is clearly unfair given the claims. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_regional_motivation=true', 'claims_regional_empirical_validation=true'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | true | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:2 | english_default_benchmark | 3 | false | english_default_benchmark:3 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0010942 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__regional__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | global_south | regional | English-only design, while justified, limits direct multicultural assessment; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for an English-only design as a limitation for multicultural assessment, but the paper does not claim to target multilingual or non-English evaluation; its scope is regional/cultural knowledge in underrepresented regions, not multilingualism. The claim record confirms claims_english_as... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | english_default_benchmark | 3 | false | english_default_benchmark:3 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0010951 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__regional__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | global_south | regional | English-only scope (though justified) limits some claims about multicultural evaluation; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for an English-only scope, implying that multicultural evaluation requires multilingual data, even though the paper does not claim to address multilingualism or English as a universal standard. The claim record shows claims_english_as_target_performance=false and no multilingual claims... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy | 2 | false | clarity_presentation_proxy:2 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | regional_impact_dismissal:1 | unclear | 3 | false | unclear:3 | yes:1 |
scope_0010969 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__regional__grok-4.3__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | global_south | regional | Benchmark is English-only, limiting claims about multicultural understanding. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to assess multilingual understanding or to provide a multilingual benchmark; its stated scope is regional/cultural knowledge assessment in underrepresented Global South settings, not cross-lingual or non-English evaluation. Penalizing the work for being English-only is clearly unfair given the ... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claimed_scope: application_domain = cultural knowledge assessment for language models (not multilingual assessment)'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | false | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | none_or_valid:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | no:1 |
scope_0010979 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | global_south__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__global_south__regional__grok-4.3__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | global_south | regional | English-only design (explicitly noted in limitations) reduces the multicultural claim; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for an English-only design as reducing the multicultural claim, but the manuscript does not claim multilingual coverage or English as a universal gold standard; its scope is regional cultural knowledge assessment, not multilingualism. | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claimed_scope: application_domain is cultural knowledge assessment for language models, not multilingualism'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | valid:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | none_or_valid:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | no:1 |
scope_0011086 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__global__claude-haiku__blinded__seed3 | c3 | claude-haiku | blinded | regional | global | Evaluating cultural knowledge exclusively in English is problematic. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to evaluate cultural knowledge in multiple languages or to target English as a universal standard. Penalizing the paper for evaluating in English alone is unfair given the stated scope. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | uncertain:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0011212 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed2 | c39 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | regional | global | Given that cultural knowledge is often language-specific, how do you reconcile the English-only approach with claims about evaluating true multicultural competence? Have you considered multilingual versions? | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim multilingual evaluation or methods, nor does it claim to evaluate models in languages other than English. Penalizing for lack of multilingual evaluation is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | false | possibly_unfair:2 | valid:1 | clearly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | uncertain:1 | language_choice_interrogation:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0011220 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__global__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed3 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | regional | global | While the authors justify this choice, it significantly limits the benchmark's applicability. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for limited applicability due to language choice, but the claim record shows no claim of English as a universal or default target (claims_english_as_target_performance=false), nor does the paper claim multilingual applicability. Thus, treating the absence of broader language coverage a... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | false | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | none_or_valid:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | no:1 |
scope_0011607 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__global__grok-4.3__blinded__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | regional | global | Benchmark is English-only, limiting assessment of true multicultural competence; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English-only as a flaw limiting 'true multicultural competence,' but the paper does not claim multilingual coverage or English as a universal gold standard. The benchmark is scoped to cultural knowledge across regions, not languages, and there is no claim of multilingual evaluation. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | true | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:2 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | language_choice_interrogation:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0011616 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__global__grok-4.3__blinded__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | regional | global | The benchmark is English-only, which may limit assessment of low-resource cultural knowledge. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to target low-resource languages or multilingual evaluation, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard; penalizing for English-only coverage is clearly unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_low_resource_applicability=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | false | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | none_or_valid:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | no:1 |
