REPOSITORY ANALYSIS

minojev

A local decision-model toolkit with candidate readouts, shared-prefix inference and development-set temperature fitting for Choice, Boolean and Score outputs; no output-token decoding is required.

E2 · source reviewedPublic material or source evidence was reviewed. A fixed-version source review requires checking a pinned revision; this is not a reproduction, performance endorsement, or safety guarantee.
Stars
25
Forks
1
License
MIT
Last commit
2026-09-21

What Jev does here

Encodes state and question-specific candidates, then scores them through decision heads. Reuse mode requires explicit backbone support; calibrated temperatures are stored in checkpoints.

Provides training, calibration and evaluation tooling for local decision experiments. A new application still needs held-out labels and a coverage/error assessment.

Pinned README and model implementation reviewed. The site did not train or run a checkpoint; reported calibration and CPU results do not establish reliability on arbitrary production inputs.

What task does this project fit?

Train and calibrate local decision readouts while keeping evaluation separate from demonstration data.

Material analysed:

From input to action

  1. Encode states, questions and candidate IDs.
  2. Train/read decision heads in fresh or shared-prefix reuse mode.
  3. Fit per-primitive temperatures on development data and evaluate held-out data separately.

Implementation details that matter

Prefix reuse requires backbone support

model.py checks supports_reuse and rejects unsupported reuse mode. The performance benefit cannot be assumed for every backbone merely because the public API exposes mode='reuse'.

Inspect the supporting source ↗

Training loss does not prove calibration

The README explicitly distinguishes distribution loss from temperature fitting on a development split. Published synthetic/demo numbers need matching data and protocol before comparison.

Inspect the supporting source ↗

When to choose it

Use it to investigate local training and measurable uncertainty. Prefer task-specific held-out labels when deploying on a new domain; do not inherit a demo's calibration claim.

How to inspect it yourself

Inspect model.py's mode checks and compare train/dev/test commands in the README. Ensure calibration data is not reused as the final evaluation set.

Limits of this review

  • No checkpoint, CPU timing or quality benchmark was reproduced here.
  • Zero output decoding does not imply zero computation, zero model error or calibration on arbitrary traffic.
Primary material used in this analysis