Skip to content

Add judge effects to IRT equation - #2

Open
rohit-ptl wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feat/judge-effects-irt
Open

Add judge effects to IRT equation#2
rohit-ptl wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feat/judge-effects-irt

Conversation

@rohit-ptl

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

GIM ability estimates now come from a judge fixed-effect item bank:

y_jk = a_j * (theta - b_j) + gamma_k,   sum_k gamma_k = 0

The previous bank baked one judge's leniency into the item parameters, so it was
only valid with the exact judge it was built on — swapping judges re-ranked the
leaderboard. The five calibrated judges differ in leniency by up to 1.10 logits.
Publishing one bank plus five centered offsets makes them interchangeable: any
single one places a model on the shared ability scale, and the scorer subtracts
that judge's gamma.

Scoring now requires a calibrated judge. judge_id selects it (default
gemini-3-flash-preview) and judge_model sets the route; grader_model is
gone. An uncalibrated judge is rejected when the scorer is constructed, before
any inference runs, rather than producing a biased theta.

Breaking: -T grader_model= is removed, GIMScorer.score() requires a
judge argument, and gim_score raises on logs without judge_id metadata
(pre-v2 logs cannot be re-scored). Intentional — a silently biased theta is
worse than a hard failure.

GIM ability estimates now come from the judge fixed-effect item bank:

    y_jk = a_j * (theta - b_j) + gamma_k,   sum_k gamma_k = 0

replacing the plain 2PL bank, which silently baked a single judge's
leniency into the item parameters. The five calibrated judges differ in
leniency by up to 1.10 logits, so a bank without a judge term was only
usable with the exact judge it was built on; swapping judges re-ranked
the leaderboard. Publishing one bank plus five centered offsets makes
those judges interchangeable: any single one places a model on the
shared scale, and the scorer subtracts that judge's gamma.

Scoring now requires a calibrated judge. An uncalibrated judge is
rejected when the scorer is constructed, before any inference runs,
rather than producing a biased theta.

  irt_params.json  v1 -> v2 bank (615 public items) carrying
                   judge_effects and permitted_judges
  irt.py           ScoringObservation, score_observations(), gamma
                   adjustment, item-bank validation; n_items_scored
                   counts distinct prompts, n_observations the rows
  judges.py        new registry of the five calibrated judges
  metrics.py       gim_score() builds judge-labelled observations
  scorers.py       judge_id / judge_model params, judge metadata
  task.py          same, defaulting to gemini-3-flash-preview

grader_model is replaced by judge_model; judge_id selects the judge.

Empty completions remain NaN (missing), unchanged.

Verified against the paper pipeline: scoring the 1.09M-row evaluation
set through this scorer reproduces both published ability tables to
floating-point epsilon (max |dtheta| 2.2e-16 over 46 configurations,
zero rank shift) for the 820-item and 615-item banks alike.

Note that the bundled bank is the 615-item public subset, while the
paper reports GIM-820; against the GIM-820 leaderboard the public bank
gives MAE 0.042 and rank shifts up to 5 places.
@meta-cla meta-cla Bot added the cla signed label Aug 12, 2026
@rohit-ptl
rohit-ptl marked this pull request as ready for review August 12, 2026 20:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants