docs: expand model card (training details, calibration, escalation, limitations)

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+---
+license: apache-2.0
+library_name: transformers
+base_model:
+- convaiinnovations/laya
+tags:
+- laya
+- system-one
+- ticket-triage
+- banking77
+- hierarchical-classification
+- customer-support
+- routing
+datasets:
+- PolyAI/banking77
+metrics:
+- accuracy
+- f1
+pipeline_tag: text-classification
+---
+
+# laya-triage-banking77
+
+A [laya](https://github.com/NandhaKishorM/laya) System 1 decision model (421M) fine-tuned
+for **hierarchical support-ticket triage** on BANKING77: one local forward pass per stage
+returns a department route and a calibrated confidence — no API calls, no per-ticket cost.
+Part of the [laya-triage](https://github.com/Gjusev/laya-triage) project (Apache 2.0).
+
+| Configuration | Intent accuracy | Macro-F1 |
+|---|---:|---:|
+| zero-shot flat 77-way | 36.5% | 0.284 |
+| zero-shot hierarchical | 51.0% | 0.443 |
+| **fine-tuned hierarchical (this model)** | **90.5%** | **0.848** |
+
+200-ticket seed-13 BANKING77 test sample, identical harness and questions for all three rows.
+
+## How the hierarchy works
+
+BANKING77's 77 intents are grouped into 12 clusters of 3-10 intents (kept inside the
+calibrated choice-temperature bucket). Triage is two passes on this checkpoint:
+
+1. **Coarse pass** — choose one of the 12 clusters. In production the same pass also scores
+   urgency, frustration, churn risk and refund intent (heads inherited from the base model).
+2. **Fine pass** — choose among only the 3-10 intents of the winning cluster.
+
+Coarse accuracy on the eval sample: **96.0%**. The two-pass eval ran the
+200 tickets in 16.1s on one Kaggle T4.
+
+## Training details
+
+- **Data**: the BANKING77 train split (10,003 tickets). Each ticket contributes two
+  sequences — the coarse choice (gold = the intent's cluster) and the fine choice
+  restricted to that cluster (gold = the intent) — 20,006 training items in total.
+- **Objective**: RLCD policy gradients over a proper scoring rule (log score + spherical +
+  ranked-probability for score-type questions) plus a cross-entropy guidance term toward
+  the gold answer.
+- **Hyperparameters** (from the committed trainer):
+  3 epochs; micro-batch 8 with gradient accumulation 4 (effective 32 per rank);
+  RLCD group size 4 with sigma annealed 0.4 → 0.1 across epochs; AdamW with
+  encoder lr 2.5e-5 / head lr 1e-4, weight decay 0.01.
+- **Hardware**: Kaggle 2× Tesla T4, `torchrun` DDP (9,803 items per rank after the
+  equal-count trim), about 46 minutes end to end.
+- **Software**: laya 0.3.22, laya-triage 0.1.0, adapted from laya's official 2×T4 notebook.
+- **Notebook**: [`finetune/laya_triage_banking77.ipynb`](https://github.com/Gjusev/laya-triage/blob/main/finetune/laya_triage_banking77.ipynb)
+  (opens directly in Kaggle; the committed run is [gjusev/laya-triage-banking77](https://www.kaggle.com/code/gjusev/laya-triage-banking77)).
+
+## Calibration
+
+Choice-answer temperature fitted on a held-out calibration split carved from the training
+data **before** training: **3.825** (score and noul heads keep their 1.2 defaults).
+After three epochs on memorized training data the choice logits are sharply overconfident;
+the fitted temperature softens them back so `answer_confidence` remains a usable gate.
+
+## Escalation
+
+The operational policy auto-handles a ticket only when every routing decision's calibrated
+confidence clears a threshold. For this checkpoint the 75% accuracy target is met at
+threshold **0.00** with **100% coverage**
+(90.5% accuracy among auto-handled tickets): on this English banking
+sample the calibrated confidence is strong enough that nothing needs escalating — a large
+change from the zero-shot checkpoint, whose operating point was 0.84 at ~60% coverage.
+Treat that as a property of this domain/sample, not a universal guarantee.
+
+## What was trained and what was not
+
+- **Trained**: the two routing decisions (cluster choice, intent choice).
