Automated MNLP evaluation report (2026-06-06)

EVAL_REPORT.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 - **Model repo:** [`cs-552-2026-claude-bots/multilingual_model`](https://huggingface.co/cs-552-2026-claude-bots/multilingual_model)
 - **Owner(s):** group **claude-bots**
-- **Generated at:** 2026-06-04T19:45:28+00:00 (UTC)
+- **Generated at:** 2026-06-06T17:23:37+00:00 (UTC)
 - **Pipeline:** [mnlp-project-ci](https://github.com/eric11eca/mnlp-project-ci)
 
 _This PR is opened automatically by the course CI. It is **non-blocking** — you do not need to merge it. The next nightly run will refresh this file._
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ _This PR is opened automatically by the course CI. It is **non-blocking** — yo
 |---|---:|---|
 | Math | — | not run |
 | Knowledge | — | not run |
-| Multilingual | 0.5200 | ok |
+| Multilingual | 0.5800 | ok |
 | Safety | — | not run |
 
 ## Sample completions
@@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ _Prompts are intentionally omitted to avoid revealing benchmark contents. For mu
 - **completion**:
 
     ```text
-    The question asks to identify the specific ethical principle or rule regarding people who do not want to be judged by others solely because they would not want to judge them. This scenario describes the Golden Rule, which states "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In many cultural contexts, including Eastern philosophy and Western ethics, this principle serves as a universal guideline for interpersonal conduct. The phrase "načelo koristi" translates to "the golden rule" or "golden principle." Option A refers to the "law of similarity," often used in social psychology but unrelated here. Option B refers to concomitant variation, a concept from statistics. Option D refers to utility or benefit, which does not fit the context of moral reciprocity. Therefore, the description matches the definition of the Golden Rule found in option C. Since the proposed answer selects option C, it correctly identifies the relevant ethical maxim described in the prompt. The logic holds without contradiction based on standard definitions of these terms within the provided choices.
+    <think>
+    The tax multiplier measures how much equilibrium income changes for a given change in taxes. The formula for the simple tax multiplier is typically expressed as -MPC / (1 - MPC), where MPC stands for the marginal propensity to consume. This mathematical relationship indicates that the magnitude of the tax multiplier depends directly on the value of the MPC. When the marginal propensity to consume increases, households spend a larger fraction of any additional income rather than saving it. Consequently, this higher spending further amplifies the initial effect of tax changes on aggregate demand. Therefore, an increase in the MPC leads to a larger absolute value for the tax multiplier. Option A suggests increasing the marginal propensity to save, which would decrease the MPC because saving plus consumption equals one, making the result smaller. Option B describes a reduction in the expenditure multiplier, which contradicts standard economic theory regarding these two distinct multipliers. Option D refers to reserve ratios, which primarily affect monetary policy and the money supply rather than the direct fiscal impact of taxation. Thus, the statement that increasing the marginal propensity to consume increases the size of the tax multiplier is theoretically accurate based on macroeconomic principles.
     </think>
     
     Final answer: \boxed{C}
@@ -38,14 +39,15 @@ _Prompts are intentionally omitted to avoid revealing benchmark contents. For mu
 
 **Incorrect** (1 shown)
 
-- **reference**: `C`
+- **reference**: `D`
 - **overall** (0/1 completions correct)
-- **extracted** (✗): `D`
+- **extracted** (✗): `C`
 - **completion**:
 
     ```text
-    The question asks for the percentage of adults aged 18 years and older who were obese according to statistics around 2016. This specific statistic refers to global health data often cited by major organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO). In its reports released for that period, the WHO highlighted significant global trends regarding obesity prevalence. Specifically, the organization reported that approximately 39 percent of the world's adult population was living with obesity in 2016. When rounding this figure to the nearest whole number commonly found in general educational benchmarks, 39 percent is closest to 40 percent. Comparing this known statistical fact against the provided choices reveals that option A (27%) represents a lower estimate typical of earlier years or specific regions rather than the global average for 2016. Option B (6%) and C (13%) represent percentages far too low to account for widespread obesity rates on a worldwide scale. Option D (46%) aligns most accurately with the approximate global figure of 39 percent reported by international health authorities during that timeframe. Therefore, based on established public health data regarding obesity prevalence in 2016, the value corresponding to choice D is the correct response.
+    <think>
+    The scenario describes a contract dispute involving a computer retailer ordering 100 computers from a manufacturer. The key legal issue here involves the interpretation of "acceptance" (swayakarta) in a contract where terms were explicitly limited by the original order form. In contract law, a party must accept a proposal to form a binding agreement. However, when there is ambiguity regarding what constitutes acceptance, courts often look at whether the offeree's actions demonstrate clear acceptance of the specific terms set forth at the time of the offer. Here, the manufacturer sent a confirmation agreeing to two deliveries but also stated that "shipment will occur over two deliveries." This phrasing creates a significant ambiguity about whether the promise to ship on August 1st was fully accepted as part of the final delivery terms or merely a condition precedent. Because the original order form clearly limited acceptance to the terms of that specific form, and the manufacturer's response added additional terms without clarifying them, the retailer's right to reject the shipment after August 1st stands unchallenged under standard contract principles. Option A suggests a narrow difference existed which does not override the express terms. Option B focuses on timing rather than the core contract formation issue. Option D implies ratification after silence, which is generally insufficient without affirmative conduct like shipment. Therefore, the manufacturer will likely win because the terms were explicitly limited by the order form.
     </think>
     
-    Final answer: \boxed{D}
+    Final answer: \boxed{C}
     ```