What data does the crash-factor system combine?

It joins the coded fields of 5,601,890 Texas crashes from 2017 to 2025 with officer narratives, using Kumo Tabular on coded records, Jev on two probability samples of narratives, and human judgments to recalibrate Jev's probabilities.

How does the pipeline combine its three tiers?

A multiwave predict-then-debias estimator joins the tabular model, the calibrated decision model, and human judgments, and a second human tier drawn with recorded probabilities checks the estimates by design.

What gap between narratives and coded fields does the paper report?

For hydroplaning, medical episodes, fatigue, animals, and phone use, narratives document more injury crashes than the coded field; for phone use the numbers are 15,074 against 7,340.

How often does the re-read list find real discordance?

A re-read list ranked by Kumo Tabular finds confirmed discordance 7 to 58 times as often as random reading, according to the abstract.

What did the human check of the estimates show?

The human check agrees with all fifteen estimates within its margin, the authors report.

How would another round of human judgments change the uncertainty?

At the planning cost of human coding, one further round would cut the root mean square relative half-width from 22.0 to 16.2 percent, against 21.2 percent for reading every narrative.

How fast is Kumo Tabular relative to TabPFN?

Kumo Tabular reads the table at 15 times the speed of TabPFN 3.5, according to the abstract.

CommunityJev Tools & CLIs

Estimating Uncoded Crash Factors with Tabular Foundation and System One Models: Kumo Tabular and Jev (arXiv 2610.10321)

A system that joins coded and narrative views of 5,601,890 Texas crashes from 2017 to 2025 into population estimates: Kumo Tabular reads coded records, Jev reads narrative samples, and human judgments recalibrate the probabilities. Phone use appears in 15,074 injury crashes in narratives versus 7,340 in coded fields.

See highlights

Open arxiv.org pozapas/kumo-jev-crash-records

Stars: 0
Language: Python
License: MIT
Format: Article
Published by: Community
Last verified: Oct 2026

pozapas/kumo-jev-crash-records

User repository on GitHub

View on GitHub

Code for 'Estimating Uncoded Crash Factors with Tabular Foundation and System One Models: Kumo Tabular and Jev'

Forks: 0
Last pushed: Updated Oct 2026

Repo stats from the GitHub API, cached Oct 2026.

Tagscommunity research arxiv road-safety calibration statistics

Works forJev for Extraction Jev for Scoring Jev for Evaluation

Used inJev for Data & Analytics Jev for Software & DevTools

Languages: Python

Highlights

Joins both views of 5,601,890 Texas crashes from 2017 to 2025 into population estimates with stated validity.
Kumo Tabular reads the coded record of every crash while Jev reads the narratives of two probability samples.
For phone use, narratives document 15,074 injury crashes against 7,340 in the coded field.
A re-read list ranked by Kumo Tabular finds confirmed discordance 7 to 58 times as often as random.
Kumo Tabular reads the table at 15 times the speed of TabPFN 3.5.

Watch out

arXiv preprint posted October 7, 2026 (stat.AP, cs.LG, stat.ME) by Amir Rafe and Subasish Das; 26 pages, 9 figures, 8 tables. Estimates come from the authors' sampling design and human recalibration rather than an external audit, and the human check covers fifteen estimates, so the validity claims are stated and bounded rather than independently replicated.

Questions about this entry

Short answers drawn from the linked project or page.

Related terms

Glossary definitions related to this entry.

More Jev resources like this

Counting the Uncounted: Population-Level Surveillance of Documented Pregnancy and Fetal Harm in Police Crash Narratives with a System One Model (Jev) (arXiv 2610.00213)

A population-scale surveillance study in which Jev reads every Texas police crash narrative from 2017 through 2025, 5,018,079 in total, under an eight-question schema. It estimates 5,467 crashes with a documented pregnancy, including 58 documenting fetal harm.

Jev Tools & CLIsArticle#community#research#arxiv

Community

pozapas/pregnancy-crash-narrativesPython

KITE: Scaling Jev Population Experiments with Sparse Flagship Calibration (arXiv 2609.27535)

KITE queries a typed behavioral kernel once per unique state, then runs populations of any size from the table, reserving an expensive flagship model for sparse paired anchors. On Epstein experiments with 9,070 participants, anchors covering 1.7% of states cut effect error by 41%.

Jev Tools & CLIsArticle#community#research#arxiv

Community

HengyuLi-Ozaki-lab/kite_population_simulatorPython

Calibrated Decisions at Scale: Converting Police Crash Narratives into Probabilistic Crash Variables with a System One Model (Jev) (arXiv 2609.24052)

A system that codes Texas crash narratives as gated, typed Jev decisions returning probabilities and no text: a screen covered 499,500 narratives and 195,857 were coded with a 27-question schema. The typed model attains F1 of 0.908 against human labels, and recalibration cuts calibration error 3.3-fold.

Jev Practices & PatternsArticle#community#research#arxiv

Community

Recalibrating Many Questions with Few Labels: Minimax Rates and Identification Limits (arXiv 2610.18488)

A theoretical study of recalibrating many related yes/no questions that each have few labels, motivated by decision models such as Jev. It derives minimax compound-risk rates and shows pooled isotonic fitting with one per-question correction achieves them, while tuning questions separately loses a factor.

Jev Practices & PatternsArticle#community#research#arxiv

Community

Cheap, Consistent, Calibrated, but Biased? Typed Decision Models as Judges (arXiv 2610.18122)

A bias audit of typed decision models used as judges, running the CALM benchmark's bias tests on eight TDMs and seven LLM judges from 2024 and 2026. Every TDM is biased in three to eight of twelve tests, and emotional tone drops a typical TDM's accuracy from 99% to 42%.

Jev Benchmarks & EvaluationsArticle#community#research#arxiv

Community

TypedBench: A Benchmark for Calibration, Framing Sensitivity, and Cost in System One Decision Models (arXiv 2610.11392)

A benchmark for typed decision models such as Jev, built from seven policy-labelled generators and nine evaluation suites. It reports accuracy as medians across paraphrases, calibration against a matched noise floor, and realized cost under asymmetric cost matrices.

Jev Benchmarks & EvaluationsArticle#community#research#arxiv

Community

From the Jev guides

Original write-ups on what this entry is for.

What the First Month of Jev Papers Found

Oct 14, 2026

More than eighty preprints now evaluate, attack, and reproduce the typed-decision class. The broadest board, the coherence gap, the rejection bottleneck, and the attacks that still work.

Jev Practices & Patterns#research#evaluation#calibration

Read article

Measuring Jev: What Independent Benchmarks Actually Found

Sep 22, 2026

TypeSafe publishes evals, but the numbers that matter are the ones measured on your task. A tour of the independent benchmarks, field reports, and the recurring finding that question design dominates.

Jev Practices & Patterns#benchmarks#evaluation#calibration

Read article

Jev on the Gateways: Vercel, Workers AI, and OpenRouter

Oct 12, 2026

The request shape barely changes across surfaces; the surrounding contract does. When to call the API directly and when a gateway, a Worker binding, or a router entry earns its extra hop.

Jev Tools & CLIs#gateway#vercel#cloudflare

Read article

Back to all resources

From the Jev community

Posts from builders shipping with Jev right now.

Follow @typesafeai