本页只译了一部分
本页 50 段里还有 3 段没译成简体中文,没译的段落显示英文原文。自洽性:nouls
机器翻译译自英文(docs.typesafe.ai)本页 50 段里 3 段还没译
文档索引
在以下地址获取完整的文档索引:https://docs.typesafe.ai/llms.txt 使用此文件可以在进一步探索之前发现所有可用页面。
自洽性:nouls
将不确定的概率路由至人工审核,同时保持底层 noul 值可见。
本 cookbook 选取一个车险理赔,对其运行 14 个问题的评分标准共 15 次,并检查每个答案在重复运行中是否稳定。每个检查项都是一个 Noul,因此每个答案都是针对一个 True/False 问题的 P(true)。在理赔分诊流水线中,系统将传入的理赔分类为支付、拒绝或转交人工,概率指导决策。阈值附近的微小变化可能会改变采取的行动。
评分标准包含 14 个 Noul 问题,每次运行是一个回答所有 14 个问题的调用。我们对每种条件进行 NUM_SAMPLES = 15 次重复,其中条件是指一个模型加上一个设置,并显示返回的每个概率。
条件如下:
- 非推理型 LLM
claude-haiku-4-5和gpt-5.4-mini,在温度0和 API 默认设置下运行。 - 相同的两个非推理模型在 True/False 模式下运行:每个问题只给出一个 yes 或 no,分别映射到 1.0 和 0.0。
- 推理型 LLM
gpt-5.5和claude-opus-4-8,它们没有温度调节器。 - TypeSafe:对 14 个
Noul问题进行一次system_one调用,每次调用包含一个新的uid字段(一次性唯一值)。
观察重点:LLM 的答案在不同运行之间会发生变化,即使在温度 0 下也是如此,且在判断性调用中,模型会与 自身 意见相左。TypeSafe 每个问题的平均概率标准差为 0.0102,低于此处所有 LLM 的概率条件。其 covered 答案范围为 0.43 到 0.53,跨越了 0.5 的决策阈值。
我们还将 0.30 到 0.70 之间的概率转换为显式的 uncertain(不确定)结果,以供人工审核。最后的图示展示了 TypeSafe 概率到这些操作的映射,同时保持底层概率可见。
Setup
pip install anthropic openai matplotlib ipython "typesafe-sdk>=0.5.7" cooksafe --extra-index-url https://pypi.typesafe.ai/然后设置 TYPESAFE_API_KEY、ANTHROPIC_API_KEY 和 OPENAI_API_KEY。本次运行在生产 API 上使用 jev-latest,采样日期为 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,
)状态:以 JSON 形式表示的车险理赔
一个包含几个边界性调用的理赔案例:
- 事故发生在赛道日活动期间(保单排除了“赛道/竞技驾驶”),但当时车辆静止在停车场,而非在赛道上。
- 提出了租车费用索赔,但保单不包含租车报销。
- 未附上警方报告,尽管保单要求超过 $2,000 的碰撞事故必须提供。
- 自动分诊笔记已在任何人工审核之前,以及未在扣除免赔额的情况下,将索赔标记为“批准,支付全额”。
以下是一些评分标准问题,有些非黑即白;有些则处于边界地带,导致采样的 LLM 答案分散且模型之间意见不一。
理赔是一个 JSON 结构。LLM 在提示词中接收 json.dumps(CLAIM);TypeSafe 直接将该结构作为状态。
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 个 Noul 问题
每行一个 key -> question 条目,措辞方式使得“是”意味着我们正在检查的事项为真。这使每行具有可比性:每个模型的概率和 TypeSafe 的 noul 都衡量同一件事。
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?",
}我们如何提问
每次 LLM 调用都是一个包含 json.dumps(CLAIM) 和全部 14 个问题的提示词。模型返回一个 JSON 对象,将每个问题的键映射为概率。调用通过模型名称路由至 Anthropic 或 OpenAI:非推理模型接受 temperature(0 或 API 默认值),推理模型先进行推理且不接收温度参数。
非推理模型还运行了一种 True/False 变体:它们对每个问题只给出一个 yes 或 no,我们将其映射为 1.0 和 0.0。这强制模型做出硬性决策,并展示当模型无法将概率质量保留在不确定的中间地带时,它们的表现如何。
TypeSafe 调用是对同一理赔和相同 14 个 Noul 问题的一次 system_one 请求。每个答案的 noul 即 P(true)。
每次查询还会获得一个新的 uid,这是一个一次性唯一值,在每次运行时更改,而保持理赔数据和评分标准不变。它出现在 LLM 提示词中,并作为 TypeSafe 状态中的额外字段。此设置无法将对无关字段的敏感度与相同请求下可能出现的随机波动区分开来。
注意: 尽管有“仅返回 JSON 对象”的指令,但
