From Retrieval to Typed Decisions: Calibrated System One Models from Biomedical Sentence Encoders

System One models output constrained decisions and probability distributions rather than free-form text generation. While prevailing paradigms rely on structured schema objects to encode state, intent, and candidate choices, we revisit a fully natural language-based System One interface. In this framework, both the user request and each candidate option are expressed in natural language, supported by multimodal (image and video) auxiliary inputs. We introduce MetaEncoder, which fine-tunes a pre-trained Muse-Glimmer 30B decoder into an instruction-following decision-making encoder. To scale effectively across both small closed-set (< 256) and massive open-set (millions) candidate spaces, MetaEncoder employs a bi-encoder architecture trained via unidirectional contrastive learning for request-candidate alignment. We conduct extensive evaluations across 11 benchmark suites and 190 tasks spanning multimodal decision-making, understanding (closed-set) and retrieval (open-set), highlighting where MetaEncoder beats SOTA multimodal encoders, as well as its current limits on reasoning-intensive tasks.

System One models, or decision models, answer a question about an input with a calibrated probability instead of generated text. Within weeks of the first release, in September 2026, they were used as rerankers. We test whether the decision fine-tuning behind them makes a better reranker than plain reranker fine-tuning of the same model. For six Qwen backbones from 0.6B to 27B parameters and ten TREC DL and BEIR collections, we compare the untuned model, asked zero-shot, with its decision fine-tunes and its reranker fine-tunes, two of which we train ourselves. In our work, we draw the conclusion that decision fine-tuning never makes the better reranker. From 0.6B to 9B, reranker fine-tuning wins on every backbone by 5 to 29 points nDCG@10, also on zero-shot collections, and at 27B the two tie. Up to 9B, decision fine-tuning adds nothing over simply asking the untuned model. Moreover, we find that the calibration advantage of decision models depends on the question. Asked whether a passage answers the query, they are better calibrated than the published reranker fine-tunes from 4B on. Asked a slightly different question from prior work, they lose this advantage. Lastly, calibration does not make up for a worse ranking: up to 9B, a reranker fine-tune keeps the better passages at a fixed threshold. If you need a reranker, fine-tune a reranker.

Sentence-embedding models for semantic search are overwhelmingly developed and evaluated on English corpora. When applied to clinical retrieval in other languages -- particularly retrieval of ICD-10-CM / CIE-10 codes -- recall degrades in ways often masked by aggregate benchmarks. We study whether large generative language models can serve as data factories to close this gap. We build a two-stage retriever (bi-encoder followed by cross-encoder reranker), fine-tuned from a Spanish biomedical encoder (PlanTL-GOB-ES/bsc-bio-ehr-es) on Gemini-generated synthetic data covering English, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Portuguese and French, and evaluate against BioBERT-ST and the un-tuned Spanish encoder. The bi-encoder alone matches BioBERT-ST on MRR (0.876 vs. 0.866) and overtakes it on R@3 (0.650 vs. 0.626) and R@5 (0.804 vs. 0.790) without English biomedical pretraining. Adding a cross-encoder reranker lifts aggregate R@5 to 0.822 and dominates on four of five languages (+0.017 Spanish, +0.033 Catalan, +0.018 French, +0.037 Portuguese) at the cost of a small English regression. The trade-off is clinically acceptable: Portuguese reaches R@5 = 0.829 vs. BioBERT-ST's 0.714. Contributions: an open recipe for building domain-specific medical retrievers from LLM-generated data; quantification of the learning gain (MRR 0.755 to 0.876, +15.9% with ~19,500 synthetic pairs); and a characterisation of where gains concentrate by language and rank.