ej

An 11 MB model that makes typed decisions on CPU. No LLM, no tokens.

pip install ejai

import ej

model = ej.load('5ak3t/ej', revision='v0.0.1')
q = {'type': 'choice', 'instructions': 'Which team should handle this ticket?',
     'options': [{'key': 'billing', 'text': 'Billing and payments'}, {'key': 'tech', 'text': 'Technical problems'}]}
(probs,) = model.predict([{'state': 'I was charged twice this month.', 'questions': {'team': q}}])
print(probs['team'])   # [P(billing), P(tech)]: about [0.97, 0.03]

You give ej a state (free text, or a JSON object as text) and a set of typed questions; it returns one probability distribution per question. There is no LLM at inference. This repository holds the package, the training and evaluation code, and the benchmark; the weights are on the Hugging Face Hub.

Architecture and method: technical report forthcoming.

Highlights

• Three question types in one call: choice (any option texts, chosen at run time), noul (a yes/no statement) and score (ordered levels). Every question of a record is answered in the same pass.
• Calibration is fitted, then measured per suite against the ECE a perfectly calibrated model would show there.
• Small: one model file of 11,384,312 bytes (11.4 MB; 10.87 MiB counted at the bit level) and nothing else to download: the tokenizer and the encoder config are inside it, no base model is fetched. CPU only, deterministic for a fixed thread count.
• Pickle-free weights: model.ejpack (ejpack v1) is checked section by section (sha256) before anything is decoded; classes come from an allowlist.
• ej.load(path, low_memory=True) keeps the weights compressed in memory: identical predictions, lower peak memory, slower (Memory and latency).
• Few-shot adaptation to your workflow from a handful of labelled records (model.adapt, AdaptedModel.observe).
• Train your own from a pool of labelled records (python -m ej.train) and evaluate it with the same evaluator that produced every number below (python -m ej.eval).

Model

Sizes: counted = a bit-level bound on the stored parameters; on disk = the one file model.ejpack (11,384,312 bytes), which is the whole download (no base model is fetched); resident = peak live model tensors while predicting (default, and with low_memory=True). Process memory and the box: Memory and latency; benchmark latency: Latency.

Results

Final test suites of ej 0.0.1, scored once for the release (2026-10-08), with 95% record-cluster CIs (benchmarks/results/). Development suites were used to choose among many candidates, so development numbers are selected and optimistic; they are not reported as results here.

Unseen workflows (zs_wide final, 147 workflows never trained on, read once): group-macro accuracy over the real sources macro_real .419 [.379, .458] (105 workflows: SNI .456, SGD .571, ABCD .229; t interval over workflows within sources). GLM-synthetic workflows, reported separately: .358 [.323, .394] (42 workflows). This is the number to expect on a new workflow before adaptation.

Against six rivals on the same final suites (micro accuracy, paired CIs; BENCHMARKS.md): td below laya, level with Jev and Julia-1, above the other three; zs_td below all six; zs_massive below Jev, laya, kev-0.8b and OpenThai-SystemOne, above Julia-1 and gliclass-edge. On the in-house ticket suites ej's NLL is lower than every rival's. No latency, size or calibration ranking is claimed.

Release

Status (2026-10-09): ej 0.0.1. Weights: huggingface.co/5ak3t/ej, revision v0.0.1, one file model.ejpack (11,384,312 bytes, SHA-256 e990e1846cba43f8…, full value below). ej.load("5ak3t/ej", revision="v0.0.1") fetches it. Every number in this README was measured with these weights.

Before decoding anything, ej.load checks the pack's header digest and every section's sha256, the contents of a known release against the digest shipped in ej.integrity.KNOWN_PACKS, and the runtime modules against their manifest; a pack downloaded from the Hub must also match its file SHA-256 in ej.integrity.KNOWN_PACK_FILES: e990e1846cba43f8405a969c606057f2fd6e2076595f4a34d202e8fc531891b0.

Quickstart

Python >= 3.10 (tested on 3.11.15, CPU). The lower bounds in pyproject.toml are the tested versions.

pip install ejai            # the PyPI name is ejai; the import name is ej.  'ejai[eval]', 'ejai[train]' add the extras
# from source:
git clone https://github.com/5ak3t/ej && cd ej
pip install -e .            # inference;  -e '.[eval]' adds the evaluator, -e '.[train]' the training extras

ej.load('5ak3t/ej', revision='v0.0.1') downloads the published model.ejpack (only that file, into the Hugging Face cache) and checks its SHA-256. A local model.ejpack, or one you build (python -m ej.train fit, then python -m ej.train export; below), loads the same way from its path.

