🛡️TypeSafe 中文文档
原文档 ↗

SDE 级联

使用两级结构化数据提取级联(mini → 验证 → 推理),以极低的成本获得大型推理模型的大部分质量。

  • 概述

    • 大型推理模型擅长提取结构化数据,但速度慢且成本高

    • 小模型便宜,但会犯错

    • 级联能以极低成本获得大部分质量

    • 我们使用的模型及其价格(每 100 万 token 的美元数,输入 / 输出;标准费率核对于 2026 年 9 月 15 日):

      • 第 0 级(mini):gpt-5.4-mini,价格 \$0.75 / \$4.50

      • 第 1 级(推理):gpt-5.5,价格 \$5.00 / \$30.00(约为 mini 的 7 倍)

      • 验证器:TypeSafe jev-1.12,价格 \$0.042 / \$0.00(输出 token 免费;已公布的 Jev 定价)

  • 算法

    1. 使用便宜/小型模型进行提取。

    2. 使用 TypeSafe 原语进行验证:逐字段的"是/否"("Noul 问题")问题

      • (例如"该值在源文本中是否缺失?"、"它是否是从无关文本中搬来的?"),每个问题都返回 P(有问题)。

    3. 如果验证器信号触发,则升级到昂贵的推理模型;否则保留便宜的答案。

  • 本实战指南

    • 完整走一遍一个真实示例,然后展示跨 100 个提示词的权衡

    • 注意:两个提取层级使用 OpenAI 的文本模式

    • 我们不使用结构化输出、工具调用或 json 模式,原因是:

      • 模式遵循类错误并不是我们预期 LLM 会犯的那种错误(为此制造合成数据很容易)

      • 如果 LLM 确实没能遵循 schema,那几乎总是意味着它非常混乱,所以受限解码解决不了底层问题

      • 不过我们鼓励你亲自试试它们!

设置

  • 安装依赖(TypeSafe 验证器客户端由 TypeSafe 的包索引提供):

bash
pip install openai datasets jsonschema ipython 'cooksafe>=0.2.0,<0.3.0'
  • 然后在你的环境中设置 OPENAI_API_KEY 和 TYPESAFE_API_KEY

python
import json
import os
from pathlib import Path

import jsonschema
from cooksafe import JsonCache, make_playground_link
from datasets import load_dataset
from IPython.display import Markdown, display
from openai import OpenAI
from typesafe_sdk import Noul, NoulCriteria, TypeSafeClient

MINI = "gpt-5.4-mini"  # rung 0: cheap + fast
REASONING = "gpt-5.5"  # rung 1: strong, run with reasoning_effort="high"
TS_MODEL = "jev-1.12"  # the TypeSafe verifier model
FIRE_T = 0.7  # escalate if any per-field P(wrong) exceeds this; also the "<== FIRES" display marker

oai = OpenAI()

ts = TypeSafeClient(api_key=os.environ["TYPESAFE_API_KEY"], timeout=30.0)

第 1 步:数据

我们选择一个名为 scrapegraphai 的 huggingface 数据集

python
SCRAPEGRAPHAI_REVISION = "4bb9fba1dff9181c5acdb60a5a26fea62fa54fe9"
row = load_dataset(
    "scrapegraphai/scrapegraphai-100k",
    revision=SCRAPEGRAPHAI_REVISION,
    split="train",
)[516]
schema = json.loads(row["schema"])
prompt = row["prompt"]
content = row["content"]

print(
    f"""
PROMPT
===========
{prompt}

SCHEMA
===========
{json.dumps(schema, indent=2)}

CONTENT
===========
{content}
""".strip()
)
expandable
PROMPT
===========
Find registration open date fall semester for New York University in New York, NY for the 2024-2025 school year.

