Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This comparative study evaluates the reliability of System-One decision models, specifically Jev, against LLMs across 15 medical datasets, highlighting a distinct capability boundary where Jev excels in text-driven tasks but struggles with numerical data. The research identifies critical limitations in current models regarding abstention awareness and demonstrates that normalizing option-wise binary scores improves probability-based answer selection accuracy. These findings offer essential technical guidance for deploying rapid decision systems safely within high-stakes medical environments.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

How Reliable Are System-One Decisions in Medicine? A Comparative Study of Jev, Jev-like Models, and LLMs

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.18529v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Jev has attracted considerable attention for its rapid, generalizable decision-making, yet its medical reliability remains under explored. To address this gap, our study compares various types of system-one decision models across 15 medical datasets comprising 8,742 instances under a unified protocol. Beyond accuracy, we assess decision stability and the ability to recognize unreliable decisions. Our results show that Jev rivals leading models on primarily text-driven tasks but is less effective on numerically driven tasks, revealing a distinct capability boundary. Under question-format variations, Jev demonstrates strong robustness, achieving the lowest decision reversal rate and relatively small accuracy fluctuations. Among evaluated open-source alternatives, only StartLux exhibits comparable robustness. But these strengths do not extend to reliable abstention awareness: most evaluated models show limitations in both recognizing missing correct answers and using optional abstention. Moreover, we find that Jev's probability-based answer selection can be improved by changing how decisions are scored: normalizing option-wise binary scores yields higher retained accuracy than choice scoring. Taken together, our findings provide early guidance for improving and applying decision models in medicine.

Title:How Reliable Are System-One Decisions in Medicine? A Comparative Study of Jev, Jev-like Models, and LLMs

Abstract:Jev has attracted considerable attention for its rapid, generalizable decision-making, yet its medical reliability remains under explored. To address this gap, our study compares various types of system-one decision models across 15 medical datasets comprising 8,742 instances under a unified protocol. Beyond accuracy, we assess decision stability and the ability to recognize unreliable decisions. Our results show that Jev rivals leading models on primarily text-driven tasks but is less effective on numerically driven tasks, revealing a distinct capability boundary. Under question-format variations, Jev demonstrates strong robustness, achieving the lowest decision reversal rate and relatively small accuracy fluctuations. Among evaluated open-source alternatives, only StartLux exhibits comparable robustness. But these strengths do not extend to reliable abstention awareness: most evaluated models show limitations in both recognizing missing correct answers and using optional abstention. Moreover, we find that Jev's probability-based answer selection can be improved by changing how decisions are scored: normalizing option-wise binary scores yields higher retained accuracy than choice scoring. Taken together, our findings provide early guidance for improving and applying decision models in medicine.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.18529 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.18529v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.18529 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.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 285 words

Related coverage