LLM Decision-Making

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.

Dual-process agents pair a fast policy with a slow deliberative model. In real-time settings the slow model usually runs continuously; in turn-based agents and robot planners it is invoked on events such as uncertainty or a detected failure. We study a fast learned actor that takes every decision and hands control to a reasoning vision-language model only when a gate opens, while the game keeps running. We use closed-loop Doom and the new open "System One" typed-decision models, served through a common llama.cpp interface. On 900 held-out questions, (i) zero-shot decision models from 0.15B to 9B parameters choose to collect items 1.6-1.8 times more often than chance among their errors, in any option order, although the order changes some models' accuracy; (ii) accuracy, calibration and sensitivity (how well confidence separates right from wrong answers) are distinct: models of similar accuracy differ widely in AUROC, and the confidence of the most sensitive one tracks which kinds of situation it fails, not which answers are wrong; (iii) offline, deferring the least confident 30% of decisions to a reasoning model gains over random deferral in proportion to the actor's AUROC (rank correlation 0.87); with actor and rate chosen on held-out games the gain is +0.13 [0.08, 0.18] with doomLaya's option order and +0.08 [0.02, 0.14] with shuffled options, and reasoning carries about half of it; (iv) in closed loop (33 games, three seeds) no variant reaches the exit. Committing to plans, the reasoner's or a fixed explore rule's, opens more doors and makes an actor that stands still play; with the rule the agent dies more often. Told that some doors need keys, the reasoner takes ordinary doors for locked ones, which the state cannot tell apart; without that knowledge it goes back to collecting. We release code, prompts, data and logs.

Recent advances in reasoning-oriented large language models (LLMs) have motivated increasing evaluation of their ability to perform professional decision tasks. Insurance claim adjudication is one such task, requiring models to connect case evidence, insurance rules, intermediate judgments, and payout calculations across a structured decision process. We introduce InsClaimBench, an end-to-end benchmark for evaluating insurance claim adjudication across the decision chain. Grounded in real claim materials and structured insurance rules, InsClaimBench contains 3,780 cases in 375 case families across auto, property, and health insurance, comprising 86,656 atomic rule judgments. It evaluates each claim from atomic rules through adjudication modules to payout decisions and amounts, with controlled factual variants testing whether required changes are correctly propagated across levels. Evaluation of six LLMs reveals a progressive loss of reliability along the decision chain. Payout-decision accuracy ranges from 74.23--80.19%, while joint decision--amount accuracy drops to 47.54--73.15%. Strong local performance also fails to ensure case-level correctness: atomic-rule accuracy reaches 95.48%, whereas rule-vector exact match peaks at only 36.90%, and the most frequent module errors are not necessarily those most associated with final-decision failure. Under factual changes, these inconsistencies further become propagation failures: module updates are less reliable than rule updates, correct local judgments can still yield incorrect payouts, and correct payouts can conceal intermediate errors. These results show that reliable claim adjudication requires consistent composition and propagation across the decision chain.

Tool calling, invoking external tools on demand, is central to agentic LLMs, yet the mechanism that decides whether a model calls a tool or responds directly remains poorly understood. Agentic prompts are long and heavily scaffolded, combining role instructions, tool schemas, format templates, and the user's request across hundreds of tokens, creating a noisy, highly entangled context in which no single controllable variable for mechanistic analysis is obvious. To obtain such a variable, we propose a method that converts complex agentic prompts into minimal contrastive pairs in which a single request verb determines the tool-call decision: replacing an execution-verb (e.g., \textit{write}) with an analysis-verb (e.g., \textit{discuss}) reliably flips the decision, suggesting it is mediated by a compact internal state. We construct 500 such paired prompts across Python, Java, and C++ (300 for mechanistic analysis, 200 held out for evaluation). We trace the decision to a vector, $μ_Δ$, that is both causally necessary and sufficient and generalizes beyond the discovery prompts to native multi-turn $τ^2$-Bench trajectories and verb-free requests. Behavioral ablations show that the scaffold establishes a tool-call prior; Transcoder decomposition then reveals that analysis verbs suppress this prior through features signaling that tool use is unnecessary, whereas execution verbs largely leave it intact. Downstream scaffold-reading attention heads and MLP features read out the resulting state, and the same mechanism recurs across seven models from the Qwen, Mistral, and Granite families. Our code is available at https://github.com/XijieGo/MI4ToolCalling.

