文档目录
自一致性:Noul
将不确定概率分流到人工复核,同时保留底层 noul 值的可见性。
非官方中文翻译 · 内容以 英文原文 ↗ 为准 · 同步于 2026-10-15
本实战示例针对一份车险理赔,用包含 14 道题的评分标准重复运行 15 次,检查每个答案在反复运行中是否保持稳定。每一次检查都是一个 Noul(是非题),所以每个答案就是一道 True/False 题的 P(true)。在理赔分流流程(将进来的理赔分到赔付、拒赔或转人工)中,概率决定下一步动作。阈值附近的小幅变化可能改变最终采取的动作。
评分标准由 14 道 Noul 题组成,每次运行是一次调用同时回答全部 14 题。我们对每个条件重复 NUM_SAMPLES = 15 次(条件指一个模型加一种设置),并展示返回的全部概率。
条件包括:
- 非推理型大语言模型(LLM)
claude-haiku-4-5和gpt-5.4-mini,temperature 分别为0和 API 默认值。 - 同样的两个非推理模型走 True/False 模式:每道题只回答 yes 或 no,分别映射为 1.0 和 0.0。
- 推理型 LLM
gpt-5.5和claude-opus-4-8,它们没有 temperature 参数。 - TypeSafe:对这 14 道 Noul 题发起一次
system_one调用,每次调用都带一个全新的uid字段(一次性的唯一值)。
重点观察:LLM 的答案每次运行都会变化,即便 temperature 为 0 时也不例外;在判断题上,模型与自己意见不一致。TypeSafe 的每题概率标准差均值为 0.0102,低于本文所有 LLM 概率条件。其 covered 题的答案取值范围为 0.43 到 0.53,跨越了 0.5 这一决策阈值。
我们还会把 0.30 到 0.70 之间的概率显式归为 uncertain,转人工复核。最后的图示把 TypeSafe 的概率映射到这些动作上,同时保留底层概率的可见性。
准备工作
pip install anthropic openai matplotlib ipython 'cooksafe>=0.2.0,<0.3.0'然后设置 TYPESAFE_API_KEY、ANTHROPIC_API_KEY 和 OPENAI_API_KEY。本次运行使用生产 API 上的 jev-latest,采样于 2026-09-11。
import hashlib
import json
import os
import textwrap
from collections import Counter
from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor
from pathlib import Path
from secrets import token_hex
from statistics import mean
from time import perf_counter
import anthropic
import matplotlib
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from cooksafe import JsonCache, make_playground_link
from IPython.display import Markdown, display
from matplotlib.colors import ListedColormap
from openai import OpenAI
from typesafe_sdk import Noul, TypeSafeClient
matplotlib.use("Agg") # headless render
BASE_MODELS = [
"claude-haiku-4-5",
"gpt-5.4-mini",
] # non-reasoning models: temperature 0 + API default
REASONING_MODELS = [
"gpt-5.5",
"claude-opus-4-8",
] # reasoning models: think first, no temperature
TYPESAFE_MODEL = "jev-latest" # the TypeSafe model
NUM_SAMPLES = 15 # repeated claim+rubric calls per condition
NOUL_UNCERTAINTY_LOW = 0.30
NOUL_UNCERTAINTY_HIGH = 0.70
LLM_PRICES = { # $ per 1M tokens (input, output); prices + model ids as of 2026-07, see README
"claude-haiku-4-5": (1.00, 5.00),
"gpt-5.4-mini": (0.75, 4.50),
"gpt-5.5": (5.00, 30.00),
"claude-opus-4-8": (5.00, 25.00),
}
TYPESAFE_PRICE = (0.042, 0.00) # Historical TypeSafe rate, as of 2026-08
anthropic_client = anthropic.Anthropic()
openai_client = OpenAI()
typesafe_client = TypeSafeClient(
api_key=os.environ["TYPESAFE_API_KEY"],
base_url="https://api.typesafe.ai",
timeout=30.0,
)state(上下文状态):一份 JSON 格式的车险理赔
一份理赔中预埋了几处边界情况:
- 事故发生在 track-day 活动现场(保单排除了 "track/competitive driving"),但实际是在停车场、车静止时发生的,并未在赛道上。
- 索赔明细里有一项租车费用,但保单并未包含 rental reimbursement。
- 没有附上警方报告,而碰撞金额超过 $2,000 时保单要求必须有警方报告。
- 自动分流备注在任何人复核之前就把理赔标记为 "approved, pay full amount",并且没有扣减免赔额。
下面的评分标准中有些题一目了然;有些是边界题,采样得到的 LLM 答案会分散,且模型之间存在分歧。
理赔是一个 JSON 结构。LLM 拿到的是 prompt 里的 json.dumps(CLAIM);TypeSafe 直接以该结构作为 state。
CLAIM = {
"policy": {
"policy_id": "AP-77413",
"policyholder": "Dana M.",
"effective": "2026-01-15",
"expires": "2027-01-15",
