The report introduces AnyJev, a method that extracts typed decisions from a pretrained instruction‑tuned language model by restricting the next‑token distribution to a set of option tokens. It corrects two defects—label bias and position bias—without any gradient updates by dividing out a label prior and averaging log‑probabilities over cyclic rotations of the option list. Experiments on two 20‑option tasks show that rotations reduce order‑flip rates and improve accuracy across all tested models, while a stopping rule reduces the number of required rotations and increases decision throughput.
A typed decision is a choice among a fixed set of options, returned as a probability rather than as text. Systems that need typed decisions today use models trained for that purpose. This report descr...
The study examines how renaming option labels in typed decision models affects model behavior. By swapping the names of two options (e.g., from 0/1 to no/yes) while keeping the underlying rubrics unchanged, the authors observed a dramatic shift in decision rankings—AUC dropped from .94 to .23 and answer flips increased by 70.4 per hundred. The effect is amplified with more options and depends on the semantic polarity of the labels, yet the models still maintain a zero type‑error rate.
Typed decision models are built for settings where model outputs are consumed directly by software. Instead of generating free-form text, they return a decision over a predefined set of options. By co...
Prefill‑only decision models evaluate every candidate in a menu in a single forward pass, avoiding decoding and reducing cost by one to two orders of magnitude compared to generative language models. The paper demonstrates that when only the candidate menu changes, the model’s post‑intervention accuracy can be predicted solely from the cached first‑pass distribution using a simple estimator that renormalizes and selects the argmax, without any labels or second pass. Across seven model families, ten datasets, and two task types, this menu‑only intervention prediction is within 4.2 points of actual accuracy, and in one family it is exact, whereas a probability‑level variant fails by 21 points, indicating the property resides in ranking rather than calibrated probabilities.
arXiv:2610.02586v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A typed decision model answers a fixed question about an input by returning a probability for each of several caller-defined options. Each option carri...
NumericJev introduces a training‑free numerical decoding algorithm that allows large language models with Jev‑like structured‑choice interfaces to output precise numerical values. The method refines a numerical range using a multiway decision tree, achieving lower mean absolute error than direct selection from a candidate list. Experiments on an arithmetic benchmark show a 2.93 percentage‑point improvement, and a historical‑index study reports a 4.58% mean relative recall error with zero readout error when the value is supplied.
arXiv:2609.37647v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Jev is a commercial System One model from TypeSafe AI that does not generate text: given a state and typed questions, it returns a choice from fixed...
arXiv:2609.23886v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Software delegates more of its branches to models every year: which queue a ticket enters, whether a command is safe to run, whether a claim clears wit...
The paper demonstrates that typed decision models can produce type‑correct outputs that nevertheless do not adhere to the explicit definitions of their options. By swapping only the names of options while keeping the definitions, question, and state unchanged, the authors show that decision flips can increase dramatically—up to 70.4 percentage points—when using yes/no names versus neutral controls. This effect is consistent across multiple models and decision rules, and even random strings as names yield flip rates similar to neutral controls, indicating that option‑name polarity contributes to decision instability beyond mere reassignment.
The study investigates whether adaptive layer-skipping and repetition programs truly improve language‑model inference or merely exploit input‑blind controls. Using 32 such programs on Qwen3‑4B‑Base and Llama‑3.1‑8B across 4,413 multiple‑choice items, the authors compare real program gains to those from input‑blind perturbations and fixed letter offsets. Results show that input‑blind controls can produce comparable or even larger headroom, and that real programs only outperform controls in specific menu configurations, indicating that the apparent benefits may not be due to the actual layer computation choices.
arXiv:2609.23959v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Screening a phone call for fraud needs a trustworthy probability after every caller turn, in milliseconds. Jev-style typed decisions promise exactly th...
arXiv:2608. 10145v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LeWorldModel trains a latent world model with a prediction loss and a single anti-collapse regulariser, and reports approximately 87% of goals reached on TwoRoom, its simplest diagnostic environment.