Jev Filtering Literature monitoring Community case ↗ 2026-09-23

Reading all of arXiv for $0.06 a day: Jev as a paper filter

One Noul question per plain-English interest, per paper. A community project validated it against real reviewers: screening 19,447 records from four unseen Cochrane reviews reproduced 96.9% of the studies they included, while removing 78% of the reading — and the misses are published too.

Reviewer-inclusion recall

100% → 96.9%

with 78% less reading

Screening recall vs human reviewers, 4 unseen Cochrane reviews, 19,447 records

Manual screeningReviewer-inclusion recall 100%

Jev (Noul per interest)Reviewer-inclusion recall 96.9%

19,447

Records screened

4 unseen Cochrane reviews

$0.0020

Measured run

50 papers · 5 s · 46,584 tokens

≈$0.06/day

All of arXiv

~1,500 papers per weekday

0 servers

Infrastructure

GitHub Actions + Pages, fork and go

TL;DR

▸arXiv now gets ~32,000 papers a month (~1,500 per weekday). Keyword alerts miss papers that use different words, embedding recommenders anchor to your past reading, and chat-LLM digests only see a pre-filtered top-k because generated text is too expensive to run on the firehose.
▸Paper Radar asks Jev one Noul question per interest, per paper — 'introduces an agent benchmark, 0.97' — and gets a probability back. Nothing to parse, no invented labels; judgment instead of prose is what makes the arithmetic work.
▸Ground-truth check: on four Cochrane reviews it had never seen, screening 19,447 records reproduced 96.9% of reviewer-included studies while removing 78% of the reading, for $0.60. The wrong predictions are published next to the wins.
▸Every run logs its own tokens, cost, decisions and model version to an audit trail in git; `paper-radar calibrate` lets you check Jev's calibration against your own labels.

The task

Literature monitoring is the purest System One task in the wild: for each paper and each interest, one bounded yes/no judgment with a confidence — repeated over thousands of items a day, where the cost per judgment decides whether you can afford to read everything or only a pre-filtered slice.

The alternatives each fail differently: keyword alerts are free but match words, not meaning; embedding recommenders understand meaning but quietly drop whatever does not look like your past reading; LLM digest bots understand meaning but you pay for generated sentences, so they only ever see a top-k that something else pre-filtered.

Paper Radar's bet: a typed judgment costs a fraction of a generated sentence, so you can afford ALL 1,500 daily papers — which is exactly where the other tools lose the paper you actually wanted.

How each model was used

The alternatives

·Keyword alerts: free, no meaning, miss synonym space
·Embedding recommenders: free after setup, anchored to past reading
·LLM digest bots: understand meaning, but pre-filtered top-k + you pay for generated text

Jev (Noul per interest)

·One Noul per plain-English interest, per paper — probability, not prose
·Thresholds live in repo code (`radar.toml`), tunable and auditable
·`calibrate` command checks Jev's calibration against your own labels
·GitHub Actions at 02:00 UTC → page + RSS; audit trail committed to git

Results

Metric	Manual screening	Jev (Noul per interest)
Reviewer studies reproduced	100% (read all)	96.9%
Reading required	19,447 records	78% removed
Cost, full screen	reviewer hours	$0.60
Daily arXiv coverage	top-k only (bots)	~1,500 papers · $0.06
Why it matched	free text or nothing	per-interest probability

What moved the needle

Judgment-not-prose economics

A Noul judgment costs a fraction of a generated sentence and needs no parsing — that is the whole reason the firehose becomes affordable without a pre-filter that might drop the paper you wanted.

Thresholds you can audit

Each interest yields a probability; your code owns the cutoffs, `calibrate` tests them against ground truth, and every decision lands in a git-committed audit trail — the reviewable version of a black-box digest.

Validated against ground truth, misses published

96.9% recall with 78% less reading is a trade a human screener can actually reason about; the 3.1% misses are listed so you can check whether they would have hurt you.

What didn't work & limits

✕96.9% ≠ 100%: 3.1% of reviewer-included studies were missed. For systematic-review workflows where recall is contractual, that gap is the decision — and it is published, not hidden.
✕Precision on narrow personal interests is not publicly benchmarked; the public demo deliberately runs a broad profile.
✕Non-English abstracts fall under Jev's English-primary guidance; untested here.
✕The $0.06/day arithmetic leans on early-access pricing (input $0.042/M tokens, output free) — TypeSafe itself says pricing sustainability is unproven.

Reproduce it

Templates for the same pattern — copy, point them at your own state, and keep the thresholds in code.

Jev 113 words

Support Ticket Triage (One Call, Three Answers)

The pattern from TypeSafe's own docs — all three questions answered in one ~300ms call.

Task: route and grade every inbound support ticket before a human sees it.

state = {
  ticket:  { subject: "...", body: "..." },
  account: { plan: "pro", age_days: 210 }
}

questions:
- department: Choice("Which team should handle this")
    billing:   "Payment, subscription or refund issues"
    technical: "Bugs, integrations or broken features"
    success:   "How-to questions and account help"
    other:     "Anything that fits none of the above"
- frustration: Score("How frustrated the customer appears")
    ["Calm, just stating facts", "Frustrated but civil", "Very angry, strong language"]
- churn_risk_now: Noul("The message signals intent to cancel right now")

Routing rule (confidence-gated): if department.confidence < 0.5, queue for a human triager.
If churn_risk_now.noul > 0.7, escalate regardless of department.

Jev 65 words

Search Reranking on a Budget

Filter 20 search hits down to the 3 worth an LLM's attention.

state = { query: "the user's original question", candidate: { title, snippet } }

questions:
- relevant: Noul("The candidate page actually answers this query")
- credible: Noul("The source looks authoritative rather than spam")

Run once per candidate. Keep results with relevant > 0.6 AND credible > 0.5,
drop the rest before anything expensive sees them (output tokens are free;
input is ~$0.04 per million tokens).