System One models Are Not Better Rerankers

Typed decision models answer schema-constrained questions about a text in one forward pass and return probabilities meant to be thresholded. We ask whether biomedical sentence encoders trained for retrieval are good starting points for such models. We present SBERT2S1, which converts Sentence-Transformers encoders into bi-encoder, cross-head (C) and prior-fused residual (PFR) decision models, together with BIODECIDE, a biomedical typed-decision suite, and MEDLINE-S1, 243k training decisions derived from NLM indexing. Across six parent-retriever pairs, retrieval training improves zero-shot matching of content-bearing options. After fine-tuning, its effect depends on the head: across five pairs and three training-set sizes, retrieval training significantly helps PFR, which keeps the retrieval prior, in 10 of 15 comparisons, but helps C in one and hurts it in five. A matched grid of two heads and five training objectives shows that C outperforms PFR under every objective, and that the released RLCD recipe of open System One models trails cross-entropy by 2.5-3.0 points. The deficit stems mainly from its reward normalisation, which inflates the noisy score-function term 3.6-15-fold; an unbiased leave-one-out estimator recovers most of the gap. After temperature scaling, no objective is clearly better calibrated than cross-entropy. We release the code, the MEDLINE-S1 labels and a model.

As retrieval systems scale, effective and efficient reranking becomes increasingly important. However, most existing encoder- and decoder-based rerankers jointly process every query--passage pair, tightly coupling their online computation and limiting deployment efficiency and flexibility. We present Lychee-Reranker, a fast but not late-interaction (FBNL) reranker that decouples query and passage computation while retaining expressive relevance modeling. Built on an encoder--decoder architecture, Lychee-Reranker pre-encodes passages using Matryoshka embedding pooling, while its decoder models system and user instructions together with query intent; cross-attention then captures fine-grained relevance between the resulting query context and passage representations. Together, these designs offer four key advantages: (i) efficiency from offline passage encoding, (ii) expressiveness from cross-attention, (iii) compactness from Matryoshka embedding pooling, and (iv) test-time compute through an adjustable compute budget. We instantiate Lychee-Reranker in three sizes, Nano, Small, and Large, with 0.27B, 1B, and 4B activated parameters, respectively. Extensive experiments on BEIR, MIRACL, and LMEB demonstrate strong reranking performance with superior efficiency. On BEIR and MIRACL, our models achieve competitive performance in multi-domain and multilingual reranking, on par with strong industrial rerankers such as the Qwen3/BGE-Reranker series. On LMEB-Dialogue, a compact embedding model paired with our Nano reranker, which has only 0.27B activated parameters, remains competitive with 7--12B embedding models. Lychee-Reranker was previously known as KaLM-Reranker-V1. Data and models are available at https://huggingface.co/collections/KaLM-Embedding/lychee-kalm-reranker-and-jev. The code is available at https://github.com/HITsz-TMG/Lychee-Reranker.

System One models answer typed questions in a single forward pass and promise the same answer for the same input. For choice questions, this promise fails: the answer depends on the order of the options, increasingly so as they grow in number, and averaging over their cyclic shifts reduces this dependence without removing it. Scoring each option alone, which the order cannot affect, shows that the order changes the answer mostly when the model is unsure among its top few options, even though the listwise answer looks confident. We therefore propose $\textbf{Runoff}$, which considers, then chooses: it scores each option alone to keep a few candidates, then compares them in listings where each candidate takes every position. It needs no training and can run in two forward passes, and its answer does not depend on the option order by construction. On two open models and five datasets, it changes no answer under shuffling, against 9.3% for cyclic averaging, and with 20 options it is about as accurate and three to four times faster. Wrapped around eight System One models, it removes the order dependence of the five benchmarks, while cyclic averaging changes up to 15.4%.