SCHEMA
===========
{
  "properties": {
    "registration_open_date": {
      "description": "The date that registration opens for the fall semester. MUST be in the format mm/dd/yyyy. For example, for a college in the 2024-2025 school year, it might be something like 09/05/2024. Return a blank string if you are unsure.",
      "title": "Registration Open Date",
      "type": "string"
    },
    "description": {
      "description": "A brief description of the registration open date. For example, 'Registration opens for the fall semester'.",
      "title": "Description",
      "type": "string"
    }
  },
  "required": [
    "registration_open_date",
    "description"
  ],
  "title": "RegistrationOpen",
  "type": "object"
}

CONTENT
===========
Skip to content Skip to current page navigation

[ ](https://www.nyu.edu/)

Search Site

[ ](https://www.nyu.edu/)

  * [ Academics](https://www.nyu.edu/academics.html)
  * [ Admissions](https://www.nyu.edu/admissions.html)
  * [ Research](https://www.nyu.edu/research.html)
  * [ University Life](https://www.nyu.edu/life.html)
  * [ About](https://www.nyu.edu/about.html)



All NYU

#  Mobile Navigation 

[ ](https://www.nyu.edu/)

Search Site

  * [Academics](https://www.nyu.edu/academics.html)
  * [Admissions](https://www.nyu.edu/admissions.html)
  * [Research](https://www.nyu.edu/research.html)
  * [University Life](https://www.nyu.edu/life.html)
  * [About](https://www.nyu.edu/about.html)



All NYU

Info for

  * Back to main menu
  * Info for 

    * [Students](https://www.nyu.edu/students.html)
    * [Faculty](https://www.nyu.edu/faculty.html)
    * [Alumni](https://www.nyu.edu/alumni.html)
    * [Employees](https://www.nyu.edu/employees.html)
    * [Community](https://www.nyu.edu/community.html)



[Log In](http://home.nyu.edu/)

Info for

  * [Students](https://www.nyu.edu/students.html)
  * [Faculty](https://www.nyu.edu/faculty.html)
  * [Alumni](https://www.nyu.edu/alumni.html)
  * [Employees](https://www.nyu.edu/employees.html)
  * [Community](https://www.nyu.edu/community.html)



[Log In](https://home.nyu.edu/)

Search Site Search

#  Events Calendar 

Search Events 

Apply Reset

  * [About the Events Calendar ](https://www.nyu.edu/employees/resources-and-services/media-and-communications/digital-communications/university-events-calendar.html)
  * [Events Calendar Tutorial ](https://www.nyu.edu/employees/resources-and-services/media-and-communications/digital-communications/university-events-calendar/tutorials.html)
  * [Report issue or provide feedback ](https://nyu.service-now.com/sp?id=sc_cat_item&sys_id=7698dd2a98bcf4004c8c03063d84e274)



Search Filters Calendar

New York University 

Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination at NYU - New York University is committed to maintaining an environment that encourages and fosters respect for individual values and appropriate conduct among all persons. In all University spaces--physical and digital--programming, activities, and events are carried out in accordance with applicable law as well as University policy, which includes but is not limited to its Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy. 

Unless otherwise noted, all content copyright New York University. All rights reserved. 

  * [Search](https://search.nyu.edu/)
  * [Campus Map](https://www.nyu.edu/map.html)
  * [Events](https://events.nyu.edu/)
  * [Contact Us](https://www.nyu.edu/contact-us.html)
  * [Give](https://www.nyu.edu/about/giving.html)
  * [Copyright & Fair Use](https://www.nyu.edu/copyright-and-fair-use.html)
  * [Privacy](https://www.nyu.edu/privacy.html)
  * [Accessibility](https://www.nyu.edu/accessibility.html)
  * [Feedback](https://www.nyu.edu/#feedback.html)



  * [New York Campus](https://www.nyu.edu/)
  * [Abu Dhabi Campus](https://nyuad.nyu.edu/)
  * [Shanghai Campus](https://shanghai.nyu.edu/)



  * [![](https://events.nyu.edu/live/resource/image/_i/themes/global/images/icons/facebook.rev.1773448757.svg)](https://facebook.com/)
  * [![](https://events.nyu.edu/live/resource/image/_i/themes/global/images/icons/linkedin.rev.1773448758.svg)](https://linkedin.com/)
  * [![](https://events.nyu.edu/live/resource/image/_i/themes/global/images/icons/x.rev.1773448757.svg)](https://x.com/)
  * [![](https://events.nyu.edu/live/resource/image/_i/themes/global/images/icons/instagram.rev.1773448757.svg)](https://instagram.com/)
  * [![](https://events.nyu.edu/live/resource/image/_i/themes/global/images/icons/youtube.rev.1773448758.svg)](https://youtube.com/)
  • 这一行是一个 NYU 活动日历页面("Fall 2024 Census Date"):