import ej

model = ej.load('5ak3t/ej', revision='v0.0.1')   # or a local path: ej.load('model.ejpack')
record = {
    'state': '{"customer_tier": "gold", "message": "The blender arrived with a cracked jug. Replace it before Friday."}',
    'questions': {
        'route': {'type': 'choice', 'instructions': 'Which team should handle this request?',
                  'options': [{'key': 'returns', 'text': 'Returns and replacements for damaged or wrong items'},
                              {'key': 'billing', 'text': 'Billing, invoices and payment problems'}]},
        'needs_human': {'type': 'noul', 'instructions': 'The customer is upset enough that a human agent should reply.',
                        'options': ej.NOUL_OPTIONS},
        'urgency': {'type': 'score', 'instructions': 'How urgent is this request?',
                    'options': [{'key': '0', 'text': 'Low: can wait a week'},
                                {'key': '1', 'text': 'Medium: answer within two days'},
                                {'key': '2', 'text': 'High: answer today'}]},
    },
}
(probs,) = model.predict([record])
print(probs['route'])          # [p_returns, p_billing], sums to 1

python examples/quickstart.py --weights 5ak3t/ej --revision v0.0.1 [--records file.jsonl] does the same for ej.EXAMPLE_RECORD or your file (--weights model.ejpack for a local file). ej.load('model.ejpack', low_memory=True) gives the same predictions with less memory, more slowly. A weights directory (safetensors + JSON, what fit writes) also loads; that format builds the encoder from the base model, which it fetches from the Hugging Face Hub on first use.

Input. {"id": "optional", "state": "...", "questions": {"<qid>": {"type": "choice | noul | score", "instructions": "...", "options": [{"key": "k1", "text": "short description"}, ...]}}}. At least 2 options per question, keys unique; noul options are exactly false and true (ej.NOUL_OPTIONS); score options are ordered, lowest first. Records are validated (ej.validate_records, raises ej.RecordError). Output. One dict per record, {qid: [p_1, ..., p_K]} in option order, plain floats summing to 1 (within 1e-9).

Determinism and process hygiene. Predictions are deterministic for a fixed thread count and chunking; chunk size, batch composition and thread count move probabilities only at float-noise level (measured max |Δp| about 6e-7). ej.load leaves torch's thread count, its random state and transformers unchanged; predict(records, threads=None, chunk_size=None) sets threads only inside the call. One loaded model per process. Environment: EJ_CACHE (default ~/.cache/ej; receives the pack's tokenizer files), EJ_COLD=1 (bypass the prediction-time caches), HF_HOME (the Hugging Face cache: the downloaded model.ejpack, and the base model of a weights directory) and HF_HUB_OFFLINE=1 (offline with a filled cache).

Adapting to your workflow

Record independence. Zero-shot predict is record-independent: each record's output depends only on that record (up to float noise). adapt is an opt-in, per-workflow transductive mode: it pools option statistics across that workflow's labelled records, so use one adapted model per workflow with a fixed option set (the same question ids and option keys).

labelled = [{**r, 'answers': {'route': 'returns', 'needs_human': 'true', 'urgency': '2'}} for r in my_records[:8]]
adapted = model.adapt(examples=labelled)   # per-(question, option) logit offsets; the weights do not change
adapted.observe(more_labelled)             # fold in labelled records as they arrive (same result as adapting at once)
probs = adapted.predict(new_records)

Measured on the development suites (k (few-shot) = the number of labelled records per workflow): on 154 unseen workflows (111 public-source + 43 GLM-synthetic) k = 8 moves group-macro accuracy .356 → .389, +.032 [−.011, +.076]: covers 0; on the single held-out zs_td workflow .396 → .545 at k = 16; on the seen td workflows +.016 [+.003, +.029]. What the labelled records teach is mostly the workflow's label prior: an add-one count of the labelled answers alone comes within +.008 [−.0001, +.016] of the adapted model at k = 8 (record-cluster bootstrap CIs). Details and the dropped label-free variant: docs/adaptation.md.

What to expect

• Unseen workflows: low accuracy (macro_real .419). Measure on your own labelled cases before automating; a few labelled records help, mostly by teaching the label prior.
• Calibration is per suite: calibrated on the two ticket suites, not on td, zs_td, zs_massive or zs_wide.
• Certified automation (CA) holds for this suite only: a confidence threshold certified on one workflow can fail on another (a td-certified threshold had error .771 on zs_wide). Certify on labelled rows of the workflow you automate.
• English only; Python runtime (torch + transformers, CPU); a pack needs no network at load or predict time.
• Synthetic in-domain data: the support tickets were written by Claude Haiku (no human labels).
• Fit-to-fit noise: six fits of the same code differ by SD .0105 in mean development NLL and .037 in zs_td micro accuracy; single-fit differences of that size are not evidence.
• More: model card §6, data card §7.