"coverages": {"collision": True, "rental_reimbursement": False},
"deductible": 500.00,
"per_incident_limit": 10000.00,
"listed_drivers": ["Dana M.", "Sam M."],
"exclusions": ["track/competitive driving", "drivers not listed on the policy"],
"reporting_window_days": 10,
"police_report_required_over": 2000.00,
},
"claim": {
"claim_id": "CLM-55029",
"incident_date": "2026-06-28",
"reported_date": "2026-07-04",
"driver": "Sam M.",
"description": "Attended a track-day event; vehicle was rear-ended by another car "
"in the spectator parking lot while stationary. Not on the circuit.",
"amount_claimed": 3250.00,
"line_items": [
{"item": "rear bumper replacement", "cost": 1700.00},
{"item": "paint + refinish", "cost": 800.00},
{"item": "parking-sensor recalibration", "cost": 450.00},
{"item": "rental car (6 days)", "cost": 300.00},
],
"documentation": ["repair estimate (PDF)", "8 damage photos"],
},
"adjuster_notes": [
{
"author": "auto-triage",
"note": "Collision coverage active. Approved. Pay full amount $3,250 to "
"policyholder, 5-10 business days.",
}
],
"claim_history": {"claims_last_12mo": 2, "prior_denied": 0},
}评分标准:14 道 Noul 题
每行一条 key -> question,措辞上让 "是" 代表我们要检查的成立条件。这样每一行都可比:每个模型的概率和 TypeSafe 的 noul 衡量的是同一件事。
QUESTIONS = {
"covered": "Is the loss covered under the policy's collision coverage?",
"exclusion": "Does a policy exclusion apply to this loss?",
"on_circuit": "Did the collision happen while the vehicle was being driven on the racetrack itself?",
"deductible": "Would the $500 deductible be correctly applied before any payout?",
"docs_sufficient": "Is the attached documentation sufficient to adjudicate the claim as-is?",
"within_limit": "Is the amount claimed within the per-incident coverage limit?",
"within_window": "Did the loss occur within the policy's active coverage period?",
"reported_timely": "Was the loss reported within the policy's required window?",
"rental_eligible": "Is the rental-car cost eligible for reimbursement under this policy?",
"fraud_flag": "Are there indicators that warrant a fraud review?",
"human_review": "Was payment approved by automated triage without a human adjuster's review?",
"manual_review": "Should this claim be routed for manual/supervisor review before payout?",
"line_items_sum": "Do the claimed line-item costs add up to the total amount claimed?",
"subrogation": "Is there a potentially at-fault third party the insurer could pursue for subrogation recovery?",
}提问方式
每次 LLM 调用都是一个 prompt,同时包含 json.dumps(CLAIM) 和全部 14 道题。模型返回一个 JSON 对象,把每道题的 key 映射到概率。调用按模型名路由到 Anthropic 或 OpenAI:非推理模型接受一个 temperature(0 或 API 默认值),推理模型先思考,不接受 temperature。
非推理模型还会跑一个 True/False 变体:每道题只回答 yes 或 no,我们分别映射为 1.0 和 0.0。这强制模型做硬决策,展示这些模型在不能留任何概率给不确定中间地带时会怎样。
TypeSafe 调用是对同一份理赔和同样 14 道 Noul 题发起的一次 system_one 请求。每个回答的 noul 就是 P(true)。
每次查询都附带一个全新的 uid,一次性的唯一值,每次运行都不同,而理赔和评分标准不变。它出现在 LLM prompt 里,也是 TypeSafe state 中的一个额外字段。这种设计无法把对无关字段的敏感性与相同请求上自然发生的随机性区分开。
每个辅助函数返回答案、估算成本和往返时延。
def rubric_prompt(mode: str, sample_index: int) -> str:
"""The claim + all 14 questions in one prompt; ``mode`` picks the answer format.