    • schema 只要求两个字段:registration_open_date 和 description

    • 抓取得到的提示词只包含日历导航和样板文字:没有注册日期,也没有描述

    • 注意 schema 的 description 字段甚至在它自己的字段描述里自带一个示例值("Registration opens for the fall semester")

  • 因此,一个行为良好的提取器应该拒绝编造页面中不存在的字段

  • 看看小模型会不会做正确的事吧!

第 2 步:用 mini 模型提取(文本模式)

  • 注意:gpt-5.4-mini 在这个输入上非常随机——即使在 temperature=0 下,它几乎每次运行都会编造一个不同的 description。为了让这篇演练可复现,我们硬编码了本笔记本其余部分要解释的那一次典型编造(验证器以 P(wrong) > 0.8 标记了它)。真实的流水线会直接调用 extract(MINI, prompt, schema, content, temperature=0)。

expandable
EXTRACT_SYSTEM = (
    "You extract structured data from documents. Return only values supported by the text. "
    "Follow any value format specified by the schema or its field descriptions."
)


# LLM and TypeSafe calls are cached to ``json_cache.json``, which ships with the cookbook, so
# re-rendering reproduces the published results with no API spend; delete the file to re-run live.
json_cache = JsonCache(Path("json_cache.json"))


@json_cache
def extract(
    model: str,
    prompt: str,
    schema: dict,
    content: str,
    *,
    reasoning_effort: str | None = None,
    temperature: float | None = None,
) -> dict:
    user = (
        f"{prompt}\n\nReturn ONLY a JSON object matching this JSON Schema:\n"
        f"{json.dumps(schema, indent=2)}\n\nDocument:\n{content}"
    )
    kwargs = {
        "model": model,
        "messages": [
            {"role": "system", "content": EXTRACT_SYSTEM},
            {"role": "user", "content": user},
        ],
    }
    if reasoning_effort:
        kwargs["reasoning_effort"] = reasoning_effort
    if temperature is not None:
        kwargs["temperature"] = temperature
    text = oai.chat.completions.create(**kwargs).choices[0].message.content
    # The prompt asks for ONLY a JSON object, so parse the reply as-is -- no regex fishing a
    # substring out of a malformed reply. If ``json.loads`` fails, treat it as an empty extraction
    # (the record-level analog of NaN): every field reads as absent, which the verifier flags and the
    # gate escalates -- the safe direction. Schema-following errors are rare here (see the overview).
    try:
        return json.loads(text)
    except (ValueError, json.JSONDecodeError):
        return {}


# Hard-coded canonical fabrication (see note above); a real pipeline would use extract(MINI, prompt, schema, content, temperature=0).
mini_record = {
    "registration_open_date": "",
    "description": "Registration opens for the fall semester",
}
print("mini extraction:\n", json.dumps(mini_record, indent=2))

# The record is a perfect fit for the JSON Schema -- and still wrong. Schema validation is necessary
# but not sufficient: it catches structural errors, never semantic ones. That gap is the whole point.
print("\nschema-valid:", jsonschema.Draft202012Validator(schema).is_valid(mini_record))
mini extraction:
 {
  "registration_open_date": "",
  "description": "Registration opens for the fall semester"
}

schema-valid: True
  • 这条记录是 schema 有效的(上一行打印 True),但它是错的:

    • registration_open_date 留空,这与页面相符:页面没有给出任何日期

    • 但 description 是编造的:页面从未描述过注册日期,于是 mini 编造了一个看似合理的值。它可能照搬 schema 自己的示例"Registration opens for the fall semester",或者叙述"...was not found in the document"

