Docs/rename reward to judge model

[XiaoBoAI]

OpenJudge Version

[The version of OpenJudge you are working on, e.g. import openjudge; print(openjudge.__version__)]

Description

[Please describe the background, purpose, changes made, and how to test this PR]

Checklist

Please check the following items before code is ready to be reviewed.

• Code has been formatted with pre-commit run --all-files command
• All tests are passing
• Docstrings are in Google style
• Related documentation has been updated (e.g. links, examples, etc.)
• Code is ready for review

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @XiaoBoAI, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request aims to enhance the clarity and consistency of the OpenJudge documentation by standardizing the terminology used for evaluation models. It systematically renames all occurrences of 'reward model' to 'judge model' and introduces explanatory notes to clarify this choice, providing a more precise and unified language for users interacting with the platform's evaluation capabilities.

Highlights

• Terminology Standardization: All instances of 'reward model' have been systematically replaced with 'judge model' across the documentation to ensure consistent terminology within the OpenJudge framework.
• Clarification of Terms: New informational notes have been added to key conceptual documents (e.g., training_judge_models.md and core_concepts.md) to explicitly explain the preference for 'judge model' and its relationship to the commonly used 'reward model' in RLHF literature.
• Documentation Updates: Various sections, including overviews, comparative tables, decision trees, and 'Next Steps' links, have been updated to reflect the new 'judge model' terminology and ensure all references are accurate.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request does a good job of standardizing the terminology in the documentation by replacing 'reward model' with 'judge model'. The changes are consistent across the modified files, and the addition of the info box explaining the terminology is a helpful clarification for users. I've added one suggestion to improve clarity.

Also, one area for potential improvement for full consistency, which is outside the changed files in this PR, is the site_description in mkdocs.yml. It still refers to 'Reward Model Platform' and 'reward models'. You might consider updating this in a follow-up change to complete the terminology switch.

[ployts]

LGTM