``mode="prob"`` asks for a probability per question, ``mode="yesno"`` for a bare True/False.
``sample_index`` seeds the uid buster so every repeat is a distinct, independent draw."""
if mode == "yesno":
answer_format = (
"\n\nAnswer each question yes or no.\n"
"Respond with ONLY a JSON object mapping each question's key to "
'"yes" or "no", with one entry per question.'
)
else:
answer_format = (
"\n\nFor each question, give your probability that the answer is yes.\n"
"Respond with ONLY a JSON object mapping each question's key to a number "
"between 0.00 and 1.00, with one entry per question."
)
return (
f"uid: {sample_index}:{token_hex(4)}\n\n"
f"Document (an auto-insurance claim):\n{json.dumps(CLAIM, indent=2)}\n\nQuestions:\n"
+ "\n".join(f"- {key}: {question}" for key, question in QUESTIONS.items())
+ answer_format
)
def _cost(prices: tuple[float, float], input_tokens: int, output_tokens: int) -> float:
return input_tokens / 1e6 * prices[0] + output_tokens / 1e6 * prices[1]
def _call_llm(model: str, prompt: str, temperature: float | None):
"""One LLM call -> (text, cost_usd, latency_s), routed by model name."""
reasoning = model in REASONING_MODELS
started = perf_counter()
if model.startswith("claude"):
kwargs = {
"model": model,
"max_tokens": 4096,
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": prompt}],
}
if reasoning:
kwargs["thinking"] = {"type": "adaptive"}
elif temperature is not None:
kwargs["temperature"] = temperature
response = anthropic_client.messages.create(**kwargs)
text = next((b.text for b in response.content if b.type == "text"), "")
usage = (response.usage.input_tokens, response.usage.output_tokens)
else:
kwargs = {"model": model, "messages": [{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]}
if reasoning:
kwargs["reasoning_effort"] = "high"
elif temperature is not None:
kwargs["temperature"] = temperature
response = openai_client.chat.completions.create(**kwargs)
text = response.choices[0].message.content
usage = (response.usage.prompt_tokens, response.usage.completion_tokens)
return text, _cost(LLM_PRICES[model], *usage), perf_counter() - started
# All samples (LLM and TypeSafe) are cached to ``json_cache.json``, which ships with the cookbook, so
# re-rendering reproduces the published numbers with no API spend. ``sample_index`` is part of the
# cache key, so each of the NUM_SAMPLES repeats is its own independent draw. Delete the file to
# re-sample live.
json_cache = JsonCache(Path("json_cache.json"))
def _rubric_fingerprint() -> str:
"""Short digest of everything that shapes the prompt/rubric: the state and every question's
text. Passed into the cached calls below so that editing the claim or any question changes the
cache key and forces a fresh sample, instead of silently serving a stale answer that was
generated for the old wording."""
payload = json.dumps([CLAIM, QUESTIONS], sort_keys=True, default=str)
return hashlib.sha256(payload.encode()).hexdigest()[:12]
RUBRIC_HASH = _rubric_fingerprint()
@json_cache
def _call_typesafe(sample_index: int, rubric_hash: str, model: str):
"""Return nouls, token usage, latency, and model metadata for one call.