+- **NOT trained**: the auxiliary signal heads — BANKING77 carries no urgency/frustration/
+  churn/refund labels. Measured on the project's English hand-labeled subset
+  (n=60): urgency MAE **0.701**, frustration MAE
+  **0.693** (zero-shot all-language baseline 0.813 / 1.071).
+  The routing-only fine-tune did not disturb them.
+- **English only**: the base checkpoint is the English laya model. The repo documents
+  per-language coarse-accuracy degradation zero-shot; this fine-tune does not address it.
+
+## Where it fails (top confusions on the eval sample)
+
+| Gold | Predicted | Count |
+|---|---|---:|
+| `top_up_failed` | `topping_up_by_card` | 1 |
+| `beneficiary_not_allowed` | `failed_transfer` | 1 |
+| `order_physical_card` | `getting_virtual_card` | 1 |
+| `pin_blocked` | `change_pin` | 1 |
+| `beneficiary_not_allowed` | `transfer_into_account` | 1 |
+| `verify_top_up` | `verify_my_identity` | 1 |
+| `receiving_money` | `fiat_currency_support` | 1 |
+| `wrong_exchange_rate_for_cash_withdrawal` | `cash_withdrawal_charge` | 1 |
+| `declined_transfer` | `transfer_not_received_by_recipient` | 1 |
+| `get_disposable_virtual_card` | `getting_virtual_card` | 1 |
+
+Every top confusion is a single-ticket mistake on this sample — there is no systematic
+confusion pair at n=200.
+
+## Intended use
+
+- Routing customer-support tickets to departments/queues in English banking-style domains.
+- As a drop-in laya checkpoint inside the [laya-triage pipeline](https://github.com/Gjusev/laya-triage),
+  which adds multilingual routing, the escalation policy and the signal heads.
+
+**Out of scope**: languages other than English (use the zero-shot multilingual pipeline
+instead), non-banking domains, any decision with safety or legal consequences, and use of
+the urgency/frustration scores as anything beyond triage prioritization signals.
+
+## Limitations
+
+- Evaluated on a 200-ticket sample (seed 13) of the BANKING77 test split; the full-split
+  numbers may differ. Reproduce with the artifact, not the prose.
+- Out-of-domain tickets map to the nearest banking concept when confidence is high enough;
+  the repo's smoke test escalated 7 of 8 IT-operations tickets at the zero-shot 0.84 gate.
+- Latency figures (CPU 577.4s / T4 16.1s per 200-ticket two-pass)
+  are development measurements, not deployment benchmarks.
+
+## Evaluation methodology and artifacts
+
+Sample selection, per-ticket records (predictions, confidences, correctness), the coverage
+curve and every number above live in
+[`evals/results/banking77_finetuned.json`](https://github.com/Gjusev/laya-triage/blob/main/evals/results/banking77_finetuned.json).
+The eval kernel that produced it attaches this checkpoint as a Kaggle dataset and re-runs
+the same seed-13 two-pass as the repo's zero-shot harness
+([gjusev/laya-triage-ft-eval](https://www.kaggle.com/code/gjusev/laya-triage-ft-eval)).
+
+## Usage
+
+```python
+import laya
+from huggingface_hub import snapshot_download
+from laya_triage import schema
+
+agent = laya.Agent(snapshot_download("Gjusev/laya-triage-banking77"), device="cpu")
+
+stage1 = agent.predict([{"message": "I was charged twice for the same card payment"}],
+                       schema.coarse_questions())[0]
+cluster = stage1["answers"]["cluster"]["choice"]
+stage2 = agent.predict([{"message": "I was charged twice for the same card payment"}],
+                       schema.fine_questions(cluster))[0]
+print(cluster, stage2["answers"]["intent"]["choice"],
+      stage2["answers"]["intent"]["answer_confidence"])
+```
+
+The full pipeline (`TriagePipeline`) wraps both passes plus department mapping and the
+escalation gate — see the repo README.
+
+## Base model and data
+
+Fine-tuned from the Apache-2.0 laya System 1 checkpoint by Convai Innovations
+(`convaiinnovations/laya`), trained on the BANKING77 dataset (PolyAI-LDN). Thanks to both.
+
+## License
+
+Apache 2.0. The fine-tune and its evaluation artifacts are part of the
+[laya-triage](https://github.com/Gjusev/laya-triage) project.