Reliable decision-making requires more than accurate prediction: a model must preserve its beliefs, apply the relevant utilities, and recognize when the information needed to justify an action is missing. We study whether language models can learn this decision procedure from supervised fine-tuning and generalize it across domains and differing natural-language expressions of the decision challenge. Across 20 datasets, we explore challenges of belief instability and decision-making errors by first eliciting probabilities of outcomes and then varying only the utilities and the framing of the decision problems, while holding the evidence fixed. We train models to preserve elicited beliefs while selecting the action that maximizes expected utility, and evaluate transfer to unseen application domains, held-out framings, and different classes of payoff structures. We further introduce incomplete-information settings in which required utilities are withheld and replaced with irrelevant text, testing whether models can distinguish missing decision-relevant information from merely additional context. We find that targeted fine-tuning substantially improves coherent decision-making and that in many situations, learning transfers across domains and framings to situations unobserved during training. Further, models trained for decidability learn to identify when action cannot be justified based on missing information. Finally, we show the value of a routed system that considers separately the recognition of decision completeness and utility-sensitive decision execution.

Cooperation with unfamiliar partners requires adapting to communication conventions that are not known in advance. We study this problem in a controlled Hanabi-derived environment with scripted hint generation, LLM-controlled receiving decisions, and frozen model weights. Across eight LLMs, linear probes recover intent conventions substantially more accurately than target conventions, yet receiving choices do not consistently agree with the sender's convention. We compare probe-predicted and ground-truth conventions presented either as general rules or as externally computed action recommendations. Rule statements yield modest and model-dependent changes in cooperation, whereas action translation produces larger gains on average. In a Qwen3-8B case study, matched-state statement reversals reveal much greater sensitivity to action recommendations than to rule statements. Activation transfers from oracle-action and non-oracle hint-restatement donors improve intent accuracy on both action classes, but the tested alternatives do not reliably reproduce these benefits. Together, these results distinguish convention decodability, sensitivity to convention information, and cooperative performance, and highlight limitations in turning available partner information into receiving decisions.

As LLMs increasingly assist in moral reasoning, omission bias, the tendency to prefer inaction even when equivalent framings reverse substantive outcomes, poses a significant risk of skewed decision-making. Yet omission bias remains underexplored in LLM evaluation, with the few existing studies limited in scale and focused largely on utilitarian-deontological conflicts. To address this gap, we introduce OMIT, a benchmark consisting of 218 paired-frame scenarios across 10 conflict types, constructed by leveraging disagreement patterns from an LLM-based, five-perspective philosophical persona panel (utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, care ethics, and contractualism). Evaluating eight LLMs, we find that omission bias is pervasive but inversely correlates with model size within families. We further evaluate four inference-time interventions and find that interventions encouraging models to consider moral principles before committing to a yes/no answer reduce omission bias and increase frame-consistent responses, although lower omission bias rates can also coincide with shifts toward action-biased responses. Ultimately, this work contributes not only the OMIT benchmark, but also a methodology for using diverse philosophical disagreement signals to evaluate framing-sensitive inaction preferences and the distributional effects of mitigation attempts in LLMs under complex moral conflicts.

Typed decision models answer a declared question without generating text: a decision head returns a probability for each of the declared options in a single forward pass. A single pass is fast, intuitive System 1 thinking. We study what lies between one pass and generated reasoning: looping, in which the same layers are recursively applied several times before one typed readout. Each loop lets the model revise its hidden state before it commits to an answer, without generating a token; we call this System 1.5 thinking. We propose SanSi, which turns a pre-trained looped language model into a typed decision model. The option probabilities are read after every loop, and every loop is trained with a proper scoring rule, so that one model serves every budget from one loop to eight in a single run. On 10,027 test decisions from 59 sources, SanSi reaches 72.0% accuracy: 13.5 points above a non-looped model of the same shape trained with the same recipe, 5.3 points above a newer non-looped model of its size, and 1.8 points below one with three times the parameters. On two depth-controlled tasks, loops extend the solvable depth beyond the depths seen in training, where the larger single-pass model fails. Used as the judge for policy optimization with reinforcement learning, without gold answers, SanSi raises the generator's F1 by 7.7 points.

