TypedBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate system‑one decision models that output calibrated probabilities for typed answers—categorical, ordinal, or binary—using a non‑generative interface. The benchmark assesses models on policy adherence, wording robustness, probability quality (via selective prediction, ordinal proper scoring rules, and calibration error), and the cost of decisions under asymmetric cost matrices, using seven policy‑labelled generators and nine evaluation suites. Experiments on a hosted model, an open encoder, and a range of open decoders (0.8B–9B parameters) reveal that the hosted model is wording‑sensitive and underconfident, while decoders are slow and less accurate on policy questions, highlighting the need for joint evaluation across multiple dimensions.
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...
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.
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:2607. 20526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where fluent but incorrect answers can be costly.
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.
arXiv:2609.38612v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As natural language drives more applications, language models increasingly run inside programs as decision components: the program sends them the curre...
arXiv:2608.22483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains, but they often hallucinate and express confidence that is mis...
arXiv:2606. 07822v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As language models improve and become increasingly deployed to solve a variety of tasks, trustworthiness becomes essential.
arXiv:2609.24574v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Computational social science increasingly relies on large language models for text annotation, and the validity of published findings now rests on the...
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.
arXiv:2608.22559v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rubrics aim to make language-model evaluation transparent by decomposing response quality into interpretable criteria. However, natural-language rubric...
arXiv:2608. 05064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Small open-weight language models increasingly run in private, offline, and cost-sensitive settings, where the key deployment question is not only what a model answers but when it should defer to a human.