Verdict-MQ is an open encoder that processes a single piece of state once and then answers multiple typed questions about that state, avoiding separate passes for each question. By using a structured attention mask, it ensures the state encoding is independent of question order and prevents questions from influencing one another. On the typed‑decisions benchmark, Verdict‑MQ outperforms a larger specialist model, achieving higher accuracy and better calibration, while on other benchmarks it shows mixed results compared to fine‑tuned baselines.
By Avdhesh Singh Chouhan, Jack Perry
The paper evaluates nine on‑device named‑entity recognition models ranging from classical taggers to large language models, measuring not only accuracy but also latency and output validity. Using a silver‑gold benchmark derived from an LLM judge panel and a human‑validated corpus, the study shows that encoder‑based models achieve comparable accuracy to a 4 B instruct LLM while being much smaller, faster, and producing no malformed output. Confidence calibration of GLiNER is analyzed, revealing over‑confidence but improved reliability after temperature scaling and thresholding.
By Vinay Kumar Chaganti
The paper evaluates three approaches for emotion recognition in conversation— a low‑cost stacked ensemble, an off‑the‑shelf LLM prompt, and a confidence‑gated hybrid that escalates only uncertain ensemble predictions to the LLM. Across three datasets (IEMOCAP, MELD, CMU‑MOSI), the hybrid consistently outperforms each pure system, achieving higher weighted F1 scores while routing most traffic through the inexpensive ensemble. This results in significant cost savings (≈$10‑85 per million utterances) and provides an interpretable escalation signal tied to emotion or sentiment shifts.
By Sai Babu Udayagiri, Arjun Chouhan, Ravisekhar Kanagala, Trishala Pavagada
The paper evaluates System One decision models—typed models that output probabilities for branching decisions—against supervised classifiers and generative language models on automated decision gate tasks. Eight checkpoints from six families, including the hosted model Jev, were benchmarked on workflow, intent, and social‑science items, showing that small trained classifiers match or slightly outperform decision models on intent and workflow when labels are available, while decision models outperform zero‑shot classifiers when labels are absent. The study also explores calibration, risk thresholds, and cost‑efficiency trade‑offs, providing condition‑dependent design guidelines for automated decision gates.
By Amir Rafe, Subasish Das
arXiv:2610.02267v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Agent harnesses make many small, typed decisions per task: which model to call, which tool to use, whether retrieved text is relevant, whether an input...
By Jiawei Li
arXiv:2610.36915v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: When the sources retrieved for a query disagree, the right response depends on why they disagree: a question with several valid answers, a contested to...
By Parv Khatri, Harshul Jain, Mehak Kapoor, Tanya Sah
The paper compares a non‑generative verifier (Jev) with a frontier LLM (Astra) on 495 human‑labelled claims from LLM‑AggreFact. Both models achieve statistically indistinguishable accuracy, yet Jev is 187‑fold cheaper and admits more unsupported claims. A confidence‑gated cascade that escalates uncertain claims improves cost‑efficiency, though the benefit comes mainly from the escalation share rather than the probability estimates.
By Alden Do Rosario, Kirollos Atef
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...
By Tobias Deu{\ss}er, Lorenz Sparrenberg, Rafet Sifa
The paper introduces a paired candidate‑coverage benchmark protocol for typed decision models, evaluating two models—Laya and Jev—on datasets such as AG News, DBpedia, Emotion, and TREC. It reports that Laya detects a high percentage of missing-answer cases but also falsely rejects many valid candidates, whereas Jev shows lower false rejection rates but also lower detection of missing answers. The study highlights the need for separate measurements of classification, score ranking, and rejection policies, noting that the benchmark is descriptive and limited to reference‑label omission.
By Jiawen Lu, Tongtong Wu
arXiv:2609.37861v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: In the Global South, the lower-income countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America where most of the world's languages are spoken, a deployed text cl...
By Bhanu Prakash Vangala, Vangala Navya
GAUGE is a new offline protocol that evaluates whether the common practice of using an LLM-as-a-judge to rank task‑oriented agents actually aligns with a verifiable reward. Across 25 agents from six providers on two benchmarks, GAUGE finds that user satisfaction scores are largely uncorrelated with task success, and that the judge’s ranking loses precision when agents are closely matched in performance. The study highlights a gap between ranking validity and construct validity in current evaluation practices.
By Umesh Bodhwani, Thanh Tran, Kai Wei
arXiv:2610.25458v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Small language models have improved to the point where a phone can plausibly screen its own calls, answering on an absent owner's behalf without se...
By Jiaqi Gan, Tsang Ng, Ankit Raj, Tommy Duong, Xingyu Shen, Kidus Zewde, Huaiyu Guo, Simiao Ren