Just curious, where has this term 'noul' come from for yes/no ansers?
/a bit more digging and..
A Noul performs a Bernoulli trial—an experiment with exactly two outcomes (yes or no)—but instead of picking one, it returns the calibrated probability (ranging from 0.0 to 1.0) that the statement is true.
Not quite.. that boolean is about whether the voltage exceeds some threshold. It's not about how close the voltage is to the circuit's maximum possible threshold, or how much it exceeds the threshold.
If the model does autoregressive reasoning before the decision, doesn't that give up much of what a Jev-style model buys you (a single forward pass, cheap calibrated probabilities)? Or is the point mainly to keep the typed output and probability interface while getting better accuracy on harder cases?
Seems like this is the way, a hybrid approach where some of the pipeline will be jev like and some traditional LLM depending on the nature of the work.
My bots are all named Jeeves lol. I have a CLI tool I use that connects up to a LLM I made and I call it Jeeves too ...so funny. I really didn't use Jeeves all that much I tended to use...I think it was called Web crawler pre-google era
Ask Jeeves hired hundreds of cheap liberal arts majors to classify data, some users thought Jeeves was real, the stock spiked when big companies hired Jeeves to automate support thinking it was a silver bullet, and the whole thing collapsed when a better model came along, and it degenerated into ripping off rubes with bottom of the barrel ads.
Doesn't the fact that it's general purpose warrant a new term? It's partly that it doesn't need to be trained, but it's also able to play games based on game state, I'd imagine it would be hard to train a classifier to do something like this because you'd need to represent a good distribution of all the states. The general purpose llm world understanding underneath it allows for this.
I've used it to do web research where it follows the most appropriate links, decides what to record in state, etc. I struggle to see how you could implement something with a classifier. That said, I have no idea how deep the technology is and it might be replaced with open source pretty quickly since its drafting of the frontier models and the open source models seem almost as good.
I like the term decision model and I think it's warranted.
This isn't eating Jev's lunch. This is someone who doesn't understand the entire use case of Jev replacing it with something that doesn't handle it at all.
interesting bench list, what about benchmark against smaller or bigger models? 9B looks too huge for small like laya, and too small for llm-level decisions.
For a moment I thought this was going to be a metaphor — maybe an ancient Chinese proverb about how paint brushes are made from horsehair and how you can't hold the horse to paint before you've turned the hair into a brush.
One way: separately embed sender, recipients, subject, body - then use the embedding vectors as input to a logistic classifier
With that setup, I get 95% accuracy on email classification, training on 50-100 base examples. The model trains on CPU in under 1min, and it does inference in under 20ms (most of it is running the embeddings, so you can make it faster if you train your own embeddings model)
That code applies the embeddings + classifier setup on the Banking77 dataset. It gets 93-94% accuracy depending on the embeddings you use (SOTA for this is ~95%, with much bigger and slower models)
I can’t see your gist but spam classification is a textbook example of something you shouldn’t measure with accuracy. If 95% of your samples are not spam you can get 95% accuracy by always guessing not spam.
You should use precision (when your model says “spam” how often is it spam?), recall (how many of the spam emails did it catch), or f1 (balanced between those two).
That's a great point. My case is not for spam, the classes are more balanced, but you are correct that precision, recall and f1 would be better measures for some of these tasks
There are two parts in the data you supply to Jev for classification - the prompt describing your classification and the data. The data can be quite small - a simple chat message. And prompt part could be considerable since you need to describe your rubrics well.
With Jev you each time pay for your prompt, you can't cache it.
I mean, it sounds like it's only ideal for cases with significant system prompt overhead. I don't think Jev was built to have a large well described prompt setup. To me its more like a happy go lucky small label classification tool with important decisions left to stronger agentic models or yk humans.
I just did a run with a benchmark I just used to test other models against. (It's about detecting irony in german soccer tweets). On my M5 Pro with 48GB it took over 30min to decide on just 100 tweets, the thinking definitely takes long.
It performed quite below Jev, but above other open decision models I tested (68 correct vs 79 correct for Jev - see [1]). I'm running it for the moderation benchmark as well, but that will probably take a few hours on my machine.
