# Benchmarking System One decision models against trained classifiers and language models for automated decision gates

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.00346 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.00346/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 60 of its 81 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 60)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- [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 Baseline for Detecting Misclassified and Out-of-Distribution Examples in Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02136/) (2016)
- [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)
- [Making Pre-trained Language Models Better Few-shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.15723/) (2020)
- [DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09543/) (2021)
- [SGLang: Efficient Execution of Structured Language Model Programs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.07104/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Exploiting Cloze Questions for Few Shot Text Classification and Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.07676/) (2020)
- [FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.05176/) (2023)
- [Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.08500/) (2017)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (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)
- [Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03882/) (2023)
- [Measuring Calibration in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01685/) (2019)
- [How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.00955/) (2020)
- [Efficient Intent Detection with Dual Sentence Encoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.04807/) (2020)
- [PICARD: Parsing Incrementally for Constrained Auto-Regressive Decoding from Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.05093/) (2021)
- [An Evaluation Dataset for Intent Classification and Out-of-Scope Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.02027/) (2019)
- [Calibration of Pre-trained Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.07892/) (2020)
- [Verified Uncertainty Calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.10155/) (2019)
- [Benchmarking Zero-shot Text Classification: Datasets, Evaluation and Entailment Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.00161/) (2019)
- [Conformal Risk Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.02814/) (2022)
- [Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.02703/) (2021)
- [Consistent Estimators for Learning to Defer to an Expert](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.01862/) (2020)
- [Learn then Test: Calibrating Predictive Algorithms to Achieve Risk Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.01052/) (2021)
- [Surface Form Competition: Why the Highest Probability Answer Isn't Always Right](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08315/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Cheap, Consistent, Calibrated, but Biased? Typed Decision Models as Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18122/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Software that hands branching decisions to a model needs a declared option and a probability it can threshold. Typed decision models, also called System One models, return such probabilities without generating text, while supervised classifiers and generative language models are the established alternatives. One harness sends eight decision-model checkpoints from six families, including the hosted model Jev, and four open generative models from three developers the same semantic requests, and scores trained and zero-shot classifiers on the same workflow, intent, emotion and social-science items. With task labels, a fine-tuned DeBERTa-v3-large has the highest observed accuracy on every labeled benchmark but one. Without labels, no decision model is significantly more accurate than Jev on workflows or intents, but Gemma-4-31B matches it on workflows and exceeds it on CLINC-150 at higher cost and latency. Stated probabilities of generative models become unreadable when replies miss the key format, whereas key likelihoods avoid this but can saturate. A guaranteed 5 percent risk leaves Jev 0.528 of the intent decisions, and an in-scope threshold still accepts 0.310 of out-of-scope requests. On typed-decisions, swapping yes and no flips 50.5 answers per hundred for Jev and at least 16.8 for every generative model tested, against at most 6.5 for four fine-tuned decision checkpoints. Exposure to a benchmark's training data explains the largest lead of an open checkpoint, which vanishes on rater-labeled emotions. An intent-trained first stage escalating to Gemma-4-31B reaches that model's accuracy at about Jev's price. The results yield condition-dependent design rules for automated decision gates.