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.
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 l...
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...
Mnemon is a memory agent that stores conversations as raw, dated records and uses a fast System 1 decision model (Jev) to quickly judge the relevance of records, while a slow System 2 LLM plans searches and composes answers. The agent consolidates records into topic timelines and value histories in the background, enabling efficient retrieval without rewriting conversations into structured formats. Experiments show Mnemon achieving high scores on LoCoMo and LongMemEval‑S with low context length and cost, and Jev outperforming LLMs in evidence separation and speed.
The paper evaluates Certo, a small non‑generative decision model that scores candidate actions based on text. It compares a joint scorer that processes state, rules, and candidates together with a cacheable encoder that pre‑encodes candidates to reduce cost. Experiments show the cacheable approach loses rule sensitivity, while targeted counterfactual supervision can recover performance on synthetic tasks; however, on real rules the joint scorer still outperforms the cacheable version, and cross‑domain mixtures do not improve accuracy.
LAVOIR is a single‑pass decision encoder that not only predicts answers to typed questions but also identifies which missing pieces of information (slots) would most improve its confidence. By placing candidate slots next to answer options, one forward pass yields both the decision distribution and the expected value of asking each slot, without requiring human labels. In controlled experiments, LAVOIR’s question policy matches a greedy oracle and improves accuracy by up to 14.1 points over never asking, while on real conversations it raises accuracy by 8.3 points with minimal questioning.
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 study analyzes 373,019 judgments from LLM‑scored benchmarks, decomposing variance into system, item, judge, and interaction components via generalizability theory. It finds that with a single judge, generalizability converges to a ceiling determined by the system‑by‑judge variance, which is substantially lower in pairwise preference settings, allowing one judge to suffice. The research also reveals significant biases in presentation order and highlights that many published win‑rate claims fall below the measured floor of the benchmarks.
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.
arXiv:2609.39111v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human intelligence relies heavily on learned intuition: recognising patterns and judging situations without explicitly unfolding every intermediate ste...
arXiv:2609.15618v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Our team, VANGUARD, presents IROH (Insightful Ranking of Humor), a three-stage retrieval system for JOKER Task 1 English at CLEF 2026, achieving firs...
The paper introduces PACT, a tuning method for single-token typed-decision models that leverages contrastive pair data to add four training terms—difference-in-differences margin, permutation-consistency, evidence-necessity, and ordinal transport cost—without requiring new annotations. PACT achieves comparable accuracy to existing recipes while reducing position bias and ordinal error, and it improves robustness and stability across seeds. The authors provide code, data splits, and trained adapters for reproducibility.
The paper investigates whether widely used evaluation frameworks for large language models (LLMs) implement a defense called commit‑first judging, which requires a judge to solve a task itself before accepting a candidate answer. Across 24 configurations in eight popular frameworks, none use the full commit‑first method; nine use a weaker variant that is ineffective. In controlled experiments, the weaker variant allowed systems to game the judge, while the full commit‑first approach eliminated this vulnerability but sometimes worsened evaluation when the judge’s own answer was incorrect.