Update: Jeeves took about 2 hours to moderate 394 data points and performed really well. It’s not as good as Jev, but it’s super close! In general, it’s super cool that you can tune how strict you want content moderation to be with these models.
just get an LLM to think and then force it to output a specific json with prefill post-think.
make sure to include good conditioning text in the prompt with examples of exactly what the output should be like. you don't want dissonance in the probabilities on the prefill.
A classifier is a subset of generative text, so I think responses like this miss the point. Jev is cheap enough and fast enough to sprinkle across your app in ways that LLM would be infuriatingly laggy and unnecessarily expensive, and it's never going to be injected to provide a sorting algorithm in python.
The point isn't that new type of problem has been unlocked, rather a new approach that can unlock new use cases.
when you want a machine to reason about the prompt and generate a structured output not using an actual LLM makes no sense. I have been doing it since the first chain of thought open models became available.
perhaps there may be a way to get a Jev-type model to think for a very specific number of steps to gain control over its latency, if so that would be the next step. truncating LLM thinking like this does not work well, and its thinking isn't efficient anyway.
Cool engineering, but 17s p90 latency kind of defeats the point of a Jev-class model, which is supposed to be fast and cheap. Losing 10 points on MMLU along the way doesn't help.
The number of people who feel the need to try and argue that you don't need Jev can only be astroturfing by those with something to lose - Anthropic and OpenAI employees.
Like it or not, companies are going to use Jev unless you can offer something just as cheap and fast.
I wonder just how much of the business automation market, previously held by LLMs, is at risk here?
Jev noob here. I'm seeing all this jev talk and I understand the difference between this and normal models, but what are some actual use cases for jev?
alienbaby | 10 hours ago
/a bit more digging and..
A Noul performs a Bernoulli trial—an experiment with exactly two outcomes (yes or no)—but instead of picking one, it returns the calibrated probability (ranging from 0.0 to 1.0) that the statement is true.
I hate it :)
keepitwiel | 10 hours ago
user3939382 | 10 hours ago
kevindamm | 10 hours ago
In an analog circuit, maybe.
k__ | 9 hours ago
Like, yeah, you don't hallucinate, but only because you force the user to decide in the end.
rusk | 9 hours ago
doginasuit | 9 hours ago
kjs3 | 9 hours ago
And that's...bad?
k__ | 7 hours ago
I think, it's a bit much to call this "no hallucinations".
Technically true, but in practice you could still choose the wrong result or the probabilities can be off.
doginasuit | 9 hours ago
LudwigNagasena | 8 hours ago
finding_alfred | 2 hours ago
hjun1052 | 10 hours ago
zerop | 10 hours ago
s2l | 9 hours ago
raverbashing | 9 hours ago
fishfasell | 9 hours ago
grokkedit | 9 hours ago
soon I'll make sure that my home assistant pod answers to "Hey jeeves"
gizajob | 9 hours ago
kjs3 | 9 hours ago
lherron | 8 hours ago
woadwarrior01 | 9 hours ago
swader999 | 9 hours ago
phplovesong | 9 hours ago
thm | 9 hours ago
tmnstr85 | 9 hours ago
onaclov2000 | 8 hours ago
aftbit | 7 hours ago
victordmor | 7 hours ago
davedigerati | 7 hours ago
rsingel | 6 hours ago
Ask Jeeves hired hundreds of cheap liberal arts majors to classify data, some users thought Jeeves was real, the stock spiked when big companies hired Jeeves to automate support thinking it was a silver bullet, and the whole thing collapsed when a better model came along, and it degenerated into ripping off rubes with bottom of the barrel ads.
NetOpWibby | 6 hours ago
kridsdale1 | 5 hours ago
kkukshtel | 5 hours ago
RamblingCTO | 9 hours ago
But funny that jev is getting its lunch eaten apparently in under two weeks?
pavlov | 9 hours ago
danieltanfh95 | 8 hours ago
santadays | 7 hours ago
I've used it to do web research where it follows the most appropriate links, decides what to record in state, etc. I struggle to see how you could implement something with a classifier. That said, I have no idea how deep the technology is and it might be replaced with open source pretty quickly since its drafting of the frontier models and the open source models seem almost as good.
