arXiv:2610. 29052v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A typed decision maps evidence, a question and a fixed set of options to a probability for every option, computed in one forward pass, by reading a language model's logits or a small head over its hidden states, instead of generating and parsing text.
By Yuchuan Weng, Chi Liu, Xin Chen, Srinivasan Manoharan
The paper investigates when post‑training quantization (PTQ) calibration helps or hurts text embedders, focusing on the amount of calibration (dose) and whether to calibrate at all. Across three models and 161 calibration runs at 4‑bit weight quantization, the effect ranges from significant gains to catastrophic degradation, driven mainly by the functional displacement of the quantized model. A validation‑gated abstention rule is proposed that avoids harmful calibrations while capturing most benefits, highlighting the trade‑off between safety and opportunity.
By Hyojung Han, Ryangkyung Kang, Youngeun Kim, Seung-Hun Jeon
arXiv:2606.15910v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: An answer from a vision-language model (VLM) to a medical image question can be accepted without review only under a threshold bounding the error o...
By Reza Khanmohammadi, Kundan Thind, Mohammad M. Ghassemi
arXiv:2606. 15449v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Electronic prior authorization workflows require FHIR Questionnaire items to carry LOINC codes, yet most items in the HL7 Da Vinci CDS-Library lack these bindings.
By Maxim Gorshkov
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 study evaluates Jev 1.13, a non‑generative model that selects from predefined answer options, on four medical benchmarks: MetaMedQA, PubMedQA, DiagnosisArena‑MCQ, and the NEJM Case Challenges. Jev’s top‑1 accuracy matches GPT‑6 Sol with medium reasoning on PubMedQA but falls behind on MetaMedQA, DiagnosisArena‑MCQ, and NEJM cases. While Jev shows strong calibration on MetaMedQA and is fast and inexpensive, its performance on examination and complex diagnostic tasks is substantially lower, indicating the need for task‑specific validation before clinical deployment.
By Alfredo Madrid-Garc\'ia, Beatriz Merino-Barbancho
arXiv:2609.38021v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: We evaluate an auditable long-term memory system on LongMemEval-S. Its retrieval chain uses hybrid candidate retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, cove...
By Christopher J. Chanhnourack
arXiv:2609.34024v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Jev is a non-generative "System One" model that assigns probabilities to predefined answer options and cannot answer outside them. Its accuracy and c...
By Alfredo Madrid-Garc\'ia, Beatriz Merino-Barbancho
arXiv:2609.14825v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are often deemed unsafe for clinical question answering because of their tendency to hallucinate. Retrieval augmentation...
By Zeyu Dong, Benjamin Wang, Joyee W. Jin
The paper introduces a penalty‑aware evaluation framework for Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) systems that uses asymmetric scoring, knowledge‑gap canaries, and a failure‑attribution pipeline. Applying this framework to three commercial RAG products and a baseline on SimpleQA‑Verified, the authors find that while overall accuracy is similar across systems, canary violation rates vary dramatically, showing that systems differ more in when they answer than in what they answer. The study demonstrates that penalty‑aware scoring can reorder system rankings and is robust across different penalty settings.
By Alden Do Rosario, Hussein Younes, Felipe Pires
The paper investigates how conversational Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) benchmarks that rely on relevance judgments to determine context sufficiency can be misleading. By re‑running official baselines on the RETECO track and evaluating with both large‑language‑model judges and a blind audit, the authors show that stronger retrievers produce a higher proportion of contexts lacking gold documents yet still containing the answer, leading to a sharp drop in shortcut precision from 0.68 to 0.10. The study demonstrates that many false misses arise from hard negatives, gold content from other turns, or neighboring chunks, and that using retrieval scores alone as a sufficiency detector can underestimate answerability by up to 0.19 in AUROC.
By Ivan Kochergin, Vasily Konovalov
arXiv:2609.05637v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: A popular way to improve Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is to rewrite the user's question into several variants and search with all of them....
By Sara Shanian, Xiaoqin Yi, Pavlo Ruban, Kurt MacDonald