    • JSON-Schema 检查看不到这一点。便宜的模型会产生这种自信且满足 schema 的编造,而抓住它们正是语义验证器的职责

第 3 步:用 TypeSafe 验证

  • 验证器是 TypeSafe;我们为每个字段构建一个 Noul 问题:

    • 一个狭窄的是/否问题,框架设定为 true = 有问题(升级)

  • TypeSafe 在一次 system_one 调用中为每个问题返回经过校准的 noul = P(true)

  • 问题集:

    • 一个整体性的 __overall__::judge 头("这条记录该升级吗?")。我们计算并展示它,是为了把整条记录的判断与逐字段头作对比,但第 4 步的门控并不使用它——升级由逐字段问题组驱动。

    • 一组逐字段问题

      • 非空字段获得完整的头集合

      • 空字段(null / "" / [])只获得 absence_wrong 头

    • (完整流水线还有一个针对整体容器的 spurious 头和一个整体 difficulty 分数;此处未展示,以便这篇演练只聚焦两个门控头)

  • TypeSafe 之道:分解

    • 注意一切都是以程序化方式分解的,这就是 TypeSafe 的方式。

    • 分解让每个提示词的智能最大化,并使算法可调、可解释。

    • this is the way

expandable
# metric -> (question, NoulCriteria)
MAIN_QUESTIONS = {
    "name_desc_mismatch": (
        "Does the `extracted_field` fail to match the field at `path` or the `description` in the "
        "`field_spec`? If the `description` is empty, judge against the `path` alone.",
        NoulCriteria(
            true="the `extracted_field` does not match the field name or its `description`",
            false="the `extracted_field` matches the field name and `description`",
        ),
    ),
    "type_mismatch": (
        "Does the `extracted_field` violate the `type` declared in the `field_spec`?",
        NoulCriteria(
            true="the `extracted_field` violates the declared `type`",
            false="the `extracted_field` conforms to the declared `type`",
        ),
    ),
    "unreasonable": (
        "Is the `extracted_field` one that a reasonable person would not have extracted for this "
        "`field_spec`?",
        NoulCriteria(
            true="a reasonable person would not have extracted this value",
            false="the extraction is reasonable",
        ),
    ),
    "hallucinated": (
        "Is the `extracted_field` unsupported by, or absent from, the source text?",
        NoulCriteria(
            true="the `extracted_field` is a hallucination -- not supported by, or absent "
            "from, the source text",
            false="the `extracted_field` is supported by the source text",
        ),
    ),
    "off_target": (
        "Does the source text fail to genuinely report the thing the `field_spec` describes, so the "
        "value was pulled from incidental text?",
        NoulCriteria(
            true="the source does not genuinely provide this field -- the value was pulled "
            "from incidental text",
            false="the source genuinely reports this field",
        ),
    ),
    "incomplete": (
        "Does the `extracted_field` fail to capture a value the source supports (note whether the "
        "`field_spec` is `required`)?",
        NoulCriteria(
            true="the field is wrongly empty, null, or missing a value the source supports",
            false="the field captures the value the source supports",
        ),
    ),
    "format_violation": (
        "Does the `extracted_field` violate the format or constraints implied by the `description`, "
        "the schema `type`, and the extraction instructions (e.g. date format, units, enum membership)?",
        NoulCriteria(
            true="the `extracted_field` violates the implied format or constraints",
            false="the `extracted_field` satisfies the format and constraints",
        ),
    ),
}
ABSENCE_QUESTION = (
    "The `extracted_field` is empty, null, or an empty collection. Does the source text contain the "
    "information the `field_spec` describes, making the empty result wrong?"
)
ABSENCE_CRITERIA = NoulCriteria(
    true="a value was wrongly omitted", false="returning nothing is correct"
)