I like the term decision model and I think it's warranted.
nico | 6 hours ago
Yes, one general classifier would be very hard to train. However, you can create a sort of ensemble of classifiers, each trained in different tasks
I’m currently experimenting with this. So far I’ve combined classifiers for 13 different datasets, my target is 95 (the ones Laya used for training)
svachalek | 5 hours ago
mxkuzn | 9 hours ago
captainbland | 9 hours ago
mxkuzn | 8 hours ago
captainbland | 8 hours ago
I guess it's not really a benchmark but you could say if it can do it faster it sort of could be taken as one.
Naitik88 | 9 hours ago
AnodicElegy | 9 hours ago
jadar | 9 hours ago
sharih | 8 hours ago
zihotki | 8 hours ago
atombender | 8 hours ago
For a moment I thought this was going to be a metaphor — maybe an ancient Chinese proverb about how paint brushes are made from horsehair and how you can't hold the horse to paint before you've turned the hair into a brush.
idiotsecant | 7 hours ago
tyre | 7 hours ago
nico | 7 hours ago
One way: separately embed sender, recipients, subject, body - then use the embedding vectors as input to a logistic classifier
With that setup, I get 95% accuracy on email classification, training on 50-100 base examples. The model trains on CPU in under 1min, and it does inference in under 20ms (most of it is running the embeddings, so you can make it faster if you train your own embeddings model)
Here’s a gist with some sample code: https://gist.github.com/nicobrenner/056a5aaff5d0119c0032ecda...
That code applies the embeddings + classifier setup on the Banking77 dataset. It gets 93-94% accuracy depending on the embeddings you use (SOTA for this is ~95%, with much bigger and slower models)
zihotki | 6 hours ago
That model scales very well with quantities of requests.
janalsncm | 3 hours ago
You should use precision (when your model says “spam” how often is it spam?), recall (how many of the spam emails did it catch), or f1 (balanced between those two).
nico | 2 hours ago
calebhwin | 7 hours ago
zihotki | 6 hours ago
With Jev you each time pay for your prompt, you can't cache it.
sarkarghya | 5 hours ago
jedberg | 6 hours ago
HawtAds | 5 hours ago
simplisticelk | 3 hours ago
esafak | 8 hours ago
amelius | 5 hours ago
esafak | 8 hours ago
So why didn't they show both??
TN1ck | 8 hours ago
It performed quite below Jev, but above other open decision models I tested (68 correct vs 79 correct for Jev - see [1]). I'm running it for the moderation benchmark as well, but that will probably take a few hours on my machine.
[1] https://tn1ck.com/blog/jevdit
TN1ck | 4 hours ago
[OP] nicowaltz | 3 hours ago
loclol101 | 8 hours ago
swingboy | 7 hours ago
quantized_state | 7 hours ago
rgbrgb | 4 hours ago
quantized_state | 7 hours ago
theanonymousone | 7 hours ago
teravor | 7 hours ago
just get an LLM to think and then force it to output a specific json with prefill post-think.
make sure to include good conditioning text in the prompt with examples of exactly what the output should be like. you don't want dissonance in the probabilities on the prefill.
betenoire | 7 hours ago
The point isn't that new type of problem has been unlocked, rather a new approach that can unlock new use cases.
teravor | 7 hours ago
when you want a machine to reason about the prompt and generate a structured output not using an actual LLM makes no sense. I have been doing it since the first chain of thought open models became available.
perhaps there may be a way to get a Jev-type model to think for a very specific number of steps to gain control over its latency, if so that would be the next step. truncating LLM thinking like this does not work well, and its thinking isn't efficient anyway.
singularity2001 | 6 hours ago
druskacik | 6 hours ago
itzikkatz | 5 hours ago
winddude | 4 hours ago
HarHarVeryFunny | 4 hours ago
Like it or not, companies are going to use Jev unless you can offer something just as cheap and fast.
I wonder just how much of the business automation market, previously held by LLMs, is at risk here?
SV_BubbleTime | 4 hours ago
speedping | 3 hours ago
trencedamp | an hour ago