AT0M Pienomial
// a decision model you own, not an API you rent · v0 to evaluate, v1 to deploy

AT0M : A private, System One Decision AI that runs locally.

Give it a state and a set of questions — choice, score, or yes-no. It returns one probability per option, in a single forward pass.

No tokens and no free text, so it cannot answer outside your candidate set. It runs as a single local executable, which keeps inference inside your perimeter.

Try AT0M Explore the evidence
45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% $0.000001 $0.00001 $0.0001 $0.001 $0.01 $0.10 cost per workflow of five decisions, USD (log scale) accuracy on typed-decisions AT0M Jev others, as a workflow others, prompted terra sol opus 5 Jev · 74.0% 82.1%
↔ swipe the chart
82.1%
typed-decisions, 2,000 decisions
50 ms
response on an L4
3.6%
calibration error, nothing fitted

Accuracy against what a decision costs. A workflow is five typed decisions about one record. Competitor accuracies and prices are as published; ours is measured over all 2,000 test decisions and priced from a laptop’s measured throughput plus its amortised system cost. The full basis is in the report.

WorkflowAT0MClefClef-flashJev
Invoice processing89.164.757.161.8
Customer service84.576.377.076.0
Security incidents72.562.961.761.7
Agent trace observability76.868.569.871.6
Mean of four80.768.166.467.8

WorkflowEvals — accuracy on all 13,105 question instances. Long records, many typed questions each: the shape the product is actually for. Competitor figures are the published ones. Yes/no questions dominate this set and most answers are false, so accuracy alone flatters everyone here; AT0M’s balanced yes/no accuracy across the four workflows is 71 / 76 / 65 / 81.

deterministic choice · score · noul bounded output calibrated, no temp fitting single Rust binary · CPU / Metal / CUDA runs in your perimeter
// how you deploy it

The executable is the product.

AT0M will ship as a single self-contained Rust binary — no Python at inference, no service in the path, nothing to rent. That is the deployment, and it will be the only thing that ends up in your perimeter.

The hosted endpoint exists for one reason: so you can check every number on this page before you download anything.

Evaluate firstv1 · hosted

One POST carries a record and as many questions as you like, answered together in the same pass. No SDK, no client library. Currently an evaluation build; the release will improve on it.
POST /decide/v1 — evaluation endpoint
$ curl -s -X POST \ https://at0m.pienomial.com/decide/v1 \ -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \ -d '{"state": "Our production API has been down since 6 AM.", "questions": { "queue": {"type":"choice", "criteria": {...}}, "urgent": {"type":"noul", "instructions":"Needs action today."}}}' → queue: infrastructure (p=1.000) → urgent: true (p=0.892)

To be releasedv1

Run a file of decisions, or serve the same API on your own machine. Self-hosted end to end — this is what a production deployment looks like.
./at0m — your machine, your perimeter
# score a file of decisions, no server $ ./at0m decide --in decisions.json # or serve the same API yourself $ ./at0m serve --port 8080 --device metal listening on :8080 · metal · 54 dec/s $ curl -s localhost:8080/decide \ -d @decisions.json → no network, no provider, no per-decision fee

v0 is the evaluation endpoint; v1 is the executable release — the hosted service is a way to try the model, not a way to run it. Every figure on this page was measured against v0, the evaluation build, so they are the floor rather than the ceiling: v1 is expected to be more accurate, and we will republish every number on this page when it ships.

// how it works

What the model actually does.

// the numbers, with their measurement conditions

Benchmark results.

One configuration across every public test set — no per-dataset tuning or prompt tweaks. 38,862 decisions, scored in one sweep.

