# Beyond Calibration: Do a Typed-Decision Model's Probabilities Obey the Probability Axioms?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.33209 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33209/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 42 of its 70 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 42)

- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.05426/) (2017)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06146/) (2019)
- [Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckList](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.04118/) (2020)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.03827/) (2022)
- [How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.00955/) (2020)
- [Measuring and Improving Consistency in Pretrained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.01017/) (2021)
- [Calibration of Pre-trained Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.07892/) (2020)
- [Surface Form Competition: Why the Highest Probability Answer Isn't Always Right](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08315/) (2021)
- [Negated and Misprimed Probes for Pretrained Language Models: Birds Can Talk, But Cannot Fly](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.03343/) (2019)
- [What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.03532/) (2020)
- [Self-contradictory Hallucinations of Large Language Models: Evaluation, Detection and Mitigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15852/) (2023)
- [Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08189/) (2023)
- [Understanding by Understanding Not: Modeling Negation in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.03519/) (2021)
- ["My Answer is C": First-Token Probabilities Do Not Match Text Answers in Instruction-Tuned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14499/) (2024)
- [BeliefBank: Adding Memory to a Pre-Trained Language Model for a Systematic Notion of Belief](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.14723/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Superhuman Models with Consistency Checks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.09983/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking and Improving Generator-Validator Consistency of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01846/) (2023)
- [Enhancing Self-Consistency and Performance of Pre-Trained Language Models through Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.11875/) (2022)
- [Consistency Analysis of ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.06273/) (2023)
- [Incoherent Probability Judgments in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.16646/) (2024)
- [Logically Consistent Language Models via Neuro-Symbolic Integration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.13724/) (2024)
- [JEV-as-a-Judge: Accept When Confident, Escalate When Unsure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.26550/) (2026)
- [Consistency Checks for Language Model Forecasters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.18544/) (2024)
- [Type-Safe Is Not Error-Free: Typed Decision Models Follow the Option Name, Not the Definition Bound to It](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.26758/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [AnyJev Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.00831/) (2026)
- [Labels Override Definitions in Jev-Style Typed Decision Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.02586/) (2026)
- [SanSi: A Looped Typed Decision Model for System 1.5 Thinking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.07730/) (2026)
- [Correct Choices, Failed Sequences: Choice2Seq Benchmarks Correctness Retention Across Output Interfaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.16191/) (2026)
- [StartLux-Decision: AutoThink Decision Models with Reinforcement Learning for Calibrated Deliberative Decisions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17309/) (2026)
- [Calibration and Risk-Budgeted Decisions with System One Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19811/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Typed-decision models such as TypeSafe's Jev answer a declared yes/no or multiple-choice question about a state with a probability instead of text, and their evaluations report accuracy and calibration. Neither requires that the probabilities a model gives to logically related questions fit together item by item, which is what a system that acts on those probabilities needs. We test this property, coherence, with a battery of logically linked questions that needs no labels. For 160 items from ChaosNLI and PubMedQA, each with three mutually exclusive labels, we ask whether the label is X, whether it is not X, whether it is one of the other two labels, and which label applies. On 480 negation pairs, Jev's probabilities for "the label is X" and "the label is not X" miss summing to one by 0.064 on average (95% CI 0.055 to 0.072). Qwen3.8-27B, run from its official BF16 weights, misses by 0.293 with first-token probabilities and by 0.122 with verbalized probabilities. The gap to the first-token readout persists on pairs where both systems give similar probabilities, without double-negation labels, and after averaging Jev's repeated calls. Jev is not coherent either: its violations are about five times its repeat noise, and it over-endorses statements about single labels, so that its three single-label probabilities sum to 1.14 on average. The two systems also fail differently. Qwen3.8-27B's first-token readout under-endorses the complement of a label whether or not the question contains "not", rejecting both a statement and its negation in 196 of 480 pairs, and it does not become more coherent where it is more confident, whereas Jev's violations concentrate where its answer is uncertain. Because the checks need no labels, they expose biases that appear only when question forms are compared, and inconsistencies within items.