HakemBench: A Turkish Benchmark of Typed Decisions

ufakzeka-karar is an open Turkish decision model with 182,494,466 parameters. Given a Turkish text and questions of a fixed answer type (a choice, a level on an ordered scale, or yes or no), it returns a temperature-scaled probability for every option and an expected error that serves as a "not sure" signal, without generating text and in one CPU forward pass for up to ten options. Built on the lab's ufakzeka-1-base, its head scores each option blind to the others at shared positions, so the answer does not depend on option order. A sequential head trained with shuffled options was about as accurate but changed 2.3 to 2.8 percent of its answers when only the option order changed; REINFORCE lost 10.2 points (0.102) of macro F1 to cross-entropy. On the open set of HakemBench v1.0 (4,275 questions, 7 tracks) the released model ranks 7th of 16 rows with a composite of 0.660 (95% interval 0.642 to 0.677). Temperature scaling lowers calibration error (smooth ECE) on the development set but raises it on held-out support questions, from 0.027 to 0.045 for the first scored run, which never trained on them; the released model later trained on them, so its 0.036 to 0.064 is not an unseen-question test. The released model is the last of three runs scored on HakemBench, and its numbers are not blind. The second run's new training data was aimed at the first run's errors on the full test set in guardrails, moderation and customer support, and the released run was trained after the second run's guardrail results on the full test set were read, under a protocol fixed in writing before any of its data, code or runs. All its numbers come after these readings; its guardrail, moderation and customer support numbers carry the flag "shaped by reading the test results". With every model scored on the other four tracks only, its composite is 0.678, 6th of 16. Weights and code are under Apache-2.0.

Typed decision models (TDMs) return a probability for each allowed answer instead of generating text, which makes them candidates for cheaply replacing LLM judges that compare two answers. Whether they share the biases of LLM judges is untested. We run the CALM benchmark's bias tests on eight TDMs and seven LLM judges of 2024 and 2026. Every TDM is biased, in three to eight of twelve tests. Emotional tone affects them most, and rewriting the better answer in such a tone lowers the accuracy of a typical TDM from 99% to 42%. TDMs are more biased than 2026 LLM judges. All eight change verdicts when the answers swap places, which the 2026 LLM judges hardly do, and several side with an answer that most people allegedly prefer or that a famous model allegedly wrote. Yet both kinds of judge are tripped up by the same prompts. The TDMs' probabilities show that most tests mainly flip verdicts the TDM was unsure of, and that good calibration does not protect against bias. As TDMs are more consistent and 37 times cheaper than 2026 LLM judges, our results suggest they can be attractive judges if their biases are tested for the task.

System One models output calibrated probabilities over typed answers such as categorical choices, ordinal levels, or binary outcomes, via a non-generative interface. Software can act on these probabilities through thresholds, cost-weighted choices, and escalation rules. Consequently, if these probabilities are miscalibrated or wording-sensitive, the software ma take unintended actions leaving human operators with no textual rationale to inspect. Current evaluations largely report accuracy and calibration on public classification datasets without a clear reference. We present TypedBench, a benchmark for typed decision models like Jev built from seven policy-labelled generators and nine evaluation suites. We report accuracy as median and range across paraphrases, and calibration error relative to the finite-sample noise floor of a matched, perfectly calibrated predictor. We assess probability quality through selective prediction, ordinal proper scoring rules, and realised cost under asymmetric cost matrices. We evaluate a hosted model, an open encoder, and a family of open decoders spanning 0.8B-9B parameters on identical items. The hosted model follows the stated policy but is wording-sensitive and systematically underconfident; under asymmetric costs, using its probabilities can be worse than taking its top answer. Decoders route exactly and are slow as options or questions are added. The decoder is least accurate on policy questions and degrades with more options. Overall, typed decision models must be evaluated jointly on policy adherence, wording robustness, probability quality, and induced decision outcomes.