跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2609.24965 · v5

Jev for Scientific Decisions: Evaluating Semantic Choices and Their Consequences

首次提交 2026-09-22 01:51
版本更新 2026-11-02 13:57
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:42
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

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. Once the evidence is prepared and the calculation is written as code, this choice reduces to one semantic judgment among listed candidates. We evaluate Jev on this step, using a harness that follows its documented guidance. The study compares twelve model configurations on twenty Choices in ten scientific cases built from published sources, each repeated five times. We measure semantic selections, downstream outputs and final claim labels separately. Jev tied with five other configurations at complete semantic correctness and achieved the lowest observed median latency and known mean cost among successful responses. On one question, whether samples shared a culture, three comparison models made seven wrong selections that changed downstream counts while preserving the correct final label. These results support using Jev to select relations when the evidence and candidates are prepared in advance, and show that evaluating it requires checking the relations and quantities that a workflow will reuse.

作者备注:8 pages, 1 figure, 5 tables. Code available at https://github.com/bydeng01/scientific-decision-eval

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v5 · 2026-11-02 13:57 · 最新观测版本

Jev for Scientific Decisions: Evaluating Semantic Choices and Their Consequences

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. Once the evidence is prepared and the calculation is written as code, this choice reduces to one semantic judgment among listed candidates. We evaluate Jev on this step, using a harness that follows its documented guidance. The study compares twelve model configurations on twenty Choices in ten scientific cases built from published sources, each repeated five times. We measure semantic selections, downstream outputs and final claim labels separately. Jev tied with five other configurations at complete semantic correctness and achieved the lowest observed median latency and known mean cost among successful responses. On one question, whether samples shared a culture, three comparison models made seven wrong selections that changed downstream counts while preserving the correct final label. These results support using Jev to select relations when the evidence and candidates are prepared in advance, and show that evaluating it requires checking the relations and quantities that a workflow will reuse.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