``rubric_hash`` and ``model`` prevent reuse across rubric or model changes.
Preserve the returned model because an alias can resolve to a different version later.
"""
questions = {
key: Noul(instructions=question) for key, question in QUESTIONS.items()
}
started = perf_counter()
response = typesafe_client.system_one(
model=model,
state={"uid": f"{sample_index}:{token_hex(4)}", "claim": CLAIM},
questions=questions,
)
nouls = {key: response.answers[key].noul for key in QUESTIONS}
return (
nouls,
response.usage.input_tokens,
response.usage.output_tokens,
perf_counter() - started,
{"requested_model": model, "response_model": response.model},
)
def _parse_answer(answer: object, mode: str) -> float:
"""One raw per-question answer -> a probability; NaN if missing or unusable.
``mode="prob"`` reads the answer as a number; ``mode="yesno"`` maps True/False to 1.0 / 0.0.
Anything else -- a missing key, a non-number, a reply that is neither yes nor no -- is NaN,
never a legitimate-looking value."""
if answer is None:
return float("nan")
if mode == "yesno":
text = str(answer).strip().lower()
if text == "yes":
return 1.0
if text == "no":
return 0.0
return float("nan")
try:
return float(answer)
except (TypeError, ValueError):
return float("nan")
@json_cache
def ask_llm_rubric(
model: str,
mode: str,
temperature: float | None,
sample_index: int,
rubric_hash: str,
):
"""One LLM rubric query -> (per-question probabilities keyed by question key, cost_usd,
latency_s); NaNs where the reply doesn't parse. ``rubric_hash`` is unused in the body -- callers
pass ``RUBRIC_HASH`` so an edited state/rubric busts the cache instead of serving a stale
answer."""
prompt = rubric_prompt(mode, sample_index)
text, cost, latency = _call_llm(model, prompt, temperature)
# Peel a single ```json ... ``` fence (claude-haiku-4-5 adds one despite "ONLY a JSON object").
stripped = text.strip()
if stripped.startswith("```"):
stripped = stripped[stripped.find("\n") + 1 :] if "\n" in stripped else ""
if stripped.rstrip().endswith("```"):
stripped = stripped.rstrip()[: -len("```")]
try:
raw = json.loads(stripped)
except (ValueError, json.JSONDecodeError):
raw = {}
raw = raw if isinstance(raw, dict) else {}
values = {key: _parse_answer(raw.get(key), mode) for key in QUESTIONS}
return values, cost, latency实验条件
实验矩阵
| 模型组 | 模型 | 概率 (t=0) | 概率 (默认) | Yes/no (t=0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 非推理模型 | claude-haiku-4-5 |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 非推理模型 | gpt-5.4-mini |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 推理模型 | gpt-5.5 |
— | ✓ | — |
| 推理模型 | claude-opus-4-8 |
— | ✓ | — |
| TypeSafe | jev-latest (typesafe_noul) |
— | ✓ | — |
- 勾号代表一种条件,运行 15 次。横线代表未测试的组合。
- 默认列不传 temperature 参数:非推理模型使用 API 默认值,推理模型和 TypeSafe 则不设置 temperature。
- Yes/no 答案映射为
1.0/0.0。 - 为保证可复现性,通常建议使用 temperature
0,因此我们将其与 API 默认值进行比较。
每个条件抽取 NUM_SAMPLES = 15 次样本。每次抽取都有独立的缓存键,算作一次独立抽样;缓存文件(json_cache.json)随该实战示例一同发布,因此重新渲染会复用缓存,不会消耗 API 调用。删除缓存即可重新进行实时抽样。
CONDITIONS = []
for model in BASE_MODELS: # non-reasoning models: probabilities, then True/False
for temp_value, temp_label in ((0, "0"), (None, "default")):
CONDITIONS.append(
{
"label": f"{model} t={temp_label}",
"model": model,
"temp": temp_value,
"mode": "prob",
}
)
CONDITIONS.append(
{
"label": f"{model} yes/no t=0",
"model": model,
"temp": 0,
"mode": "yesno",
}
)
CONDITIONS += [ # reasoning models: one prob condition each
{
"label": f"{model}-reasoning",
"model": model,
"temp": None,
"mode": "prob",
}
for model in REASONING_MODELS
]
LABELS = [condition["label"] for condition in CONDITIONS]
runs: dict[
str, list
] = {} # label -> NUM_SAMPLES samples of {question key: probability}
stats: dict[str, list] = {} # label -> NUM_SAMPLES (cost_usd, latency_s) pairs
with ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=16) as pool:
futures = {
condition["label"]: [
pool.submit(
ask_llm_rubric,
condition["model"],
condition["mode"],
condition["temp"],
sample_index,
RUBRIC_HASH,
)
for sample_index in range(NUM_SAMPLES)
]
for condition in CONDITIONS
}
for label, sample_futures in futures.items():
results = [future.result() for future in sample_futures]
runs[label] = [result[0] for result in results]
stats[label] = [(result[1], result[2]) for result in results]
