feat(multilevel): estimate crossed multiple-membership u_h

[seonghobae]

Scope

Buyer-visible psychometrics gap on current protected main: estimate crossed / weighted multiple-membership person effects u_h. This is not another OLS/AR slice and is not stacked on #976, #982, or #939.

Paper basis

Fox and Glas (2001) place a Gaussian level-2 prior on multilevel IRT group effects. Browne, Goldstein, and Rasbash (2001) write the same additive term with membership weights that sum to one inside each classification, including multiple membership and crossed (multiple-classification) designs.

Implemented linear predictor:

eta_pi = a_i * (theta_p + sum_h w_ph * u_h) + b_i

This kernel is the matching MAP / Newton point estimator of flattened u_h, not Fox & Glas Gibbs and not MMMC MCMC. Optional person_offsets accept an already-estimated longitudinal location. OLS/AR coefficients are not estimated here because #976 is not on main.

What landed

• Rust-owned estimator in mlsirm-core with CPU multithreading and an optional wgpu person-score kernel (f64 CPU fallback).
• Marshal-only Python API: estimate_crossed_person_effects, CrossedPersonEffectResult.
• True-parameter RMSE recovery against a crossed school × neighborhood design that also includes dual-school weights. A stub or zero vector fails the gate.
• 100% docstrings on the new public API, APA 7th doctoring, and a CHANGELOG fragment.

Exclusions

• fix(config): store trusted integers and harden seed controls #939, feat: add Rust longitudinal state and joint CT-AR Rasch #976, and Add joint MAP hierarchical CT-AR Rasch slice (stacked on #976) #982 are untouched.
• No score kernels moved to psychometrics-commons.
• No LLM test (NVIDIA_NIM_API_KEY unused).
• Journal PDFs are copyrighted; they are cited + linked + summarized, not attached.

Evidence on this head (03ebb0eb86bc4325bc5d5240b885069cea103ff7)

• cargo test --locked --manifest-path crates/mlsirm-core/Cargo.toml --lib multilevel::estimator: 5 passed, including the Rust RMSE gate.
• python -c "resolve_backend(auto) == rust": rust primary OK.
• pytest recovery + doctoring + existing multilevel/contracts/changelog/docs: 26 passed, including test_crossed_multiple_membership_uh_recovers_true_effects.
• A zero-effect stub would fail the RMSE gate (zero_rmse > 0.70 vs recovered RMSE < 0.25).
• rustfmt applied to the new kernel/binding files.

  

[cursor]

Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed.

Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 18 minutes

Limit details: You’ve used all 1 included review currently available under your plan.

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 423d9a63-caa5-41ee-83e4-38077ab3c6f2

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 04d0bc2 and 34697b6.

📒 Files selected for processing (18)

• crates/fast-mlsirm-py/src/multilevel_bindings.rs
• crates/mlsirm-core/src/gpu_multilevel.rs
• crates/mlsirm-core/src/lib.rs
• crates/mlsirm-core/src/multilevel.rs
• crates/mlsirm-core/src/multilevel_estimator.rs
• docs/GOVERNANCE_INDEX.md
• docs/adr/0007-multilevel-multiple-membership-temporal.md
• docs/changelog.d/565-crossed-multiple-membership-uh.md
• docs/doctoring/multilevel_crossed_person_effects.md
• docs/doctoring/multilevel_longitudinal_measurement.md
• docs/documentation_coverage.md
• docs/traceability/requirements-matrix.md
• docs/traceability/research-basis.md
• python/fast_mlsirm/multilevel/__init__.py
• python/fast_mlsirm/multilevel/estimation.py
• tests/test_multilevel_crossed_response_contract.py
• tests/test_multilevel_crossed_uh_doctoring.py
• tests/test_multilevel_crossed_uh_recovery.py

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 34697b6df58c1424654bc890571a3dfbe806fd97.

• Head SHA: 34697b6df58c1424654bc890571a3dfbe806fd97

• Workflow run: 32124700402

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (7 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (7 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (8 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (8 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test (3 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (3 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 34697b6df58c1424654bc890571a3dfbe806fd97
• Workflow run: 32124700402
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 34697b6df58c1424654bc890571a3dfbe806fd97.

• Head SHA: 34697b6df58c1424654bc890571a3dfbe806fd97

• Workflow run: 32124700402

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (7 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (7 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Docs (8 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (8 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test (3 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (3 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent Please re-review unchanged exact head 34697b6df58c1424654bc890571a3dfbe806fd97 against the current central coverage implementation. Repository CI, Security Scan, CodeQL, Semgrep, and ClusterFuzzLite are terminal-success on this SHA, including the Rust RMSE recovery gate for crossed/weighted multiple-membership effects. The existing formal CHANGES_REQUESTED maps to central run 32124700402, which predates .github main b71a02a310e77f70c1e59f4719f6857cb33ca886 and its trusted-uv/flat-lock correction. Please generate fresh same-head formal evidence rather than carrying forward the superseded central tooling failure.

[seonghobae]

@opencode-agent Please re-review unchanged exact head 34697b6df58c1424654bc890571a3dfbe806fd97 with the current central workflow. Repository CI, Security Scan, CodeQL, Semgrep, and ClusterFuzzLite are terminal-success on this SHA; the only formal REQUEST_CHANGES is prior coverage-evidence infrastructure failure. Reassess the Rust-owned crossed/multiple-membership estimator, recovery evidence, and current same-head coverage evidence without carrying that superseded tooling verdict.