Information elicitation is an open-ended information-seeking problem in which an interaction can unfold in many potentially valuable directions, requiring an elicitor to continually determine which information to pursue as new information emerges. In agentic elicitation, these decisions may be delegated to a foundation model, yet how model choice shapes the resulting information-seeking behavior remains understudied. We study how judgments about information value vary across LLMs and how these differences shape sequential information seeking. We first examine these judgments across 11 LLMs spanning multiple model families and parameter scales, using a shared set of information and elicitation objectives. We then develop a controlled elicitation simulation in which different models encounter the same information space and use the same selection rule, isolating these judgments from question generation and respondent behavior. Using this setting, we characterize the breadth-depth behavior that emerges from model-specific information-seeking preferences over the course of elicitation. We further examine how interaction history changes the evaluation and subsequent selection of prospective information. We test the robustness and boundaries of these findings through sensitivity analyses and ablations over the opportunities available to the elicitor, the response labels used to operationalize information-seeking preferences, the presence of interaction history, and whether redundancy is explicitly relevant to the assessment. The project code, data, and trajectory files are available at https://github.com/infosenselab/open-elicitation.

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.

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.

Judgment models such as \jev{} return, in a single call and without reasoning text, a probability for each described option. This makes them attractive as an agent's action-selection layer, but it is unclear which decisions they can be trusted with. We test \jev{} on reflection tests, one-shot matrix games, the text game ALFWorld and robot control, and find a sharp boundary. \jev{} succeeds when the right option can be judged from what the input describes, which we call \emph{evaluation}. Specifically, it solves 99% of the counterintuitive Cognitive Reflection Test questions. However, it fails when the right option depends on \emph{simulation} (i.e., predicting something not in the input), such as the opponent's action or the subgoal that must come first. In games, \jev{} plays suboptimally as if its rational opponent acted at random, because the opponent's action is not given. In ALFWorld, \jev{} favors commands that mention an object or place named in the task description. For example, given the task ``put a clean knife in the drawer'', \jev{} carries an unwashed knife straight to the drawer instead of first washing it at the sink. Surprisingly, many of these failures are not due to a lack of knowledge. Asked separately what the opponent will do, \jev{} usually answers correctly, and it responds well given the opponent's action. It fails when one call must both perform the simulation and evaluate based on it. This suggests letting code make the prediction or simulation. When code supplies it, such as a lookahead in ALFWorld and physics simulation in robot control, \jev{} becomes an expert controller through its general evaluation ability.

Voting over multiple LLM responses is a common primitive in test-time scaling and ensemble inference. Collecting more responses can expand the candidate pool and increase the chance that a correct answer is discovered. Under a fixed call budget, a discovered answer still needs to accumulate enough support within the remaining calls to become the final plurality winner, creating a discovery-to-decision gap. In this work, we characterize this gap through the realized vote state and remaining call budget. We derive a sharp recoverability threshold and show that, as sampling proceeds, the observed candidate set can only expand while the set of reachable endpoint winners can only contract, inducing a candidate-level conversion window. Under a specified iid response law, the same state yields exact finite-horizon endpoint probabilities. We further show that merging wrong-answer identities preserves single-call correctness and cannot improve plurality accuracy, and that the effect of redistributing wrong-answer probability depends on the realized vote state. Singleton reachability yields a gold-free exact locking certificate. For a known answer universe, its first trigger is the earliest prefix at which all admissible continuations yield the same fixed-budget output. Empirically, most discovered-but-unselected correct answers lose reachability only after discovery. In a controlled Word16 study, input permutation improves raw-plurality accuracy by 21.1 points with essentially unchanged single-call correctness. Exact locking saves 28-30% of calls at a 16-call budget while preserving every fixed-budget output.