scope_0011624 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__global__grok-4.3__blinded__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | regional | global | The paper is English-only, which the authors acknowledge but limits multicultural assessment for low-resource languages. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for being English-only and claims this limits multicultural assessment for low-resource languages, but the claim record shows the paper does not claim low-resource applicability or English as a universal target. There is no methodological justification for requiring non-English coverag... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_low_resource_applicability=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0011641 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__global__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | regional | global | The benchmark is English-only, which limits claims about multicultural knowledge when language proficiency may confound results. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English-only as a flaw limiting multicultural claims, but the paper does not claim multilingual coverage or English as a universal standard; thus, penalizing for lack of multilingualism is clearly unfair. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 3 | false | possibly_unfair:3 | clearly_unfair:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0011648 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__global__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | regional | global | The English-only scope, while explicitly justified, still limits direct assessment of cultural knowledge in native languages for low-resource regions. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for not evaluating cultural knowledge in native languages, but the claim record and evidence show no claim of multilingual or native-language evaluation (claims_english_as_target_performance=false, claims_multilingual_method=false). The benchmark is scoped to cultural knowledge across ... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | valid:2 | none_or_valid | 2 | false | none_or_valid:2 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 2 | true | yes:2 | no:2 |
scope_0011655 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__global__grok-4.3__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | regional | global | The benchmark remains English-only, which the authors acknowledge limits full multicultural assessment. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to be multilingual or to target non-English evaluation, and there is no claim of English as a universal gold standard. Penalizing the benchmark for being English-only is clearly unfair scope expansion under the guidelines. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0011663 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__global__grok-4.3__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | regional | global | English-only design limits true multicultural assessment; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English-only design as a flaw limiting multicultural assessment, but the paper does not claim to target multilingual or non-English evaluation, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard. Penalizing for lack of multilingualism is outside the stated scope. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0011672 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__global | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__global__grok-4.3__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | regional | global | Benchmark is English-only, which limits assessment of true multicultural competence despite the authors' justification; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for being English-only, but the claim record and evidence show the authors do not claim multilingual coverage or English as a universal standard. The benchmark is scoped to cultural knowledge across regions, not languages, and there is no claim of multilingual applicability. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 3 | false | clearly_unfair:3 | possibly_unfair:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0011843 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__regional__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed2 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | regional | regional | The benchmark is English-only, which the authors acknowledge as a limitation but don't adequately address. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim English as the universal or required target, nor does it claim multilingual coverage; penalizing for English-only as a major flaw is clearly unfair given the stated regional/cultural scope. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_regional_motivation=true'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | false | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:1 | valid:1 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | none_or_valid:1 | yes | 2 | false | yes:2 | unclear:1 | no:1 |
scope_0011868 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__regional__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed2 | c26 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | regional | regional | Why does the paper focus exclusively on English when many underrepresented regions have limited English proficiency? How does this choice align with the stated goal of evaluating cultural knowledge in these regions? | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The reviewer criticizes the exclusive use of English as a flaw, but the paper does not claim multilingual coverage or evaluation. The claim record shows claims_multilingual_method=false and claims_english_as_target_performance=false, so penalizing for not covering local languages is an unfair scope expansion. | ['claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 4 | false | possibly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | uncertain:1 | language_choice_interrogation:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0011873 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__regional__claude-haiku__scope_aware__seed3 | c1 | claude-haiku | scope_aware | regional | regional | The benchmark is English-only, which is a significant limitation. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to target English as the universal or default benchmark, nor does it claim English as the target performance; the criticism treats English-only as a serious flaw without methodological justification, which is not warranted given the stated regional/cultural scope. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claimed_scope.regions includes underrepresented regions, not English-speaking regions'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 2 | true | possibly_unfair:2 | clearly_unfair:2 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0012293 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__regional__grok-4.3__blinded__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | regional | regional | The benchmark remains English-only, which may conflate language proficiency with cultural knowledge. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to target English as the universal or default benchmark, nor does it claim multilingual coverage; penalizing the work for being English-only is clearly unfair scope expansion given the stated regional focus and absence of multilingual claims. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_regional_motivation=true', 'claims_regional_empirical_validation=true'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 3 | false | possibly_unfair:3 | uncertain:1 | clarity_presentation_proxy | 2 | false | clarity_presentation_proxy:2 | regional_impact_dismissal:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0012300 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__regional__grok-4.3__blinded__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | regional | regional | English-only benchmark limits scope despite stated rationale; | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism treats English-only benchmarking as a flaw despite the paper's explicit focus on regional/cultural knowledge and does not claim English as a universal or required target. The claim record shows claims_english_as_target_performance=false, so penalizing for not covering other languages is outside scope. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_regional_motivation=true', 'claims_regional_empirical_validation=true'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | valid:2 | none_or_valid | 2 | false | none_or_valid:2 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 2 | true | yes:2 | no:2 |