Two things we'd flag before you read the numbers. The public typed-decisions benchmark's labels are noisy — they self-agree ~65% of the time against a ~73% teacher-model ceiling — so we don't read small margins near the top as meaningful, ours included. And every AT0M figure here came from a single sweep through one harness, while the competitor figures come from their own write-ups under their own conditions — so read the table as "each number with its source," not a single scoreboard.
BenchmarkAT0MLayaJevCondition
typed-decisions (2,000) 0.8210.7660.740 ahead of Jev by 8.1pt and of Laya by 5.5pt, both well outside the ±1.8pt sampling error
calibration (ECE) 0.0360.081*0.121–0.161 *Laya after fitting a temperature, and from its specialist checkpoint; Jev is the spread across four independent studies — TypeSafe publishes none. Jev and AT0M are general models, one configuration for every row; AT0M fits no temperature
DAIR Emotion 0.7690.5950.480 bare labels — this set's training sources were cut from the V1 data and return in the next run
Banking77 (77 intents) 0.9270.4250.870 Jev on 72 labels — not the same label space, so read the margin as a band rather than a point
AG News 0.9110.9500.910 the one clean multi-way we trail, now within 3.9pt
CLINC150 + out-of-scope 0.938—— 151 candidates, scored in full
Enron spam / held-out phishing 0.750 / 0.949—— phishing never trained on — the honest transfer test
toxicity guardrail (F1) 0.721—— 7.1% positive — answering "no" to everything scores 92.9% accuracy and catches nothing

Laya figures, and Jev's on the classification sets, are as reported in the Laya write-up. Jev's typed-decisions figure is DecisionEval's independent rerun. On calibration, TypeSafe publishes no figure at all, so Jev's range is assembled from four independent studies, none temperature-fitted.

// what we'd actually defend

The parts that don't depend on the benchmark.

The accuracy number is near the top but sits inside admitted label noise, so we don't hang the pitch on it. The claims we'd stand behind under scrutiny are architectural:

And the parts we wouldn't: it compares a value to a threshold well, but not one field of a record against another, so compute those predicates in code. Calibration decays off-distribution — 0.037 on spam it has seen, 0.171 on phishing it hasn't. Both are measured below.

Verify the benchmark yourself.

Every figure on this page came from a public test split scored through this endpoint. Point the same benchmark at it and check. One POST carries a record and as many questions as you like, all answered in the same pass — no SDK, no client library.

Evaluating for your organization?

We'll help you scope a local-training or private-deployment evaluation against your own decisions — and share the full technical report.

Request an evaluation Get the technical report
$ curl -s -X POST https://at0m.pienomial.com/decide/v1 \ -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \ -d '{ "state": "Charged twice for the same card payment this morning.", "questions": { "queue": {"type":"choice", "instructions":"Which team should handle this?", "criteria": {"billing":"invoices, charges, refunds", "technical":"outages, bugs, deploys", "fraud":"unauthorised or suspicious activity"}}, "urgent": {"type":"noul", "instructions":"Needs action today."}}, "email_id": "you@example.com"}' → pick: billing (p=0.998) urgent: noul 0.990
// for engineers & procurement

The full evidence, when you want it.

A comparative evidence inventory across AT0M, Jev 1.13.0 and Laya, carried from the technical paper. It is not a harmonized three-model benchmark: figures were obtained under different conditions, and each is tagged with its source and how it was measured.

Full technical comparison: AT0M · Jev · Laya — collapsed by default ▸
[S1] Pienomial test report — AT0M results, measured by us against the public endpoint and reproducible by anyone: the same script run against the same endpoint returns the same figures.   [L1/L2] Convai Laya model cards — vendor-reported; specialist and routed results kept distinct.   [I1] DecisionEval — independent Jev 1.13.0 rerun on a frozen test.   [J1/J2] TypeSafe documentation — product spec, subject to change.   [B1] Public typed-decisions leaderboard.

A1 · Architecture & interface

ParameterAT0MLayaJev 1.13.0
DeveloperPienomialConvai InnovationsTypeSafe AI
Delivery formStandalone Rust binary; HTTP / CLI / JSON-fileOpen weights; Python SDK / Jev-compatible HTTP serverManaged API
BackboneNot disclosed in reportModernBERT-large 421M; mmBERT-base 322MNot disclosed
Primitiveschoice · score · noulchoice · score · noulchoice · score · noul
InferenceNon-autoregressive; no free textNon-autoregressive; no free textNon-autoregressive; no free text
Multi-question callYesYesYes
Max context32k request — the verification server caps requests at 4,096 tokens512 EN / 1,024 TD, multi 1,02432k state + longest Q / 64k request
Model selectionOne configuration across all testsRouter: EN / multilingual / specialistOne managed version