A typed decision is a choice among a fixed set of options, returned as a probability rather than as text. Systems that need typed decisions today use models trained for that purpose. This report describes AnyJev, which reads a typed decision from one prefill of a pretrained instruction-tuned language model. The readout restricts the next-token distribution at the answer position to the option tokens. It has two defects: the model assigns higher probability to some labels whatever the input, and to some positions in the option list. AnyJev corrects both with no gradient steps and no parameter changes: it divides out a label prior estimated from unlabelled inputs, and it averages log-probabilities over the K cyclic rotations of the option list. On two 20-option tasks the rotations lower the order-flip rate from 0.33 to 0.14 and from 0.33 to 0.18, and raise accuracy on 11 of 11 models on both. Reading every rotation requires K prefills. A stopping rule selected against the full-rotation decision on unlabelled states cuts that. Selecting the threshold on one unlabelled split and bounding its disagreement on a second, it reads 10.6 rotations of 18 at a verified 0.008 bound on two of four cells; selected and bounded on one split, as our serving run did, it reads 7.3 and serves 2.2 times as many decisions per second on vLLM. The code is open source.

Before a difficult decision, people often act simply to understand the situation better. We turn an object to see another side, place alternatives next to each other, or change one condition and observe what happens. These actions may not complete the task, but they improve the evidence needed for the next choice. LLM-based agents can search and explore, yet agent design gives less attention to an earlier question: is the available evidence ready for the decision? Sometimes necessary evidence is missing. In other cases, the evidence is present but its form hides what matters, or the comparison needed to judge it does not yet exist. Cognitive science calls actions that improve the basis for a later choice epistemic actions. We bring this idea to LLM-based agents and distinguish three modes: acquiring missing evidence, transforming available evidence, and probing a system to create a revealing response. We use the term epistemic scaffolding for the interfaces, tools, and environments that make these actions possible and auditable. This paper argues that agent design must address how decision-ready evidence is produced.

Typed decision models such as Jev offer an efficient alternative to generative LLMs in decision-making workflows by selecting directly from predefined options. When candidate sets contain no valid answer, TypeSafe recommends including an "other" or "none-of-the-above" option to enable rejection. In this report, however, we identify an arithmetic-dependent rejection bottleneck: Jev reliably selects correct numerical answers when available but frequently accepts incorrect alternatives when they are absent despite an explicit rejection option. On paired arithmetic problems, answer-present accuracy reaches 99%, while correct rejection falls to 7%. Moreover, this gap persists across numerical magnitudes, operation depths, contextual formulations, and rejection labels, and extends to scenarios such as time calculation and capacity rounding. Yet native Boolean verification achieves 99% exact-match accuracy on the same answer-absent arithmetic cases, showing that categorical rejection can fail even when the model successfully verifies candidate correctness. Finally, we show that a simple decision threshold selected on separate development problems raises arithmetic rejection accuracy from 7% to 79% while retaining 97% answer-present accuracy, substantially mitigating the failure without retraining or additional inference.

Language models increasingly make real-time decisions in applications that apply the latest answer until a newer one arrives. A late answer can prolong an outdated decision, such as a call recorder still running while a customer reads out card details, an error offline accuracy misses. We make three contributions. First, we release StreamDecisionBench (SDB), a dataset of eight streaming scenarios in four application families, with executable reference decisions derived from public rules. Second, we propose an evaluation protocol and a metric, in-force accuracy: the share of time the applied decision is correct across update intervals of 0.5-8 s. It reflects accuracy and latency jointly, attributing each error to judgment, latency or both. Third, we evaluate thirteen single-model settings, and this attribution separates speed-limited from judgment-limited models: slower, more accurate models lose 42-51% of the time to outdated answers, a fast model 34% to wrong ones. We therefore test hybrids in which a slow model corrects a fast one; with the right pairing and configuration, a hybrid outperforms every single model. However, even the best evaluated system keeps a correct decision in force only about two-thirds of the time, leaving a substantial gap for real-time use.

