决策模型

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy and calibration of Decision and System One models on rheumatology examination questions and diagnostic vignettes. Methods: Two benchmarks were analysed: 172 rheumatology questions from Spanish specialty-training examinations (expanded RheumaMIR dataset) in Spanish and English, and 70 English diagnostic vignettes from RheumBench with 5-18 candidate diagnoses, 52 of which included the reference diagnosis. Four System One models (Jev 1.13, Clef, Microsoft-Decision-1, Laya) and GPT-6 Luna (OpenAI Decisions API) were compared with GPT-6 Sol and two local generative models. The primary outcome was accuracy; secondary outcomes included calibration, discrimination, accuracy of answers with probability >=0.90 and language differences. Results: In RheumaMIR, Jev's accuracy was 93.0% in Spanish and 91.9% in English, below GPT-6 Sol (99.4%; Holm-adjusted P<=0.005); GPT-6 Luna reached 97.7%, Clef 91.9-93.0% and Microsoft-Decision-1 86.0-87.8%, without detectable language differences. Jev's answers with probability >=0.90 (76-77% of answers) were 98.5% correct. In RheumBench, accuracy was lower: GPT-6 Sol 76.9%, GPT-6 Luna 63.5%, Clef 59.6%, Jev 50.0% and Microsoft-Decision-1 40.4% (each System One model below GPT-6 Sol, Holm-adjusted P<=0.045; chance 9.6%). Jev became overconfident (mean probability 0.659; over/underconfidence index +0.159), and its answers with probability >=0.90 (25% of cases) were 84.6% correct, against 95.5% for GPT-6 Luna (42%). Laya performed near chance in both benchmarks. Conclusion: The best-performing System One models were highly accurate on examination questions but less accurate on diagnostic vignettes, remaining below GPT-6 Sol. Jev's high-confidence predictions were less reliable on vignettes, highlighting the need for task-specific evaluation and calibration.

Decision models are language models built to route, classify and triage: they return option probabilities from one forward pass, and an application acts on the top answer. They are offered off the shelf, trained for the decision format rather than for fairness or any one application, and we found no bias measurement in their cards. We test TypeSafe's closed Jev and five open decision models on gender-swapped yes/no decisions about people (Tamkin et al., 2023), BBQ, StereoSet and the gender-bias studies of Fulgu and Capraro (2024). Five of the six give women significantly more favourable answers than men (+0.05 to +0.10 in log-odds), and a gender swap changes 1-3.5% of top answers (Jev's partly through its call-to-call variation). The makers' recommended confidence gate removes many biased commitments but raises the stereotyped share of those it keeps in ambiguous BBQ gender questions (granite-switch 0.76 to 0.85, pplx 0.81 to 1.00). Probes show gender preferences in the same models: all six rate violence for a greater good as more acceptable against a man than against a woman, and two default to "girl" when forced to guess a child's gender without a cue. Decision-level and probability-level measures differ, so audits should read a model as its application does.

Predicting how many tokens a large language model (LLM) will decode, using only prefill-phase hidden states, is a key primitive for inference scheduling. We show that current benchmarks conflate predictor quality with task hardness: when the target model, dataset, or sampling configuration changes, reported accuracy collapses even though the predictor is unchanged. We trace this instability to an overlooked error source---the inherent stochasticity of autoregressive decoding---and derive bounds that every prefill-side method must obey. Our analysis treats decoding as a stopped stochastic process. The per-step stopping probability of a response is not constant but ramps up over hundreds of steps, so the decode length inherits a central limit theorem from the many local decisions that determine where a response ends; this yields per-prompt normality with an explicit error term, together with an affine variance law $σ=αμ+b$ whose slope is the coefficient of variation of the number of response segments. Empirically, the normal law reproduces the per-prompt MAE and the central mass of the decode-length distribution to within a few percent, and the residual departures from normality (mild right skew, slight excess kurtosis) are the ones predicted by the sampling-noise correction. Under fixed model, data, and sampling conditions, a broad design space of predictors (MLP, EGTP, FiLM, soft-label, and Mixture-of-Experts variants) converges to similar performance close to the bound, confirming that \emph{system error dominates model error}. We argue for a benchmarking protocol that fixes the model, data, and sampling parameters and that reports relative-error metrics alongside absolute ones. Code and analysis tools are available at https://github.com/ShwStone/DecodingPredict.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into agentic architectures has substantially increased token consumption, raising concerns about their energy footprint. Yet, estimating the energy consumption of proprietary API-based models remains challenging, and existing approaches focus primarily on generated output tokens while overlooking the impact of the large input contexts characteristic of agentic workflows. To address this gap, we systematically profile compute time and energy consumption across a wide range of prefill (input) and decode (output) token lengths. Using generalized linear models, we show that decode compute time and energy scale linearly with output length, whereas prefill compute time and energy exhibit both linear and quadratic scaling with input length. These findings demonstrate that input context becomes a relevant factor for large-context workloads. Furthermore, we show that compute time serves as a reliable proxy for energy consumption when direct energy measurements are unavailable. Our mapping framework enables precise energy estimation and supports more sustainable deployment decisions for agentic AI.