calib·HumanEval/10
This is one (task, candidate response) pair flowing through the full PANOPTES pipeline. Each section below is a stage of the analysis: the task itself, the candidate solution being evaluated, every judge's score + rationale, the sampling-pass dispersion that captures within-judge noise, and the uncertainty-quantification metrics computed on top.
The function signature + docstring presented to both the model under test and to every judge. The entry-point name was obfuscated from make_palindrome to fn_cd407095a1 so the judges can't pattern-match a memorized HumanEval solution.
def is_palindrome(string: str) -> bool:
""" Test if given string is a palindrome """
return string == string[::-1]
def fn_cd407095a1(string: str) -> str:
""" Find the shortest palindrome that begins with a supplied string.
Algorithm idea is simple:
- Find the longest postfix of supplied string that is a palindrome.
- Append to the end of the string reverse of a string prefix that comes before the palindromic suffix.
>>> fn_cd407095a1('')
''
>>> fn_cd407095a1('cat')
'catac'
>>> fn_cd407095a1('cata')
'catac'
"""
The full solution every judge is grading. For these runs the candidate is the reference solution prepended with the task signature so it parses as a complete program.
def is_palindrome(string: str) -> bool:
""" Test if given string is a palindrome """
return string == string[::-1]
def fn_cd407095a1(string: str) -> str:
""" Find the shortest palindrome that begins with a supplied string.
Algorithm idea is simple:
- Find the longest postfix of supplied string that is a palindrome.
- Append to the end of the string reverse of a string prefix that comes before the palindromic suffix.
>>> fn_cd407095a1('')
''
>>> fn_cd407095a1('cat')
'catac'
>>> fn_cd407095a1('cata')
'catac'
"""
if not string:
return ''
beginning_of_suffix = 0
while not is_palindrome(string[beginning_of_suffix:]):
beginning_of_suffix += 1
return string + string[:beginning_of_suffix][::-1]
One call per judge at temperature=0. This is the "best single guess" each judge has. Disagreement here is structural. The judges literally see this candidate differently.
n draws per judge at temperature=1. Dots are individual draws; vertical bar is the mean; shaded band is ±1σ. Wide band = the judge is uncertain even with itself; narrow band = it's consistent.
Three statistical methods computed on top of the raw scores above. Each one tells you something different about how much to trust the headline number.
How to read these: self-consistency = does the judge agree with itself when resampled? Narrower CI means more consistent. Semantic entropy = do the judge's rationales cluster into one meaning, or several? Higher entropy means the judge is internally conflicted about why. Decomposition = how much of the total variance comes from within-judge sampling noise (aleatoric, hard to fix) vs between-judge disagreement (epistemic, fixable by calling more judges).
The natural-language explanation each judge gave alongside its score. These are produced via tool-use structured output, so the score and the rationale are guaranteed to come from the same forward pass.
The solution correctly implements the described algorithm. It finds the longest palindromic suffix by incrementing `beginning_of_suffix` until `string[beginning_of_suffix:]` is a palindrome, then appends the reverse of the prefix before that suffix. All three doctests pass: `''`→`''`, `'cat'`→`'catac'` (suffix `'t'` is palindrome, prepend reverse of `'ca'`=`'ac'`), `'cata'`→`'catac'` (suffix `'ata'` is palindrome, prepend reverse of `'c'`=`'c'`). Edge cases like a string that is already a palindrome (e.g., `'aba'`) also work correctly since `beginning_of_suffix` stays 0 and nothing is appended. The implementation is clean and idiomatic.
The candidate solution correctly implements the function to find the shortest palindrome that begins with a supplied string. It handles the edge case of an empty string correctly, returning an empty string as expected. The logic for finding the longest palindromic suffix and appending the reverse of the prefix is correctly implemented and matches the provided examples. The solution is idiomatic and clear, with no apparent bugs or inefficiencies.