Software that hands branching decisions to a model needs a declared option and a probability it can threshold. Typed decision models, also called System One models, return such probabilities without generating text, while supervised classifiers and generative language models are the established alternatives. One harness sends eight decision-model checkpoints from six families, including the hosted model Jev, and four open generative models from three developers the same semantic requests, and scores trained and zero-shot classifiers on the same workflow, intent, emotion and social-science items. With task labels, a fine-tuned DeBERTa-v3-large has the highest observed accuracy on every labeled benchmark but one. Without labels, no decision model is significantly more accurate than Jev on workflows or intents, but Gemma-4-31B matches it on workflows and exceeds it on CLINC-150 at higher cost and latency. Stated probabilities of generative models become unreadable when replies miss the key format, whereas key likelihoods avoid this but can saturate. A guaranteed 5 percent risk leaves Jev 0.528 of the intent decisions, and an in-scope threshold still accepts 0.310 of out-of-scope requests. On typed-decisions, swapping yes and no flips 50.5 answers per hundred for Jev and at least 16.8 for every generative model tested, against at most 6.5 for four fine-tuned decision checkpoints. Exposure to a benchmark's training data explains the largest lead of an open checkpoint, which vanishes on rater-labeled emotions. An intent-trained first stage escalating to Gemma-4-31B reaches that model's accuracy at about Jev's price. The results yield condition-dependent design rules for automated decision gates.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as decision assistants who must reason probabilistically from available evidence under explicit decision costs. We propose a decision-theoretic framework that decomposes LLMs' decision loss into two components: forming accurate beliefs from provided evidence and translating those beliefs into actions that optimize a provided utility function. Using a synthetic benchmark with known ground truth, we apply the decomposition to characterize probabilistic reasoning in frontier and open-sourced models. We further evaluate whether RL interventions targeting beliefs, decisions, or both improve these components across three domains, whether improvements transfer across components and elicitation formats, and whether decision performance can improve without improvement in belief formation. We find that targeting one component of probabilistic reasoning redistributes decision loss, improving the target without necessarily transferring to others, and that jointly targeting belief formation and decision-making improves both but hinges on matched formats between training and evaluation.

Certo is a small non-generative decision model (Qwen3-4B): it scores candidate actions from their text and returns a probability, instead of generating an answer. The accurate design reads the state, the rules, and each candidate together (a joint scorer), so cost grows with the menu. Independent encoding lets each candidate be encoded once and reused across states (about 5x cheaper at 77 candidates), but separates state from candidate. We ask how much rule-sensitivity survives that move, and whether it can be trained back. Four experiments on Certo: (1) the tested conversion to cacheable scoring loses rule-sensitivity (recall@1 1.00 -> 0.24) while the joint scorer holds 1.00, and a shortlist+rerank rescue fails; (2) targeted counterfactual supervision restores strong performance on held-out synthetic rule tasks (paraphrase, counterfactual, composition; reproducible across seeds), though we do not isolate whether predictions depend on the supplied rule; (3) on real rules the added benefit is not established -- after fixing a truncation confound, the joint scorer wins significantly on the short tier (0.861 vs 0.500) and directionally on the hard tier (0.655 vs 0.483, n=29); (4) a matched cross-domain real-prose mixture did not help and reduced contract accuracy (-9.3, -16.2 points). A cacheable encoder can be made rule-sensitive on its training distribution, but transfer to unseen-source real rules is not established; the joint scorer keeps an edge at the cost of caching.