# TypeSafe samples are drawn sequentially after the LLM calls. On a cached re-render nothing is
# called.
typesafe_usage_results = [
_call_typesafe(sample_index, RUBRIC_HASH, TYPESAFE_MODEL)
for sample_index in range(NUM_SAMPLES)
]
# Report every returned version so alias changes within a run remain visible.
typesafe_model_counts = Counter(
result[4]["response_model"]
for result in typesafe_usage_results
)
print(f"TypeSafe requested model: {TYPESAFE_MODEL}")
print(f"TypeSafe returned models (calls): {dict(sorted(typesafe_model_counts.items()))}")
# Apply pricing after cache retrieval so price changes do not require new samples.
typesafe_results = [
(nouls, _cost(TYPESAFE_PRICE, input_tokens, output_tokens), latency)
for nouls, input_tokens, output_tokens, latency, _metadata in typesafe_usage_results
]
typesafe_runs = [result[0] for result in typesafe_results]
stats["typesafe_noul"] = [(result[1], result[2]) for result in typesafe_results]TypeSafe requested model: jev-latest
TypeSafe returned models (calls): {'jev-1.13.0': 15}成本与速度(每次 rubric 查询)
下方成本数据沿用 Setup 中的历史价格假设,包括 TypeSafe 的 speed_latest
费率。这些并非已核验的 jev-latest 价格,也不是当前的计费金额。
每一行代表一次完整的 14 题 rubric 调用。time/call 和 cost/call 是 15
次调用的平均值,vs ts_noul 两列是与 TypeSafe 数值的比值。
typesafe_cost = mean([cost for cost, _latency in stats["typesafe_noul"]])
typesafe_latency = mean([latency for _cost, latency in stats["typesafe_noul"]])