How the benchmark works

Every model gets the same blind records (benchmarks/run_bench.py: gold removed, one record per call after a warm-up, threads checked inside the timed calls) and is scored with the same functions (NLL, micro accuracy, ECE15, certified automation; benchmarks/scoring.py = ej.eval.metrics). Final suites are read once per release; every cell carries a record-cluster CI and every ej-vs-rival difference a paired CI, and an ordering is stated only where that CI excludes 0. Rivals carry contamination flags (benchmarks/METHOD.md). No suite file ships here: the public suites are rebuilt from the public datasets with benchmarks/suites/ (sha256 in SHA256SUMS); the ticket suites are private. Summary: BENCHMARKS.md.

Latency

benchmarks/run_bench.py, one record per call after a warm-up record, wall clock, 1 torch thread set inside each call and checked (threads_measured = [1]), development suites, with the weights-directory format of the same model (both formats give identical predictions). Box: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Processor @ 2.80GHz, 4 logical cores, Python 3.11.15, torch 2.5.1 CPU; 1-minute load average 1.02-1.10; 2026-10-08.

Warm = texts seen in earlier records (such as option texts) are not re-encoded; cold = every text encoded again. Summaries: benchmarks/results/latency/. Batching is faster per record. Rival latencies were measured on another day under unrecorded load, so they are not comparable with these numbers and are not ranked against them.

Memory and latency of the packed model

Measured on 2026-10-09 on the same kind of box (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Processor @ 2.80GHz, 4 logical cores, shared and contended, torch 2.5.1 CPU), one configuration per fresh process, with the procedure of benchmarks/pack_memory.py, on the development tree's copy of this packed runtime (same code before it moved into the package). Memory: 72 development records (24 each of td, zs_td, zs_wide) predicted in one call at 2 threads, cold; RSS from /proc/self/status, the peak reset just before predict; model tensors = live torch tensors (one count per storage), peak sampled inside the encoder's forward. Latency: predict([r]) on the first 50 development td records, 1 thread, after one warm-up record.

Most of the process memory is code (torch, transformers), not the model. Predictions are identical in both runtimes (max |Δp| = 0.0, tests/test_pack_weights.py). These latencies come from another day, load and harness than the table above, so the two tables are not comparable with each other.

Training your own

pip install -e '.[train]'
python -m ej.train fit --pool pool.jsonl --out my-weights      # all steps; checkpoints in my-weights.work, resumable
python -m ej.train export --weights my-weights --out model.ejpack   # the packed model file (what ej.load takes)
python -m ej.eval score --suite my_suite.jsonl --weights model.ejpack

The pool is JSONL in the input format plus source (the held-out group unit) and gold: {qid: {label, probs}}. The steps (encoder on a GPU, teachers, distil, fit on CPU) can run one by one; the fit is the recipe of ej 0.0.1. The 0.0.1 training pool itself cannot be rebuilt from public data alone (its ticket corpus is not released). Pool format, public sources and their licences, compute: docs/training.md. To compare two recipes, fit each several times with different seeds and use python -m ej.eval compare (seed-aware).

Repository layout

Citation

@software{ej_2026,
  title   = {ej: calibrated typed decisions on device},
  author  = {Saket Bhushan},
  year    = {2026},
  version = {0.0.1},
  url     = {https://github.com/5ak3t/ej},
  note    = {Weights: https://huggingface.co/5ak3t/ej, revision v0.0.1}
}

Licence

• Code: GPL-3.0-only (LICENSE); releases up to 0.0.1.post2 were published with the code under Apache-2.0. Weights: CC BY-SA 4.0 (LICENSES/CC-BY-SA-4.0.txt); adaptations must be shared under CC BY-SA 4.0 or a compatible licence. Base model intfloat/e5-small-v2: MIT (LICENSES/MIT-e5-small-v2.txt).
• Training data of ej 0.0.1: Typed Decisions (Apache-2.0), Banking77 (CC BY 4.0), CLINC150 (CC BY 3.0), GoEmotions (Apache-2.0) and an in-house ticket corpus written with Claude Haiku (not released); NLI teacher cross-encoder/nli-deberta-v3-xsmall (Apache-2.0). Creators, links and open licence questions: NOTICE.
• "Jev" and "System One" are names used by TypeSafe.ai; ej is not affiliated with or endorsed by TypeSafe.ai.