LLM agents are increasingly expected to support enterprise workflows, where tasks often involve missing information, uncertainty, feedback, and long-term trade-offs. However, existing enterprise and financial benchmarks mainly test static capabilities such as information extraction, numerical calculation, domain knowledge, and financial QA, leaving interactive and long-horizon decision-making underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce EnterpriseBench, a benchmark that evaluates LLM agents across this spectrum, from static question answering to dynamic decision-making. Specifically, EnterpriseBench reorganizes existing enterprise and financial QA datasets into a unified foundational suite annotated by capability and difficulty, and introduces three professional interactive settings: Consulting, based on management-consulting-style business cases for client problem diagnosis through multi-turn information seeking; the Beer Game, adapted from a classic supply-chain management simulation for inventory control under delayed feedback; and Enterprise Digital Twin, a project-based business simulator for workforce, risk, and project planning. Experiments with nine agent methods under four backbone models show that current agents have not yet achieved stable, comprehensive, and cross-task reliability in enterprise scenarios. These results show that EnterpriseBench provides a practical benchmark for evaluating LLM agents in realistic enterprise strategic reasoning and decision-making.

Users of language-based assistive agents often make ambiguous requests. In response, an assistant can either directly act on its interpretation of the request --- risking misalignment with the user --- or ask a clarifying question. Which option is the most safe and helpful? A common approach is to ask questions that minimize uncertainty about the user's intent until a threshold is reached. However, this neglects the impact of uncertainty reduction on downstream performance, the costs of asking versus acting immediately, and the possibility that users may provide corrections without being asked. To navigate these trade-offs, we introduce Rational Enquiry via Value-of-Information Reasoning (REVOIR). REVOIR makes clarification decisions via inference-time reasoning about the value-of-information of a question, which captures the expected improvement in task reward due to the answer received. In two assistive tasks --- ambiguous question answering (CondAmbigQA) and preference-aligned household task planning (ADAPT) --- we show that REVOIR achieves greater success with fewer questions than approaches based on prompting, chain-of-thought, fine-tuning, or information gain, improving preference satisfaction on ADAPT by 13-15% over a fine-tuned clarification policy while requiring no training and asking five times fewer questions. Furthermore, when the assistant can receive cheap user corrections after acting, REVOIR naturally infers that asking questions is not always efficient, demonstrating the adaptivity of our approach. In contrast, we find that vanilla reasoning agents fail to adaptively clarify user requests, and request fewer clarifications as reasoning effort increases.

System One models such as Jev offer an efficient alternative to generative language models for tasks that require decisions rather than open-ended responses. However, existing Jev models exhibit limited Chinese-language decision accuracy, restricting their utility in both general and specialized settings. In this paper, we introduce Chinese-Jev, a System One model that addresses this gap through a unified data processing and training pipeline. Our data processing protocol converts heterogeneous Chinese-language annotations into probability targets over candidate options, enabling a shared training formulation across domains and question formats. To enable efficient inference, Chinese-Jev adopts a lightweight encoder-only backbone for text encoding and learns to score candidate answers through decision-oriented training. To address the misalignment between the pre-training distribution and downstream Chinese-language scenarios, we first train the model on a general-purpose corpus of 10 million examples, then fine-tune it separately for the medical, legal, and financial domains. To evaluate decision accuracy and calibration in both general and domain-specific Chinese-language settings, we introduce Chinese-Jev Bench (CJ-Bench). After first-stage pre-training, Chinese-Jev exceeds the accuracy of the closed-source Jev model by 1.24% on general-domain tasks while achieving a 20.3x speedup. Subsequent domain-specific fine-tuning yields a 4.0% accuracy improvement over Jev in medicine and achieves 92% of Jev's average accuracy across specialized domains, with a 17x speedup and an average latency of only 15 ms per example. We further demonstrate on-device deployment of an INT8-quantized model on mobile devices, achieving an inference latency of approximately 1.0 second per decision. The project is available at https://gulucaptain.github.io/Chinese-Jev/.