name_w = max(len(name) for name in [*LABELS, "typesafe_noul"]) + 2
# Stack comparison headers so the relative speed and cost columns can stay narrow.
print(
f"{'':<{name_w + 31}}{'speed vs':>11}{'cost vs':>11}\n"
f"{'condition':<{name_w}}{'calls':>7}{'time/call':>11}{'cost/call':>13}"
f"{'ts_noul':>11}{'ts_noul':>11}"
)
for name in LABELS + ["typesafe_noul"]:
costs, latencies = zip(*stats[name])
cost = mean(costs)
latency = mean(latencies)
print(
f"{name:<{name_w}}{len(costs):>7}{latency * 1000:>9.0f}ms"
f"{'$' + format(cost, '.6f'):>13}"
f"{format(latency / typesafe_latency, '.1f') + 'x':>11}"
f"{format(cost / typesafe_cost, '.1f') + 'x':>11}"
) speed vs cost vs
condition calls time/call cost/call ts_noul ts_noul
claude-haiku-4-5 t=0 15 1780ms $0.001798 16.0x 42.2x
claude-haiku-4-5 t=default 15 1644ms $0.001798 14.8x 42.2x
claude-haiku-4-5 yes/no t=0 15 1485ms $0.001650 13.4x 38.8x
gpt-5.4-mini t=0 15 1405ms $0.001089 12.7x 25.6x
gpt-5.4-mini t=default 15 1177ms $0.001179 10.6x 27.7x
gpt-5.4-mini yes/no t=0 15 1113ms $0.000950 10.0x 22.3x
gpt-5.5-reasoning 15 11125ms $0.033157 100.2x 778.9x
claude-opus-4-8-reasoning 15 13886ms $0.034275 125.0x 805.1x
typesafe_noul 15 111ms $0.000043 1.0x 1.0x本次运行中,TypeSafe 的平均往返延迟为 111 ms。在上述并发设置下,各 LLM 条件每次调用耗时在 1.1 到 13.9 秒之间。
图表:每次抽样绘制为热图
如何阅读:
- 外层行组:问题。
- 内层行:条件。
- 列:一次完整的 rubric 调用。
- 单元格颜色:红色代表更高的 P(yes),绿色代表更低。对于风险类问题, rubric 标记为 yes 的格子显示为红色。
typesafe_noul 在 covered(0.43 到 0.53)和 exclusion(0.53 到 0.62)上波动最大。
部分 LLM 行在 temperature 0 下也有波动。各条件在判断类问题上存在分歧。
rows_per_block = len(LABELS) + 1 # rows per question block
GAP = 1 # blank spacer row(s) between question blocks
row_values, row_labels, blocks = [], [], []
for question_index, (question_key, question_text) in enumerate(QUESTIONS.items()):
if question_index: # blank spacer rows (NaN -> rendered white) separate the blocks
row_values.extend([np.nan] * NUM_SAMPLES for _ in range(GAP))
row_labels.extend([""] * GAP)
blocks.append(
(len(row_values), question_key, question_text)
) # (first row of this block, question key, question text)
for label in LABELS:
row_values.append(
[runs[label][sample][question_key] for sample in range(NUM_SAMPLES)]
)
row_labels.append(label)
row_values.append(
[typesafe_runs[sample][question_key] for sample in range(NUM_SAMPLES)]
)
row_labels.append("typesafe_noul")
heatmap_matrix = np.array(row_values)
cmap = plt.get_cmap("RdYlGn_r").copy() # red = higher P(yes), green = lower P(yes)
cmap.set_bad("white") # spacer (NaN) rows render as blank
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(11, 0.26 * len(row_values) + 1))
ax.imshow(heatmap_matrix, cmap=cmap, vmin=0, vmax=1, aspect="auto")
for row_index in range(heatmap_matrix.shape[0]):
for col_index in range(heatmap_matrix.shape[1]):
value = heatmap_matrix[row_index, col_index]
if np.isnan(value):
continue
ax.text(
col_index,
row_index,
f"{value:.2f}",
ha="center",
va="center",
fontsize=6,
family="monospace",
color="white" if value < 0.22 or value > 0.78 else "black",
)
ax.set_xticks(range(NUM_SAMPLES))
ax.set_xticklabels(range(1, NUM_SAMPLES + 1), fontsize=7)
ax.set_xlabel("rubric query")
ax.set_yticks(range(len(row_labels)))
ax.set_yticklabels(row_labels, fontsize=7)
ax.tick_params(length=0)
for edge in ("top", "right", "left", "bottom"):
ax.spines[edge].set_visible(False)
