arXiv preprint ·
To Jev or Not to Jev: When Can System-1 Decision Models Replace LLM Judges?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Decision models such as TypeSafe's Jev answer typed questions about a text (yes/no, multiple choice, or an ordinal score) with calibrated probabilities in a single forward pass and without generating text, which makes them an inexpensive candidate for LLM-as-a-judge workloads. We evaluate 14 System-1 decision models, selected with a pre-stated protocol, against four generative judges (Claude Haiku 5.5, GPT-5.6 with and without reasoning, and Claude Opus 5.5 with thinking) on eleven established judge benchmarks. Five of the 14 are statistically indistinguishable from GPT-5.6 without reasoning on all five pairwise and best-of-4 benchmarks, and the two strongest, DReX-Max and d1-ultra, are significantly more accurate than Haiku on JudgeBench, LLMBar and RewardBench 2. Conditioned on a reference answer generated once per prompt, eleven models reach 90.3-93.4% on JudgeBench, statistically indistinguishable from Opus 5.5 and GPT-5.6 with reasoning, and on PPE best-of-16 every reference-guided System-1 judge matches GPT-5.6 with reasoning at roughly one-sixteenth of its cost per prompt. Several System-1 judges are better calibrated than every generative judge and correlate more strongly with human helpfulness ratings. Robustness to instructions injected into the judged response is a property of the individual model rather than of the System-1 design: an appended note to the evaluator reverses 0-5% of the correct verdicts of five models but 17-49% for the other nine. Two general System-1 leaderboards that contain no judging tasks predict judging accuracy (Pearson r = 0.95-0.96), a well-calibrated System-1 first stage matches Opus on LLMBar while escalating 17% of items, and same-size controls show that the correctness deficit of a 4B decision model is a reasoning gap rather than a size gap.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Few Trials, Many Metrics: Beta Mixtures for Low-Budget AI Evaluation
A Self-Exploring and Self-Evolving Paradigm for Adaptive Edge AI Development
Threat Modeling Intimate Partner Abuse in Agentic Systems
Toward Executable Multi-framework Front-end Code Generation with Self-Correction
Spotting the Artificial: Dialogic Humor Improvisation in Humans and LLMs
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.