# The pipeline also asks one holistic, whole-record head: "should this be escalated?"
OVERALL_JUDGE = (
    "Is this extracted record an incorrect extraction -- some value unsupported by the source or "
    "not conforming to the schema, required information missing or wrong, or some field hallucinated -- "
    "so it should be escalated to a smarter model?"
)
OVERALL_JUDGE_CRITERIA = NoulCriteria(
    true="the record is an incorrect extraction",
    false="the record is a correct extraction",
)


def is_empty(v) -> bool:
    return v is None or (isinstance(v, (str, list, dict)) and len(v) == 0)


def field_spec(name: str) -> dict:
    """Minimal spec pulled from the schema (unwrapping anyOf/null for optional fields)."""
    p = schema["properties"][name]
    branches = p.get("anyOf") or []
    typ = p.get("type") or next(
        (b["type"] for b in branches if b.get("type") != "null"), "unknown"
    )
    return {
        "path": name,
        "type": typ,
        "description": p.get("description", ""),
        "required": name in schema.get("required", []),
    }


def build_questions(record: dict) -> dict[str, Noul]:
    """The verify question set: one holistic ``__overall__::judge`` head plus a per-field battery,
    keyed ``field::metric`` (mirrors build_verify_prompts)."""
    questions: dict[str, Noul] = {
        "__overall__::judge": Noul(
            instructions=OVERALL_JUDGE, criteria=OVERALL_JUDGE_CRITERIA
        ),
    }
    for name, value in record.items():
        spec = field_spec(name)
        if is_empty(value):
            questions[f"{name}::absence_wrong"] = Noul(
                instructions={
                    "field_spec": spec,
                    "extracted_field": value,
                    "main_question": ABSENCE_QUESTION,
                },
                criteria=ABSENCE_CRITERIA,
            )
            continue
        for metric, (question, criteria) in MAIN_QUESTIONS.items():
            if metric == "type_mismatch" and spec["type"] == "unknown":
                continue
            questions[f"{name}::{metric}"] = Noul(
                instructions={
                    "field_spec": spec,
                    "extracted_field": value,
                    "main_question": question,
                },
                criteria=criteria,
            )
    return questions


@json_cache
def verify(record: dict) -> dict[str, float | str]:
    """Run the whole Noul battery over a record in one TypeSafe call; return ``{field::metric: P(true)}``."""
    state = {
        "system_message": EXTRACT_SYSTEM,
        "instruction": "Extract the structured record from this document",
        "source_text": row["content"],
        "schema": schema,
        "extraction": record,
    }
    questions = build_questions(record)
    answers = ts.system_one(state=state, questions=questions, model=TS_MODEL).answers
    return {qid: ans.noul for qid, ans in answers.items()} | {
        "playground_link": make_playground_link(state, questions)
    }

对 mini 的提取结果运行整个问题组

python
checks = verify(mini_record)
playground_link = checks.pop("playground_link")
display(
    Markdown(
        f"🔗 [Open this verification in the TypeSafe playground]({playground_link})"
    )
)

print(f"{'qid':<40}{'P(wrong)':>9}")
print("-" * 50)
for fld, p in sorted(checks.items(), key=lambda c: -c[-1]):
    flag = "  <== FIRES" if p > FIRE_T else ""
    print(f"{fld:<40}{p:>9.2f}{flag}")
qid                                      P(wrong)
--------------------------------------------------
description::hallucinated                    0.95  <== FIRES
description::off_target                      0.85  <== FIRES
description::unreasonable                    0.58
__overall__::judge                           0.56
description::incomplete                      0.16
registration_open_date::absence_wrong        0.14
description::format_violation                0.10
description::name_desc_mismatch              0.08
description::type_mismatch                   0.02
在 TypeSafe Playground 中打开此验证 →
  • TypeSafe 把信号集中在真正出错的字段上。

  • 我们的结果是校准的:在出错的字段上高,在正确的字段上低,在看起来不对劲却并未明确出错的字段上中等

  • 这就是一个 typesafe 验证器相比直白的"这整件事好不好?"评判器能带给你的东西

第 4 步:升级门控

  • 现在我们以 any_flag 作为门控:只要任何字段标志超过 FIRE_T(0.7,在上方设置,并与第 3 步的 <== FIRES 标记共用)就升级

  • 这是一个 max 式门控(任何字段触发就升级),而不是取均值,所以一个自信的红旗就足以触发升级,不会被平均成无声

python
# any_flag is a per-field gate: the holistic __overall__ head is shown above but not part of it
fired = {
    qid: p
    for qid, p in checks.items()
    if not qid.startswith("__overall__") and p > FIRE_T
}
escalate = bool(fired)

print(
    f"any_flag gate (threshold {FIRE_T}): {'ESCALATE' if escalate else 'ACCEPT cheap result'}"
)
for qid, p in sorted(fired.items(), key=lambda c: -c[1]):
    print(f"  fired: {qid}  (P={p:.2f})")
any_flag gate (threshold 0.7): ESCALATE
  fired: description::hallucinated  (P=0.95)
  fired: description::off_target  (P=0.85)

