Jev for Scientific Decisions: Evaluating Semantic Choices and Their Consequences
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Scientific workflows often require choosing among known relations before a deterministic calculation can proceed. Whether observations share a culture, treatment or reference standard can change the scientific meaning of the resulting count or comparison. We evaluate Jev as a semantic decision component using a harness that follows its documented guidance and assigns arithmetic to code. The study compares twelve model configurations on twenty source-grounded Choices across ten scientific cases, each repeated five times. We measure semantic selections, downstream outputs and final claim labels separately. Jev matched five other configurations at complete semantic correctness and achieved the lowest observed median latency among successful responses. Across three comparison models, seven wrong selections on one culture-history question changed downstream counts while preserving the correct final label. These results identify a useful role for Jev in prepared scientific decision tasks and show why evaluating that role requires checking the relations and quantities that a workflow will reuse.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Sep 2026.
Builds on
3 of 38 references.
References · 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 10.
10 papers.
- 2026Calibrated Decision Models for Autonomous Penetration-Testing Harnesses: JEV and Laya as System One Decision Layers for LLM-Driven Pentest Agentscited by 2
- 2026From Text Decisions to Pixels: An Study of Jev-Style Visual Choice Modelcited by 1
- 2026Beyond Calibration: Do a Typed-Decision Model's Probabilities Obey the Probability Axioms?cited by 1
- 2026Typed Decision Models: An Early Evidence Audit and Evaluation Checklistcited by 0
- 2026Probability Contracts: Accuracy, Coherence, and Decisions Across LLM Interfacescited by 0
- 2026Benchmarking System One decision models against trained classifiers and language models for automated decision gatescited by 0
- 2026Beyond Answer Confidence: A Controlled Audit of Self-Knowledge in a Black-Box Decision Modelcited by 0
- 2026Can Jev be Your Q or Policy in Reinforcement Learning?cited by 0
- 2026Can Decision Models Understand Stance? Evaluating Jev Against General-Purpose LLMscited by 0
- 2026Specialized Decision Models vs. General-Purpose LLMs: Benchmarking Jev Across Knowledge, Reasoning, and Multilingual Taskscited by 0
- 2026Specialized Decision Models vs. General-Purpose LLMs: Benchmarking Jev Across Knowledge, Reasoning, and Multilingual Tasks8 Oct 2026
- 2026Can Decision Models Understand Stance? Evaluating Jev Against General-Purpose LLMs8 Oct 2026
- 2026Can Jev be Your Q or Policy in Reinforcement Learning?8 Oct 2026
- 2026Beyond Answer Confidence: A Controlled Audit of Self-Knowledge in a Black-Box Decision Model1 Oct 2026
- 2026Benchmarking System One decision models against trained classifiers and language models for automated decision gates29 Sep 2026
- 2026Probability Contracts: Accuracy, Coherence, and Decisions Across LLM Interfaces27 Sep 2026
- 2026Beyond Calibration: Do a Typed-Decision Model's Probabilities Obey the Probability Axioms?27 Sep 2026
- 2026Typed Decision Models: An Early Evidence Audit and Evaluation Checklist26 Sep 2026
- 2026From Text Decisions to Pixels: An Study of Jev-Style Visual Choice Model24 Sep 2026
- 2026Calibrated Decision Models for Autonomous Penetration-Testing Harnesses: JEV and Laya as System One Decision Layers for LLM-Driven Pentest Agents24 Sep 2026