{"args":{},"checks":[{"abs_tol":null,"bind":"any","column":null,"failure_class":null,"field":"value","interval":false,"key":null,"kind":"answer_backed","min_lre":null,"note":"every number traced to a tool call or the question","open_interval":false,"rel_tol":null,"required":true,"source_id":null,"table":null,"tool":null,"value":null,"weight":1.0,"where":null},{"abs_tol":null,"bind":"answer_call","column":null,"failure_class":null,"field":"value","interval":true,"key":null,"kind":"answer_figure_close","min_lre":null,"note":"CRB estimate_within_solution_ci: the answer figure inside the gold 95% interval effect \u00b1 1.96\u00b7|SE| of source crb_papers.q022.gold (closed, evaluate_result.py; no --auto-rescale)","open_interval":false,"rel_tol":null,"required":true,"source_id":null,"table":null,"tool":null,"value":[-1.7536999716839736,-0.285031502042395],"weight":1.0,"where":null},{"abs_tol":3.746603238881578e-07,"bind":"answer_call","column":null,"failure_class":null,"field":"value","interval":false,"key":null,"kind":"answer_figure_close","min_lre":null,"note":"replication cell: the gold effect to rel 1e-6 (abs floor 1e-6\u00b7SE); never required","open_interval":false,"rel_tol":1e-06,"required":false,"source_id":"crb_papers.q022.gold","table":null,"tool":null,"value":-1.0193657368631843,"weight":1.0,"where":null},{"abs_tol":3.746603238881578e-07,"bind":"answer_call","column":null,"failure_class":null,"field":"se","interval":false,"key":null,"kind":"answer_figure_close","min_lre":null,"note":"replication cell: the gold SE to rel 1e-6; never required","open_interval":false,"rel_tol":1e-06,"required":false,"source_id":"crb_papers.q022.gold","table":null,"tool":null,"value":0.3746603238881578,"weight":1.0,"where":null}],"datasets":{"ds_0012":{"columns":null,"description":"| Variable Name | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| index | Sequential row identifier from the file export; included for reference and not used as a substantive measure. |\n| Republican | Binary indicator (0/1) for unified Republican control of state government in a given year. Equals 1 when the governorship and both legislative chambers were held by Republicans; 0 otherwise (including divided or other control). Compiled from state partisan balance data with updates from legislative tracking organizations. |\n| state | U.S. state name (50 states). |\n| year | Calendar year of observation (2000\u20132016). |\n| democracy_mcmc | Continuous State Democracy Index score for the state-year, estimated via Bayesian factor analysis (MCMC) from 51 state-level indicators of electoral rules, administrative performance, districting metrics, and related practices. The scale is approximately standardized across the panel (values can be negative or positive around zero); higher values indicate stronger electoral-democracy performance. Sources feeding the indicators include election administration data (e.g., MIT Election Lab), legislative policy compilations (e.g., NCSL), gerrymandering diagnostics, and measures of policy\u2013opinion congruence. |\n\nDataset Context:\nThis file is a state\u2013year panel that assembles administrative records, policy codings, and quantitative diagnostics to summarize how U.S. states structure and administer electoral democracy. The period 2000\u20132016 spans consequential developments in state election law and administration, including reforms that expanded access (e.g., early voting, online and same\u2011day registration, and the beginnings of automatic voter registration late in the period) and policies that increased participation costs for some voters (e.g., voter ID requirements). It also covers the 2010 redistricting cycle and subsequent evaluations of district plans using established gerrymandering metrics. During these years, federal\u2013state relations affecting elections shifted as well, including changes to Voting Rights Act oversight after 2013, which altered how and where states implemented election-law changes.\n\nThe State Democracy Index (reported here as democracy_mcmc) is constructed by combining 51 indicators into a single latent score using Bayesian factor analysis designed for mixed data types (binary, ordinal, and continuous). Indicator families include: election access rules (registration and voting modalities), administrative performance (e.g., wait times, provisional ballot handling, data completeness), post\u2011election audit requirements, districting fairness diagnostics (efficiency gap, partisan symmetry, declination, compactness), and measures of policy\u2013opinion alignment. Indicator inputs draw on sources such as the MIT Election Lab\u2019s compilations of election administration statistics, the National Conference of State Legislatures\u2019 inventories of state election laws, quantitative assessments of district plans, and state policy\u2013opinion datasets. Scores are standardized to facilitate comparison across states and years, with higher values reflecting stronger performance on these electoral-democracy dimensions.