Skip to content
JevDirectory.org
CommunityPractices & Patterns17 starsVerified 2026-09-22

jev-benchmarks

A probability-aware evaluation harness that compares TypeSafe Jev with GLiNER2.5 on zero-shot single-label text classification, measuring calibration, coverage at a fixed error budget, latency, and token cost.

Category
Practices & Patterns
Published by
Community
Author
AbdelStark
Added
2026-09-22
Tagscommunitypythonbenchmarkscalibrationevaluation

Highlights

  • On 300 held-out BTZSC examples Jev reached 0.910 accuracy on AG News and 0.870 on Banking77/BTZSC, versus 0.700 and 0.610 for GLiNER2.5.
  • On DAIR Emotion the accuracy gap was unresolved and Jev was worse calibrated: Brier 0.846 versus 0.668, with zero true-label probability on 16% of examples.
  • It measures accuracy and macro-F1, Brier, NLL and top-label ECE, threshold-realizable coverage at a fixed error budget, p50/p95 latency, and input tokens.
  • The reproducibility contract pins dataset and checkpoint revisions, seed 20260917, a preregistered protocol tag, resolved model jev-1.13.0, and SHA-256 hashes.
  • The README calls the 300-example pilot deliberately mixed and says it is not a leaderboard or a universal model ranking.

Quickstart

bash
git clone https://github.com/AbdelStark/jev-benchmarks.git
cd jev-benchmarks
uv sync --extra benchmark --dev
uv run jev-bench prepare --config configs/pilot-v1.yaml
export TYPESAFE_API_KEY=YOUR_API_KEY
uv run jev-bench run --config configs/pilot-v1.yaml --backend jev

Watch out

Apache-2.0-licensed and requires Python 3.11-3.13, uv, and a TYPESAFE_API_KEY for the Jev backend; GLiNER downloads a pinned checkpoint on first use, and the reported numbers come from a 300-example pilot, not a leaderboard.

More like this

74GitHub stars
Independent cross-model benchmark for Jev-class decision models, running 534 frozen cases per complete entrant with scoring code and a four-axis score of accuracy, calibration, latency and cost.
Practices & Patterns#community#python#benchmarks
Communityjevbench
An experiment comparing Jev with GPT-5.6 Luna, GPT-5.6 Terra, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 as evaluators of five frozen weather-agent runs, measuring pass-or-fail accuracy against human labels plus variance, cost, and latency.
Practices & Patterns#community#python#evaluation
An independent calibration study of Jev over three public benchmarks and 900 rule-generated support tickets, publishing every raw Gateway response and the quantization limits of returned probabilities.
Practices & Patterns#community#python#calibration
Back to all resources

From the community

Posts from builders shipping with Jev right now.

Follow @typesafeai

The case against Jev-scored compaction

This is a terrible compaction strategy that fundamentally doesn't understand how compaction and context management work. Seems like a lot of people are confused so let's break this down. 1. Compaction isn't a filter The role of compaction is to clean up history to keep the Show more

tamara
tamara
@tamarajtran

found the perfect use case for @typesafeai Jev: instant compaction in 2026, why is compaction still a summarization prompt? Jev can make it instant by scoring every tool call and dropping what’s irrelevant

Reply

Classifying rows in DuckDB

A playable 16-judgment demo

AI multiple choice, not essay writing

Screening agent actions with Jev

Tested TypeSafe’s Jev (no-text, probability-only model) as an AI agent safety monitor. Checking each action first worked well caught most attacks with almost no false blocks, and much faster than Gemini.

Image
Image
Image
Diogo Almeida
Diogo Almeida
TypeSafe AI
@CompleteSkeptic

After co-inventing ChatGPT, I kept asking myself: why have superhuman chat models not led to AGI? I’ve spent the last 2 years in stealth building a new way to train models (RLCD), and a new type of frontier AI model that we are releasing today: Jev • 20-200x faster • 40-400x

Reply

Cua's small System One models