Can interaction formats and textual scaffolds help large language model (LLM) agents make better decisions, and do better decisions come with better explanations? We study these questions in auctions and matching, multi-agent environments with explicit rules and known optimal strategies. These settings let us vary how a decision problem is presented while retaining a benchmark for evaluating behavior. Drawing on human-motivated theories of simplicity, we compare interfaces that elicit a complete bid or ranking with sequential interfaces that make safe choices easier to identify. We then hold the interaction format fixed and vary reasoning scaffolds and rule descriptions. Across four model families, the ascending auction interface substantially reduces bid deviations. The matching comparison also shows why sequential responses require different error accounting from complete rankings. Laying out payoff contingencies and explaining why truth-telling is safe also improve choices, whereas prompts to plan through matching rounds or form beliefs about opponents worsen play overall. In auctions, these behavioral gains are not accompanied by corresponding improvements in measured verbal indicators of strategic understanding in the agents' short stated plans. Other prompts change those indicators without improving bids. Our findings suggest that human-motivated theories of simplicity can inform the design of decision environments for artificial agents. They also show why scaffolds should be evaluated through realized choices as well as explanations: improvements in one need not appear in the other.

We study reasoning in Rule-Governed Decision Tasks (RGDTs), where models apply external rules to case facts and justify decisions, as required in policy, contract, and compliance settings. Beyond the deductive capability emphasized by standard mathematical and logical reasoning tasks, RGDTs require interpreting rules and their applicability, assessing conditions from evidence, combining judgments under rules and exceptions, and providing checkable justifications. These demands motivate a benchmark assessing both decisions and their stated grounds. We introduce RGDT-Bench, providing 202.1K condition-level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight supported task-probe combinations that vary access to supporting information. Label-blind extraction and deterministic checks produce labels for warrant completeness: source-referenced coverage and consistency of stated decision grounds. The benchmark attributes failures to four process layers: rule use, condition, evidence, and aggregation, and checks the final outcome. Among evaluable correct responses, warrant incompleteness averages 40.2% across six evaluated LLMs and supported task-probe combinations. Such warrant incompleteness poses potential safety risks and remains difficult to detect: the best of seventeen existing evaluators reaches only 57.69% (random: 50%) task-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). To address this difficulty, we train a simple reward model with warrant supervision. It achieves 69.24% task-averaged AUROC among correct answers, exceeding the matched outcome-supervised baseline by 10.37 pp (percentage points) and the best existing evaluator by 11.55 pp. Beyond completeness assessment, the model outperforms both outcome-supervised baselines across nearly all response-selection comparisons, supporting RGDT-Bench's warrant supervision for RGDT reasoning.

Personalized LLMs must decide, for each stored preference, whether the current context calls for applying or suppressing it, which we call its applicability. They frequently over-personalize, applying preferences the context rules out, yet existing benchmarks score only the final response and cannot tell where this failure arises. We decompose preference handling into three stages and measure each separately: (1) knowing whether a preference applies, (2) deciding on an explicit Apply/Suppress label, and (3) generating a response consistent with that label. Using linear probes, we first show that this applicability signal remains decodable from hidden states during generation. By making the decision explicit, we then find that in most settings wrong decisions faithfully followed outnumber correct decisions lost in generation. We thus locate the failure in the decision, which breaks once the model is also asked to answer. To determine whether this reflects lost sensitivity or a response bias, we propose ABIDE (Apply-Bias Investigation via Decision-score), which adapts signal detection theory to Apply-vs-Suppress decision scores read directly from logits. ABIDE reveals a generation-induced Apply bias: merely stating an answer-generation objective shifts the decision score toward Apply while sensitivity is largely preserved, and the shift persists under controls for prompt structure, cascades across preference slots, and prompt wording. Finally, we show that subtracting a single bias scalar, estimated on a held-out split, from the decision score at decoding time reduces leakage while largely preserving fulfillment.

Equivalent probability requests can lead to different decisions even when both reports are valid. We introduce probability contracts, a benchmark that connects exact finite-world posteriors, validated event alignment, interface coherence, and failure-aware decision evaluation. Across four model-interface configurations on 1,000 worlds, Kev has lower aggregate canonical posterior error than Jev but larger complement and coarsening residuals; accuracy ordering varies by stratum. Jev's Event and Choice interfaces change the binary action on 32.8% of valid pairs at defer cost 0.10. Post-hoc analyses show that disagreement certifies only 11-52% of mean binary pair error and does not consistently outperform confidence for selection. An action-region characterization and a standard scoring-rule identity explain averaging's expected Brier guarantee relative to random interface selection, but not a decision-loss guarantee at each cost. The loss contrast takes both signs on a 99-cost grid for every configuration; small penalties where both policies beat deferral have pointwise intervals containing zero. Secondary checks specified before collection include a separate 400-root cohort, where Event/Choice effects remain configuration-dependent. A joint surface-order and answer-ID intervention shifts posttrained probabilities. Both bounded reasoning arms yield no valid probability reports, leaving their probability accuracy undefined. Probability contracts make these distinctions measurable by evaluating event semantics, posterior error, coverage, and decision cost together.