scope_0012309 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__regional__grok-4.3__blinded__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | blinded | regional | regional | English-only design (justified but limits full multicultural assessment). | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim English as the universal or default target, nor does it claim to assess full multiculturalism across languages. Penalizing the benchmark for being English-only, without methodological justification or evidence that the claims require multilingual coverage, is clearly unfair scope expansion unde... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claimed_contribution: benchmark for cultural knowledge across regions, not languages'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | english_default_benchmark | 2 | false | english_default_benchmark:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0012318 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__regional__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | regional | regional | English-only design, while justified, limits direct applicability to low-resource language settings. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for not covering low-resource language settings, but the claim record and evidence show the benchmark is regionally focused and does not claim multilingual or non-English coverage. The paper does not claim English as a universal target or default, nor does it claim applicability to low... | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false', 'claims_regional_motivation=true', 'claims_regional_empirical_validation=true'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0012325 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__regional__grok-4.3__scope_aware__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | scope_aware | regional | regional | English-only scope limits direct applicability despite justifications provided. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim English as the universal or default target; its scope is explicitly regional and focused on underrepresented global regions. Penalizing for 'English-only scope' as a serious flaw is clearly unfair given the stated claims. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_regional_motivation=true', 'claims_regional_empirical_validation=true'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:2 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0012347 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__regional__grok-4.3__seed2 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | regional | regional | Benchmark is English-only, which the authors acknowledge but limits full multicultural assessment. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim to target multilingual or non-English evaluation, nor does it claim English as a universal gold standard. Penalizing the benchmark for being English-only is clearly unfair scope expansion under the guidelines, as the stated scope is regional/cultural coverage, not language diversity. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false', 'claims_multilingual_method=false', 'claims_multilingual_empirical_validation=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | english_default_benchmark | 3 | false | english_default_benchmark:3 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0012354 | all_clearly_unfair | n1X2n7MJ8L | regional__regional | n1X2n7MJ8L__regional__regional__grok-4.3__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | regional | regional | The English-only format limits claims about true multicultural understanding. | english_default_benchmark | clearly_unfair | The paper does not claim English as the universal or default target, nor does it claim to measure 'true multicultural understanding' in all languages; the criticism treats English-only as a flaw without methodological justification, which is not warranted given the stated scope. | ['claims_english_as_target_performance=false'] | 4 | possibly_unfair | 3 | false | possibly_unfair:3 | clearly_unfair:1 | unfair_scope_expansion | 3 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:3 | english_default_benchmark:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
scope_0012609 | all_clearly_unfair | 0E5rZOGA13 | global_south__global | 0E5rZOGA13__global_south__global__claude-haiku__seed2 | c2 | claude-haiku | single_blind | global_south | global | Evaluation limited to collaborative filtering; no evaluation on content-based or hybrid systems; | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The paper claims scope only for implicit feedback recommendation (collaborative filtering). Penalizing for not evaluating on content-based or hybrid systems is an explicit demand for unstated broader scope. | ['claims_broad_application_generalization: No explicit claim that the approach generalizes beyond implicit feedback recommendation systems.', 'claimed_scope: application_domain: implicit feedback recommendation systems'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 4 | false | clearly_unfair:4 | unfair_scope_expansion | 4 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:4 | yes | 4 | false | yes:4 |
scope_0016318 | all_clearly_unfair | qBy7nYDgEa | elite__global | qBy7nYDgEa__elite__global__grok-4.3__seed3 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | elite | global | The work is outside the generative-models focus of ICLR 2026. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for being outside the venue's generative-models focus, which is unrelated to the paper's stated claims or scope. The paper does not claim to be about generative modeling as a primary contribution, so this is an unfair scope expansion. | ['claimed_contribution: code-mixed benchmark and graph-aware model for political claim verification', 'claims_broad_application_generalization: false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | valid:2 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | true | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | none_or_valid:2 | yes | 2 | true | yes:2 | no:2 |
scope_0016326 | all_clearly_unfair | qBy7nYDgEa | elite__global | qBy7nYDgEa__elite__global__grok-4.3__seed3 | c9 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | elite | global | Given the venue emphasis on generative models, what novel generative contribution does the work claim? | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The reviewer penalizes the paper for not making a novel generative contribution, which is not part of the stated claims or scope. The paper focuses on claim verification, not generative modeling as a primary research area. | ['claimed_contribution: code-mixed benchmark and graph-aware model for political claim verification', 'claims_broad_application_generalization: false'] | 4 | valid | 2 | false | valid:2 | uncertain:1 | clearly_unfair:1 | none_or_valid | 2 | false | none_or_valid:2 | uncertain:1 | unfair_scope_expansion:1 | no | 2 | false | no:2 | unclear:1 | yes:1 |
scope_0016558 | all_clearly_unfair | qBy7nYDgEa | elite__regional | qBy7nYDgEa__elite__regional__grok-4.3__seed1 | c1 | grok-4.3 | single_blind | elite | regional | The submission is entirely outside the scope of ICLR (generative models / learning representations); no connection to generative modeling is made. | unfair_scope_expansion | clearly_unfair | The criticism penalizes the paper for being 'outside the scope of ICLR (generative models / learning representations)' and for not making a connection to generative modeling. However, the paper claims a contribution in political claim verification with a code-mixed benchmark and a novel model, not in generative modelin... | ['claimed_contribution', 'claimed_scope', 'claims_broad_application_generalization=false'] | 4 | clearly_unfair | 2 | true | clearly_unfair:2 | possibly_unfair:2 | unfair_scope_expansion | 2 | false | unfair_scope_expansion:2 | clarity_presentation_proxy:1 | uncertain:1 | yes | 3 | false | yes:3 | unclear:1 |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
ScopeBench-PR
Counterfactual benchmark for scope fairness in LLM peer review.
- Code: https://github.com/SPELLAILab/ScopeBench-PR
- Workshop: https://sites.google.com/view/globalsouthai-ijcai26/home
from datasets import load_dataset
load_dataset("rishia2220/scopebench-pr", "papers")
load_dataset("rishia2220/scopebench-pr", "scope_items")
Tables are stored as Parquet. See the GitHub repository for schemas, prompts, and analysis scripts.
- Downloads last month
- 39