\n\nThe unified-party-control variable is built from long\u2011running state partisan balance datasets and contemporary updates that track which party simultaneously held the governorship and majorities in both legislative chambers in each year. Together with state names and calendar years, these fields allow analysts to align institutional configurations with contemporaneous features of election law, administration, and districting captured in the index.","file_sha256":"c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0","format":"csv","frame_sha256":null,"generator":null,"kind":"file","licence":"redistributed by CausalReasoningBenchmark (MIT) under the original replication data's terms","member":null,"object":null,"params":{},"path":null,"read_kw":{},"records":null,"role":"agent","sha256":"c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0","transforms":[],"url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/syrgkanislab/CausalReasoningBenchmark/resolve/edd0fe1c1d1c5c0a4f0e3e67a50481ac679fb888/data/ds_0012/data/data.csv"},"ref_panel":{"columns":null,"description":"State rows of 2010 and 2012: the 2011 switchers (0 then 1) and the controls (0 and 0)","file_sha256":"c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0","format":"csv","frame_sha256":null,"generator":null,"kind":"file","licence":"redistributed by CausalReasoningBenchmark (MIT) under the original replication data's terms","member":null,"object":null,"params":{},"path":null,"read_kw":{},"records":null,"role":"reference","sha256":"c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0","transforms":[{"args":{"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]},"op":"select"},{"args":{"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]},"op":"dropna"},{"args":{"query":"year in [2010, 2012]"},"op":"filter"},{"args":{"how":"left","on":["state"],"with":"ref_switch"},"op":"merge"},{"args":{"how":"inner","on":["state"],"with":"ref_pre"},"op":"merge"},{"args":{"how":"inner","on":["state"],"with":"ref_post"},"op":"merge"},{"args":{"query":"r_pre == 0 and ((syear == 2011 and r_post == 1) or ((syear != syear or syear > 2012) and r_post == 0))"},"op":"filter"},{"args":{"args":{"cmp":"eq","column":"r_post","value":1},"name":"Tgroup","op":"indicator"},"op":"derive"},{"args":{"args":{"cmp":"eq","column":"year","value":2012},"name":"Post","op":"indicator"},"op":"derive"},{"args":{"args":{"columns":["Tgroup","Post"]},"name":"DID","op":"interaction"},"op":"derive"}],"url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/syrgkanislab/CausalReasoningBenchmark/resolve/edd0fe1c1d1c5c0a4f0e3e67a50481ac679fb888/data/ds_0012/data/data.csv"},"ref_post":{"columns":null,"description":"Each state's Republican in 2012 (r_post)","file_sha256":"c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0","format":"csv","frame_sha256":null,"generator":null,"kind":"file","licence":"redistributed by CausalReasoningBenchmark (MIT) under the original replication data's terms","member":null,"object":null,"params":{},"path":null,"read_kw":{},"records":null,"role":"reference","sha256":"c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0","transforms":[{"args":{"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]},"op":"select"},{"args":{"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]},"op":"dropna"},{"args":{"query":"year == 2012"},"op":"filter"},{"args":{"columns":["state","Republican"]},"op":"select"},{"args":{"map":{"Republican":"r_post"}},"op":"rename"}],"url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/syrgkanislab/CausalReasoningBenchmark/resolve/edd0fe1c1d1c5c0a4f0e3e67a50481ac679fb888/data/ds_0012/data/data.csv"},"ref_pre":{"columns":null,"description":"Each state's Republican in 2010 (r_pre)","file_sha256":"c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0","format":"csv","frame_sha256":null,"generator":null,"kind":"file","licence":"redistributed by CausalReasoningBenchmark (MIT) under the original replication data's terms","member":null,"object":null,"params":{},"path":null,"read_kw":{},"records":null,"role":"reference","sha256":"c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0","transforms":[{"args":{"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]},"op":"select"},{"args":{"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]},"op":"dropna"},{"args":{"query":"year == 2010"},"op":"filter"},{"args":{"columns":["state","Republican"]},"op":"select"},{"args":{"map":{"Republican":"r_pre"}},"op":"rename"}],"url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/syrgkanislab/CausalReasoningBenchmark/resolve/edd0fe1c1d1c5c0a4f0e3e67a50481ac679fb888/data/ds_0012/data/data.csv"},"ref_switch":{"columns":null,"description":"Each state's first year whose Republican is 1 after a row (in year order) with 0","file_sha256":"c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0","format":"csv","frame_sha256":null,"generator":null,"kind":"file","licence":"redistributed by CausalReasoningBenchmark (MIT) under the original replication data's terms","member":null,"object":null,"params":{},"path":null,"read_kw":{},"records":null,"role":"reference","sha256":"c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0","transforms":[{"args":{"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]},"op":"select"},{"args":{"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]},"op":"dropna"},{"args":{"args":{"by":["state"],"column":"Republican","order":["year"],"periods":1},"name":"r_prev","op":"lag"},"op":"derive"},{"args":{"query":"Republican == 1 and r_prev == 0"},"op":"filter"},{"args":{"aggs":[{"column":"year","fn":"min","name":"syear"}],"by":["state"]},"op":"collapse"}],"url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/syrgkanislab/CausalReasoningBenchmark/resolve/edd0fe1c1d1c5c0a4f0e3e67a50481ac679fb888/data/ds_0012/data/data.csv"}},"difficulty":"M","id":"crb_papers.q022","level":"T2","meta":{"agent_reach":{"blocked_by":["reference_frame:ref_panel","reference_frame:ref_post","reference_frame:ref_pre","reference_frame:ref_switch"],"dtypes":{"ds_0012":{"Republican":"float64","democracy_mcmc":"float64"}},"named":{"outcome":["democracy_mcmc"],"treatment":["Republican"]},"reachable":false,"rule":"magi_bench.reach/1"},"answer_format":{"figure_transform":"identity","round_to":null,"unit_scale":1.0},"cluster":"ds_0012","crb":{"data_path":"data/ds_0012/data/data.csv","dataset_id":"ds_0012","gold":{"ci95":[-1.7536999716839736,-0.285031502042395],"ci_rule":"effect \u00b1 1.96\u00b7|standard_error| (evaluate_result.ci_bounds)","effect":-1.0193657368631843,"standard_error":0.3746603238881578},"identification":{"causal_quantity":"ATT","group_variable":"state","minimal_controlling_set":[],"outcomes":["democracy_mcmc"],"reason_for_minimal_controlling_set":"The paper implements two-way fixed effects with state and year fixed effects and does not require additional covariate adjustment beyond these FE to identify the effect: \u201cI test theoretical predictions with a difference-in-differences design that exploits within-state variation\u2026 this design eliminates time-invariant differences between states\u2014the main potential source of bias\u201d (p. 976). The estimating equation is explicitly given as \u201cy_it = \u03b1_i + \u03b4_t + \u03b2 X_it + e_it\u201d where \u201c\u03b1_i are state fixed effects, and \u03b4_t are year fixed effects\u201d (p. 976, note 22).","strategy":"Difference-in-Differences","time_variable":"year","treatments":["Republican"]},"identification_strategy":"Difference-in-Differences"},"headline_keys":{"infer.ols":["coef.DID"]},"naive":{"dataset":"ds_0012","treatment":"Republican","y":"democracy_mcmc"},"native_id":"22","reference":{"cite":1,"note":"Reference path transcribed from the item's own estimation script.","steps":[{"args":{"cluster":"state","controls":["Tgroup","Post"],"dataset":"ref_panel","x":["DID"],"y":"democracy_mcmc"},"tool":"infer.ols","why":"sm.OLS(y, add_constant([Tgroup, Post, DID])).fit(cov_type='cluster', groups=state) (CR1 errors with statsmodels' default G/(G-1)\u00b7(N-1)/(N-K) correction)"}]},"reference_path":{"calls":[{"args":{"cluster":"state","controls":["Tgroup","Post"],"dataset":"ref_panel","x":["DID"],"y":"democracy_mcmc"},"tool":"infer.ols"}],"needs":[],"provenance":"benchmark_script","quotes":{},"reference_datasets":["ref_panel","ref_post","ref_pre","ref_switch"],"source_id":"crb_papers.q022.script"}},"question":"By how much did the State Democracy Index change from 2010 to 2012 in states that newly gained unified Republican control in 2011 versus states that did not?","requires":[],"runner":null,"sources":["crb_papers.q022.gold","crb_papers.q022.script"],"split":"public","suite":"crb_papers","tags":["econ-bench","external","crb","did","ref_benchmark_script"],"target":"agent","tool":null,"truth":"CausalReasoningBenchmark gold at the pinned revision: causal_queries.json effect and standard_error (the value the item's estimation.py prints), scored as evaluate_result.py scores estimate_within_solution_ci"}