An ordinary-looking background detail can turn a correct model decision into a confident mistake. We demonstrate this fragility in four decision systems, including Jev, across seven datasets covering knowledge, reasoning, and tool routing. Within 64 accepted target evaluations per decision, we uncover short context additions that redirect 61.4%-73.2% of each system's initially correct decisions toward a wrong option fixed in advance. The additions supply background or procedural information rather than explicit answer-selection instructions, leaving the original question and choices intact. We construct them through probability-guided context optimization, which uses shifts in the option distribution to refine surrounding text under naturalness and answer-preservation constraints. Redirection affects initially confident decisions, often produces high-confidence wrong choices, and transfers across models. In blinded human evaluation, 91.6% of 250 sampled successful contexts are judged natural, answer-preserving, and free of decisive answer-changing evidence by a majority of three independent annotators. These findings expose a weakness in current decision models: context that looks entirely compatible with an input can redirect the choices that agents, routers, and evaluators rely on.

Before a product or policy change ships, the question that matters is how people will react to it. Augur rehearses that reaction offline: it builds a typed knowledge graph from the change documents, populates a grounded persona market, simulates the interaction, and returns an auditable decision memo recommending one of five actions. We assemble Gold-50, fifty real product and policy episodes whose real-world outcome is known, adjudicated against the public record, and score the five-way release verdict against it. Our central finding is methodological and negative: most of the measured gap between frontier cloud models and open-weight models we fine-tune and serve offline is attributable to an under-specified evaluation, not a difference in capability. We show this three ways. First, the prompt envelope alone can dominate the score: holding weights, cases and scorer fixed, one system -- a LoRA-SFT adapter on Qwen3-32B -- swings from 0% to 73%. Second, in a matched 2x2 ablation, defining the decision taxonomy in the prompt -- with no model change -- lifts every frontier model by +24 to +34pp; under the under-specified prompt, Qwen3-32B LoRA-SFT served offline beats all three frontier models (paired McNemar, Holm-corrected), and once the prompt is fair no significant difference from any of them is detected. Third, agreement with the distillation teacher rises without accuracy following, and the full pipeline amplifies a systematic "over-doom" bias rather than improving the verdict. Separately, we validate the reaction layer on its own terms: blind judges across four model families find the synthetic reaction recovers 67-90% of the concerns the public actually raised, and a pre-registered ablation locates its value -- largest where the decision is hardest, redundant near ceiling. The pipeline that regenerates every number and figure here is available from the authors.

Large language models can interpret natural lan- guage, yet robust decisions remain challenging. Jev-like models expose structured choices, but these interfaces do not directly provide numeri- cal values at a requested precision. We propose NUMERICJEV, a training-free numerical decod- ing algorithm that enables numerical output from any LLM with a Jev-like structured-choice in- terface. Surprisingly, on our arithmetic bench- mark, it outperforms direct selection from a can- didate list containing the correct answer by 2.93 percentage points (Figure 1). Our motivation comes from the observation that numerical range selection is itself a decision problem that Jev- like LLMs can address. NUMERICJEV recur- sively refines a range through a multiway deci- sion tree while retaining the original question in context, without parameter updates or hidden- state access. On a 100-value grid, a ten-way tree requires only two decision rounds. Range- normalized MAE is 1.84% versus 5.18% for di- rect choice. A separate three-date historical- index study yields 4.58% mean relative recall er- ror and 0% readout error when the value is sup- plied. Code is available at https://github. com/Bring-AI/jev-numeric.