Benchmarking Candidate Coverage in Typed Decision Models

arXiv:2610.03387v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Typed decision models return choices or distributions over answer options supplied at request time. Accuracy with complete options does not establish whether a model recognizes that a reference answer is missing or avoids rejecting valid candidates. We present a paired candidate-coverage benchmark protocol and an initial evaluation of Laya and Jev across AG News, DBpedia, Emotion, and TREC. The models receive identical frozen texts and requests: 300 calibration and 589 test texts yield 23,932 predictions per model. Present/absent pairs match ordinary candidate count, and name variants preserve descriptions, members, and order. Native rejection behavior differs sharply: at five TREC candidates with natural names, Laya detects 97.2% of missing-answer cases but falsely rejects 69.7% of present controls; Jev's rates are 24.8% and 0.0%. Calibration-only none-score thresholds change these rates to 33.9%/3.7% and 45.0%/1.8%, respectively. On DBpedia, Jev's high coverage-score AUROC supports a stronger operating point, whereas both models have weak complete-set accuracy on Emotion. Competence-conditioned analysis, probability-precision sensitivity, and interface audits show why classification, score ranking, and rejection policies need separate measurement. This initial benchmark is descriptive and limited to reference-label omission; it does not establish natural out-of-scope generalization, causal mechanisms, or a new rejection method.

Abstract:Typed decision models return choices or distributions over answer options supplied at request time. Accuracy with complete options does not establish whether a model recognizes that a reference answer is missing or avoids rejecting valid candidates. We present a paired candidate-coverage benchmark protocol and an initial evaluation of Laya and Jev across AG News, DBpedia, Emotion, and TREC. The models receive identical frozen texts and requests: 300 calibration and 589 test texts yield 23,932 predictions per model. Present/absent pairs match ordinary candidate count, and name variants preserve descriptions, members, and order. Native rejection behavior differs sharply: at five TREC candidates with natural names, Laya detects 97.2% of missing-answer cases but falsely rejects 69.7% of present controls; Jev's rates are 24.8% and 0.0%. Calibration-only none-score thresholds change these rates to 33.9%/3.7% and 45.0%/1.8%, respectively. On DBpedia, Jev's high coverage-score AUROC supports a stronger operating point, whereas both models have weak complete-set accuracy on Emotion. Competence-conditioned analysis, probability-precision sensitivity, and interface audits show why classification, score ranking, and rejection policies need separate measurement. This initial benchmark is descriptive and limited to reference-label omission; it does not establish natural out-of-scope generalization, causal mechanisms, or a new rejection method.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.03387 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.03387v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.03387 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Benchmarking Candidate Coverage in Typed Decision Models

Related coverage