claude-haiku-4-5几乎会将每个回复都包裹在```json ... ```代码块中,这会导致严格的json.loads解析失败(其他模型返回的是裸 JSON)。辅助函数会剥离这些代码块;如果回复仍然无法解析,则计为解析失败,计入总数但不计入评分。
每个辅助函数返回答案、估算成本和往返延迟。
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
实验网格
| 模型组 | 模型 | 概率 (t=0) | 概率 (默认值) | 是/否 (t=0) |\n| ------------------ | --------------------------------- | :----------: | :------------: | :----------: |\n| 非推理模型 | claude-haiku-4-5 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |\n| 非推理模型 | gpt-5.4-mini | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |\n| 推理模型 | gpt-5.5 | — | ✓ | — |\n| 推理模型 | claude-opus-4-8 | — | ✓ | — |\n| TypeSafe | jev-latest (typesafe_noul) | — | ✓ | — |
- 对勾表示一个条件,运行了 15 次。短横线表示未测试的组合。\n* 默认列不发送温度参数:非推理模型使用 API 默认值,推理模型和 TypeSafe 在无温度设置下运行。\n* 是/否答案映射为
1.0/0.0。\n* 温度0是确保可重复性的常规建议,因此我们将其与 API 默认值进行比较。
我们为每个条件抽取 NUM_SAMPLES = 15 次重复。每次重复拥有自己的缓存键并计为一次独立抽取,缓存(json_cache.json)随 cookbook 提供,因此重新渲染会重用缓存且不消耗 API 调用。删除缓存以重新进行实时采样。
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 + 速度(每个评估标准查询)
以下成本使用“设置”中的历史价格假设,包括 TypeSafe 的 speed_latest 费率。它们并非经核实 jev-latest 价格或当前账单金额。
每一行代表一次完整的 14 个问题评分标准调用。time/call(每次调用时间)和 cost/call(每次调用成本)平均 15 次调用的结果,vs ts_noul(与 ts_noul 对比)列则除以 TypeSafe 的数据。
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
在本次运行中,TypeSafe 的平均往返延迟为 111ms。在上述并发设置下,LLM 条件的每次调用耗时在 1.1 到 13.9 秒之间。
图表:每个样本的热力图
如何阅读:
- 外层行组:问题。\n* 内层行:条件。\n* 列:一次完整的评分标准调用。\n* 单元格颜色:红色表示较高的 P(yes),绿色表示较低。对于风险问题,红色单元格表示被评分标准标记。
typesafe_noul 在 covered(0.43 到 0.53)和 exclusion(0.53 到 0.62)上变化最大。某些 LLM 行在温度 0 下也会变化。不同条件下对判断性调用的结果存在分歧。
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。发生波动的正是那些判断性较强的问题:exclusion(排除)、rental_eligible(租赁资格)、fraud_flag(欺诈标志)和 manual_review(人工审核)在不同采样间变化或模型间意见不一。TypeSafe 的 covered 行跨越了 0.5;而其其余 13 个问题在本次运行中始终保持在阈值的一侧。
允许不确定的决定,而非强制二选一
当阈值为 0.5 时,概率 0.49 和 0.51 会导致相反的操作,尽管两者都表达了相当大的不确定性。应用程序可以改为返回:
no(否)低于0.30;\n*uncertain(不确定)从0.30到0.70,包含两个边界;\n*yes(是)高于0.70。
不确定的案例交由人工处理。升级逻辑基于返回的概率执行应用逻辑:无需新问题,无需第二次 API 调用。该区间仅为示意,既非校准后的保证,也非优化后的阈值。应根据标注示例以及错误决策和审核的成本来设置生产环境的边界。
下方的图示将此区间应用于记录的 TypeSafe 概率。
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)
审核带吸收了围绕 0.5 的波动,避免发出相反自动动作。但它也有自己的边界。接近两端边界的值仍可能在 uncertain 和 yes/no 之间跳跃。模型并不因此更具确定性,且通过审核带的自动决策也不见得正确。
在 TypeSafe playground 中打开
下面的链接在 playground 中打开相同的理赔和评分标准:一个理赔,相同的 14 个 Noul 问题,以及 TypeSafe jev-latest。它省略了上文使用的每次都会变化的 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})"
)
)