Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source3 min read

ThinkJev: One Thought, Every Budget for Calibrated Typed Decisions

Summary

ThinkJev introduces a training-free framework that builds fast and slow systems from a single hybrid-thinking model to calibrate typed decisions. A statistical test on labeled dev data ensures System 1 only answers alone when its accepted answers stay under a target error rate; remaining decisions escalate to thinking with early stopping, achieving near always-think accuracy at 72% of the thought tokens.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Xiaolu Ding, Kai Yang, Dongdong Liu
ThinkJev: One Thought, Every Budget for Calibrated Typed Decisions
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 27 Oct 2026]

Title:ThinkJev: One Thought, Every Budget for Calibrated Typed Decisions

View a PDF of the paper titled ThinkJev: One Thought, Every Budget for Calibrated Typed Decisions, by Xiaolu Ding and 2 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Many uses of language models end in a typed decision: a choice among a closed set of options, whose probabilities code can act on. Reading those probabilities from one forward pass is fast but often wrong on decisions that take several steps, such as arithmetic, counting, and date comparison. Letting the model think first fixes most of these errors, but costs seconds per decision instead of milliseconds. To pay for thinking only where it helps, ThinkJev builds a fast and a slow system from one open hybrid-thinking model that can answer directly or after a thought. System 1 reads the model's probabilities for the option letters when it answers directly; System 2 reads the same letters after the model has thought on the same cached prompt, so escalating repeats no work and both systems give probabilities over the same options. Because the letters can be read after any number of thought tokens, one sampled thought also gives the answer under every thinking budget. Without training, ThinkJev lets System 1 answer alone only where a statistical test on labeled dev data guarantees that its accepted answers stay under a target error rate. At a 5% target, Qwen3.5-27B answers 24.5% of 8359 test decisions this way with a realized error of 3.9% (Qwen3.5-4B and 9B: 6.5% and 0.0%). For the rest, stopping each thought as soon as its answer is confident reaches 81.6% accuracy, against 82.7% for always thinking, with 72% of the thought tokens. Choosing when to think from System 1's confidence alone saves less, because the decisions System 1 is least sure of are often not the ones thinking fixes. On the public items of JevBench, an independent benchmark of typed-decision services, Qwen3.5-27B thinks on 29.4% and is not distinguishable in accuracy from the two thinking APIs listed (exploratory). Code and data generators are available at this https URL.

Comments: 31 pages, 7 figures, 10 tables

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.37732 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.37732v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.37732

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Xiaolu Ding [view email] [v1] Tue, 27 Oct 2026 12:53:04 UTC (612 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled ThinkJev: One Thought, Every Budget for Calibrated Typed Decisions, by Xiaolu Ding and 2 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs cs.CL cs.LG

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

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.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • ThinkJev derives System 1 (direct answer) and System 2 (post-thought answer) from one open hybrid-thinking model, sharing cached prompts so escalation repeats no work.
  • At a 5% target error rate, Qwen3.5-27B lets System 1 answer 24.5% of 8359 test decisions alone with a realized error of 3.9%.
  • For the rest, confidence-based early stopping during thought reaches 81.6% accuracy versus 82.7% for always thinking, using 72% of thought tokens.
  • Choosing when to think from System 1's confidence alone saves less because the decisions System 1 is least sure of are often not the ones thinking fixes.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.