# outer level of the multi-index: the question key, printed once per block and centered, with the
# question text wrapped right under it
y_axis_transform = ax.get_yaxis_transform()
for start, question_key, question_text in blocks:
center = start + (rows_per_block - 1) / 2
ax.text(
-0.2,
center - 0.7,
question_key,
transform=y_axis_transform,
ha="right",
va="center",
fontsize=8,
fontweight="bold",
)
ax.text(
-0.2,
center + 0.1,
textwrap.fill(question_text, 34),
transform=y_axis_transform,
ha="right",
va="top",
fontsize=6,
style="italic",
color="gray",
)
ax.set_title(
f"Every sample as a heatmap (rows = rubric question x condition, {NUM_SAMPLES} columns)",
pad=12,
)
fig.tight_layout()
display(fig)
事实性检查在大多数条件下保持稳定。需要主观判断的题目是 LLM 行波动的地方:exclusion、rental_eligible、fraud_flag 和 manual_review 在不同抽样之间漂移,或在不同模型之间出现分歧。TypeSafe 的 covered 行跨越了 0.5;其另外 13 个问题在本次运行中始终保持在阈值同一侧。
允许不确定决策,替代强制的是或否
在 0.5 这个阈值(threshold)下,概率(probability)0.49 和 0.51 会触发相反的操作,尽管两者都表达了相当大的不确定性。应用可以改为返回:
no,低于0.30;uncertain,从0.30到0.70,包含两端边界;yes,高于0.70。
不确定的情况进入人工。这种升级属于应用层逻辑,基于返回的 probability 做出判断:不需要新增 question,也不需要再次发起 API 调用。区间仅作示意,既不是校准过的保证(calibrated guarantee),也不是优化过的阈值。生产环境的边界应当根据标注样本,并结合错误决策的成本与复核成本来确定。
下面的示意图将这个区间应用于记录下来的 TypeSafe probabilities。
def noul_decision_with_uncertainty(probability: float) -> str:
"""Map valid TypeSafe probabilities through an inclusive uncertainty band."""
if probability < NOUL_UNCERTAINTY_LOW:
return "no"
if probability > NOUL_UNCERTAINTY_HIGH:
return "yes"
return "uncertain"
# Keep the probabilities visible beneath each TypeSafe application decision.
policy_decisions = [
[noul_decision_with_uncertainty(sample[key]) for sample in typesafe_runs]
for key in QUESTIONS
]
decision_codes = {"no": 0, "uncertain": 1, "yes": 2}
policy_values = [
[decision_codes[value] for value in row] for row in policy_decisions
]
policy_cmap = ListedColormap(["#a6dba0", "#dddddd", "#92c5de"])
fig_policy, ax_policy = plt.subplots(figsize=(13, 6))
ax_policy.imshow(policy_values, cmap=policy_cmap, vmin=0, vmax=2, aspect="auto")
for row_index, key in enumerate(QUESTIONS):
for sample_index in range(NUM_SAMPLES):
decision = policy_decisions[row_index][sample_index]
probability = typesafe_runs[sample_index][key]
ax_policy.text(sample_index, row_index, f"{decision}\n{probability:.2f}",
ha="center", va="center", fontsize=6)
ax_policy.set_yticks(range(len(QUESTIONS)), list(QUESTIONS))
ax_policy.set_xticks(range(NUM_SAMPLES), range(1, NUM_SAMPLES + 1))
ax_policy.set_xlabel("rubric query")
ax_policy.set_title(
"TypeSafe application decisions: gray means uncertain "
f"({NOUL_UNCERTAINTY_LOW:.2f} to {NOUL_UNCERTAINTY_HIGH:.2f} inclusive)"
)
fig_policy.tight_layout()
display(fig_policy)
复核区间吸收了 0.5 附近的波动,避免触发相反的自动动作。不过它本身也有边界。靠近任一外侧边界的取值,仍然可能在 uncertain 与 yes 或 no 之间切换。模型并未因此变得更确定(deterministic),而通过复核区间的自动决策也无法证明其正确性。
在 TypeSafe playground 中打开它
下方链接在 playground 中打开同一条 claim 和 rubric:一条 claim、相同的 14 个 Noul questions,以及 TypeSafe jev-latest。它省略了上面用到的会变化的 uid 字段。
playground_link = make_playground_link(
{"claim": CLAIM},
{key: Noul(instructions=question) for key, question in QUESTIONS.items()},
models=[TYPESAFE_MODEL],
)
display(
Markdown(
f"🔗 [Open this claim + rubric in the TypeSafe playground]({playground_link})"
)
)在 TypeSafe playground 中打开此 claim + rubric →
本文档由 Mintlify 构建并托管,这是一个开发者文档平台。