第 5 步:升级到推理模型

既然有信号触发,我们就为强模型(gpt-5.5,reasoning_effort="high")付费

python
final_record = (
    extract(REASONING, prompt, schema, content, reasoning_effort="high")
    if escalate
    else mini_record
)

print("mini      :", json.dumps(mini_record))
print("reasoning :", json.dumps(final_record))
print("\nfield-level diff (mini -> final):")
for name in mini_record:
    if mini_record[name] != final_record.get(name):
        print(f"  {name}: {mini_record[name]!r}  ->  {final_record.get(name)!r}")
mini      : {"registration_open_date": "", "description": "Registration opens for the fall semester"}
reasoning : {"description": "", "registration_open_date": ""}

field-level diff (mini -> final):
  description: 'Registration opens for the fall semester'  ->  ''
  • 改进之处

    • 推理模型丢弃了编造的 description,返回 ""

    • 它识别出页面从未描述注册日期,并拒绝编造一个

    • 级联把一个自信且满足 schema 的编造变成了一个诚实的空字段

    • 而它只在这一个条目上花了推理模型的钱,正是因为验证器让它这么做的

第 6 步:在 100 个提示词上的表现

  • 这些是 TypeSafe 的内部结果,用上述通用方法得出:

    • 同样的 extract → verify → escalate 循环,gpt-5.4-mini → gpt-5.5-reasoning,作用于逐字段头之上的 any_flag 门控,在 100 个 scrapegraphai 提示词上运行

    • 每个条目的便宜层级提取由 TypeSafe 打分;门控阈值("cut")从 0 扫到 1,得到的每个配置都绘制在(成本,质量)空间中

    • 该图是历史快照;其成本并未按上面列出的当前 Jev 费率重新计算

internal results: cost/quality frontier over 100 prompts

  • 如何解读:

    • 黑色菱形 = 四个模型各自单独运行(成本随能力攀升;最强的 gpt-5.5-reasoning 位于右上角,质量约 0.81,成本约 \$0.10/次提取)

    • 蓝色点 = 处于许多门控阈值上的级联;虚线是 pareto 前沿

    • 级联前沿位于每个单一模型的左上方:扫动门控就能以顶级模型的一小部分成本获得其大部分质量

    • 便宜层级近乎免费地处理容易的条目,只有被标记的条目才为推理模型付费

附录 A:什么造就一个好的验证器信号

  • 级联的好坏取决于其验证器;区分有用信号与无用信号的是:

    • 狭窄且有据。

      • 针对一个字段、对照源文本的一个可检验的是/否问题(例如"该值在源文本中是否缺失?"),而不是模糊的"这次提取好吗?"

      • 模糊的问题给出糊状、未校准的分数

    • 坏 = TRUE,并附有明确判据。

      • 将每个问题的框架设定为升级情形对应 true 情形,并说明 true/false 各自的含义

    • 逐字段,然后用 max 聚合。

      • 逐字段标志可以定位错误,并保持稀疏而有力

      • max("任何标志触发")确保一个自信的红旗就能触发升级,而不是被平均成无声

    • 独立且便宜。

      • 由专门的验证器(这里是 TypeSafe)评判输出,能抓住提取器自身的盲点

      • 它必须便宜,否则就无节省可言

    • 有区分度 / 已校准。

      • 好的信号在真实错误上高、在正确结果上低,因此单个阈值就能干净地分开"接受"与"升级"

      • 正是这种区分度把 pareto 曲线推向左上方

本站为 docs.typesafe.ai 的中文翻译,仅供学习参考;内容版权归原作者所有。