A2 · Accuracy & benchmark quality

MeasureAT0M [S1]Laya [L2]Jev [I1]
TD overall0.8210.766 specialist0.740 (0.727 older [B1])
TD choice0.7550.7330.738
TD score0.7630.7230.705
TD noul0.8570.8570.787
Invoice / service / obs / security.846 / .786 / .764 / .758.804 / .764 / .730 / .766.786 / .788 / .640 / .744
AG News0.911 described0.950 routed0.910 (secondary)
DAIR Emotion0.769 bare0.595 routed0.480 (secondary)
Banking770.927 / 77 labels0.425 / 77 labels0.870 / 72 labels ≠
Held-out phishing0.949 (excluded from training)——
CLINC150 + out-of-scope0.938 / 151 choices——
Base vs specialistOne config throughoutGeneral EN checkpoint 0.362 on TDZero-shot general weights

A3 · Calibration & reliability

MeasureAT0MLayaJev
TD ECE (10-bin)0.057 no temp fitted [S1]0.213 raw specialist [L2]0.121–0.161 across four independent studies
Per-type ECEchoice .052 · score .086 · noul .0570.081 after temperature [L1]TypeSafe publishes none
BrierNot provided0.062 specialist0.148 independent
Confidence gatingFull coverage curve not publishedNo matched curve≥0.7 → 57.6% kept @ 86.4%; ≥0.9 → 24.5% @ 93.7%
Option-order98% stableNot establishedNot established
Counterfactual13/15 directional; identifier-repeat pair fails——
Empty recordConfidence falls 0.723→0.616; still no abstentionNot measuredNot measured

A4 · Inference & throughput

MetricAT0MLayaJev
5-question, L482 ms server time84.5 ms EN / 40.1 ms multi687 ms p50, network incl. [I1]
1-question, L450 ms L4 server39.5 ms EN / 32.8 ms multiolder 236–276 ms hosted
Throughputlaptop ~41→54 dps (1→32 clients)103–332 q/s batched, T4Provider-managed
77 / 151 candidates92.7 ms / 165.5 ms, laptopBudget competition on optionsNot matched
HardwareCPU · Apple Metal · CUDACPU / GPU self-hostProvider-managed
NetworkServer figure excludes round-tripInference; network not included687 ms explicitly end-to-end

A5 · Enterprise ownership

ParameterAT0MLayaJev
WeightsTraining emits own weights; distribution terms per engagementApache-2.0 downloadableProprietary; no download
Self-hostingStandalone executablePython / HTTP serverNot offered publicly
Data transmissionLocal inference stays in perimeterLocal inference stays in perimeterSent to provider unless contracted otherwise
Version managementExport validation; customer handles rolloutPin model hashes / runtimeVersioned IDs / alias pinning
Audit trailRaw probabilities; app owns the logOpt-in prediction hooksVersion returned; app logs decisions

A6 · Economics

ItemAT0MLayaJev
Published priceCommercials will be released with v1. What do you think they should be? Please let us know at info@pienomial.comApache-2.0; hosting not free$0.042 / 1M input tokens; output free
Recurring costLocal hardware; no per-decision token feeSelf-host compute + opsPer-token input charges
Correct unitNormalized cost per verified useful decision = (inference HW + service ops + adaptation amortization + review + provider fees) ÷ verified useful decisions. No party publishes a hardware-normalized total — do not infer a universal lowest cost.

Sources: [S1] Pienomial AT0M benchmark report v1.0, 27 Sep 2026 · [L1/L2] Convai Laya model cards · [I1] DecisionEval Jev 1.13.0 independent rerun, 20 Sep 2026 · [J1/J2] TypeSafe documentation · [B1] public typed-decisions leaderboard. Latencies are not hardware- or network-normalized; pricing and availability may change after the report date. "Not disclosed" means the cited sources don't establish the item — not that it's unavailable.