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:2610.02267v1 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...
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.
The paper introduces SLIM, a pushing benchmark that tests language‑based goal specification for latent world models. It shows that a vanilla LeWM fails almost entirely due to an action‑insensitive encoder, but adding an inverse‑dynamics auxiliary loss restores encoder sensitivity and dramatically improves success rates. With the repaired latent, a lightweight language‑goal head can plan from natural language sentences, achieving high performance on navigation and pushing tasks without retraining the world model.
arXiv:2607. 14111v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Can small language models detect and report on perturbations their own internal activations?
arXiv:2606. 01682v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths.
arXiv:2607. 24562v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models serve heterogeneous populations structured by domain, topic difficulty, and linguistic style.
arXiv:2607. 05238v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: JEPA world models predict the next latent state with a single deterministic predictor trained by latent regression.
The paper evaluates a manager‑worker scaffold that uses a shared filesystem workspace to orchestrate multi‑agent large language model (LLM) coding tasks without training or tuning. Across nine models—including five open‑weight and four closed‑weight systems—the scaffold yields statistically significant accuracy gains for some models (e.g., Qwen3.8‑27B, GPT‑5.6‑Luna, GPT‑5.6‑Terra, Kimi‑K3, Minimax‑M3) while producing null or negative effects for others (e.g., Qwen3.6‑35B). The study shows that the manager can triple token usage but still achieves higher accuracy at a fraction of the cost compared to larger single‑pass models, with key mechanisms identified as context management and problem decomposition.
arXiv:2607. 18553v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Can a language model read the quality of ongoing computation, and can an external intervention turn that readout into better outcomes?
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:2606. 24281v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reasoning language models are increasingly asked not only to answer difficult questions, but also to estimate their likelihood of success.
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...