codelion commited on
Commit
1111d14
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): d51d993

Correct the teacher description; state the request shape

Browse files

The card called the gold teacher '4B-class', but the labeller only records the method (a routing proxy, 3 samples, temperature 0.7), not which model answered. Say that, and say closed models cannot be ruled out. Also state that every row sends the whole case in one request, and cite the third-party finding that request shape moves Jev's yes/no accuracy. No scores changed.

Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +11 -4
README.md CHANGED
@@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ they have never seen these workflows or their question schemas.
79
  | – | Prior (ignores the input) | reference | 0.470 | 0.347 | 0.189 | 0.088 | – | – |
80
  | – | Uniform (same probability on every option) | reference | 0.308 | 0.444 | 0.238 | 0.169 | – | – |
81
 
 
 
 
 
82
  Hosted rows are p50 end to end from a client, one request at a time.
83
  † Measured on the same machine as the model (M3 Max), not comparable with hosted latency.
84
 
@@ -125,8 +129,11 @@ discussion with the numbers and the mode (specialist or general) it used.
125
 
126
  ## Reading a score
127
 
128
- Gold is the mean of three samples from a teacher of roughly 4B-class capability,
129
- so a score measures agreement with that teacher, not correctness. A better model
 
 
 
130
  can score lower wherever the teacher is wrong (it missed a duplicate invoice whose
131
  ID matched an earlier one).
132
 
@@ -186,8 +193,8 @@ Report KL or log loss and Brier next to accuracy; calibration is the point.
186
 
187
  Each case starts from independently sampled latent factors (topic, tone,
188
  severity, discrepancy type and so on), which a model renders into free text where
189
- the artefact is textual and keeps structured where it is structured. A teacher
190
- labels each case three times at temperature 0.7, and the gold is the mean of those
191
  distributions, so it stays soft where a decision is genuinely ambiguous. Before
192
  release, an audit checks state diversity, label balance, and that the gold
193
  actually tracks the input. `train` comes from a separate run at a different seed;
 
79
  | – | Prior (ignores the input) | reference | 0.470 | 0.347 | 0.189 | 0.088 | – | – |
80
  | – | Uniform (same probability on every option) | reference | 0.308 | 0.444 | 0.238 | 0.169 | – | – |
81
 
82
+ Every row was scored by sending the whole case (state plus all five questions) in
83
+ one request. Request shape matters: in a third-party run Jev's yes/no accuracy was
84
+ 0.843 with one question per request and 0.788 alongside the others.
85
+
86
  Hosted rows are p50 end to end from a client, one request at a time.
87
  † Measured on the same machine as the model (M3 Max), not comparable with hosted latency.
88
 
 
129
 
130
  ## Reading a score
131
 
132
+ Gold is the mean of three samples from a labelling endpoint: a routing proxy that
133
+ presents as a single model and does not record which backend answered each sample.
134
+ So the teacher's identity is not recorded, and closed models cannot be ruled out.
135
+ Don't use the gold where closed-model output is off limits. A score measures
136
+ agreement with that teacher, not correctness. A better model
137
  can score lower wherever the teacher is wrong (it missed a duplicate invoice whose
138
  ID matched an earlier one).
139
 
 
193
 
194
  Each case starts from independently sampled latent factors (topic, tone,
195
  severity, discrepancy type and so on), which a model renders into free text where
196
+ the artefact is textual and keeps structured where it is structured. The labelling
197
+ endpoint answers each case three times at temperature 0.7, and the gold is the mean of those
198
  distributions, so it stays soft where a decision is genuinely ambiguous. Before
199
  release, an audit checks state diversity, label balance, and that the gold
200
  actually tracks the input. `train` comes from a separate run at a different seed;