Can Jev be Your Q or Policy in Reinforcement Learning?

Decision models such as Jev answer questions with probabilities, which are only useful if they are calibrated. Open-source reproductions rely on supervised fine-tuning plus temperature scaling, while reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) makes reasoning models overconfident. We present a working implementation of reinforcement learning for calibrated decisions (RLCD) for reasoning models: the model samples a rationale, and we score the answer distribution it commits to afterwards with a strictly proper scoring rule. A variance identity shows that scoring the mixture of several samples rewards disagreeing rationales, and that RLVR is exactly this mixture objective without its diversity term. Optimized naively, the per-rationale objective either switches reasoning off or is drowned out by policy-gradient noise, which leads to a two-stage recipe: calibrate, then reinforce. With Qwen3-1.7B on two reasoning tasks (3 seeds, paired tests), RLCD matches or beats SFT, RFT/STaR and GRPO (each temperature-scaled) in accuracy and beats all of them in selective prediction; on GSM8K answer verification a single query decides \gvTwoCovFive% of the items at $\le$5% error, versus \gvGrpoCovFive% for GRPO. When uncertainty comes from annotator disagreement, RLCD provably cannot beat cross-entropy. Code and results: https://github.com/ZimmyGao/openjev-rlcd.

Jev-style decision models return categorical probability distributions over predefined options without generating free-form text, enabling software systems to act on their outputs directly. In this work, we investigate the extent to which general-purpose LLMs already possess this capability out of the box, and when fine-tuning is actually necessary. We present LLM-as-Jev, an architecture-preserving framework that extracts calibrated decisions directly from next-token probabilities over bracketed numeric identifiers. LLM-as-Jev provides both a training-free inference recipe and a fine-tuning objective that optimizes candidate selection via a tree-factorized listwise loss while anchoring auxiliary predictions to the base model using KL divergence penalties. Evaluating on Qwen3.5-4B and Qwen3-0.6B, we find that modern LLMs are inherently effective decision models: without training, the 4B model matches community Jev-style models built on the same backbone, outperforms letter-logit readouts, supports arbitrary option counts, and natively handles multimodal decisions over images. Fine-tuning provides targeted rather than universal benefits -- substantially improving weaker models and specific tasks (such as many-option intent routing), but offering diminishing returns for strong backbones. Crucially, our KL anchors prevent behavioral degradation in conversational text generation, with LoRA delivering the strongest performance on capable models.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves language-model reasoning, but how these gains relate to inference-time decoding and search remains unclear. Does RL create reasoning the base model lacks, or shift the rollout distribution toward trajectories it can already reach but rarely samples? We study this behaviorally with a Unified Decoding Framework (UDF), which expresses token-level sampling, beam-like search, tree search, and sequence-level resampling as executable policies over a shared budgeted operating space, scored post hoc with pass@$k$, self-consistency, best-of-$N$, and first-finish success. Using paired Base/RL checkpoints from SimpleRL-Zoo, we ask whether an RL default-policy curve can be approximated by a structured path of Base operating points. On Math500, AIME, GPQA, and IFEval, the pass@$k$ recovery path follows a Budgeted Operating-Point Transition Rule (BOPTR), $N_{\mathrm{Base}} \approx αN_{\mathrm{RL}}^β$, with benchmark-conditioned exponents. On Qwen2.5-7B, BOPTR gives the lowest transfer error among the non-oracle rules we test, 3.41 pp (95% CI [2.32, 5.53]); a three-seed replication gives 3.07 $\pm$ 0.39 pp. The rule extends to ten models across four families (3.28 to 4.87 pp on checkpoints added after fitting), to four benchmarks it was never fitted on (5.03 pp vs. 4.44 pp in fit), and holds without an RL checkpoint for the target model (4.19 pp) or without RL supervision of any kind (5.08 pp). These results support a qualified internalized-search reading: under the recipe we test, much of the measured RL gain corresponds to a change in sampling efficiency toward operating points the base model can already reach under search. We treat the scaling patterns as descriptive of this recipe and cohort, report where they break down, and use UDF and BOPTR as behavioral diagnostics rather than evidence of parameter-level equivalence.