๊ฐ€์ž… ํ›„ ์ดˆ๋Œ€ ๋งํฌ๋ฅผ ๊ณต์œ ํ•˜๋ฉด ๋™์˜์ƒ ์žฌ์ƒ ๋ฐ ์ดˆ๋Œ€ ๋ณด์ƒ์„ ๋ฐ›์„ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

cv usk
@cv_usk
AI / Software Research Notes AI Agent, LLMOps, MLOps, Software Architecture ๆŠ•็จฟใฏๅ€‹ไบบใฎๆ„่ฆ‹ใงใ™ใ€‚
๊ฐ€์ž… May 2026
286 ํŒ”๋กœ์ž‰ ์ค‘    469 ํŒฌ
When an LLM picks from fixed options, wouldn't it be handy to adjust after the fact whether it thinks first? ๐Ÿค” ThinkJev: One Thought, Every Budget for Calibrated Typed Decisions โ“ What is a typed decision? ๐Ÿ’ก A choice among a fixed set of options that code then acts on, such as routing a ticket or checking a rule. Reading option probabilities in one forward pass is fast, but it fails on multi-step decisions like date arithmetic. โ“ How does it solve this? ๐Ÿ’ก With no training, one Qwen3 model plays two roles: System 1 answers without thinking, System 2 answers after thinking, both on the same cached prompt. Cutting one thought short and closing it also gives an accuracy curve for every budget. โ“ How well does it work? ๐Ÿ’ก On Qwen3.5-27B, direct answers score 62.2% and always thinking scores 82.7%. The anytime policy reaches 81.6% using 72% of the thought tokens. At a 5% target, System 1 answers 24.5% of decisions with a realized error of 3.9%. โ“ Any caveats? ๐Ÿ’ก The pre-registered savings criterion failed on every model. System 1 confidence is a weak signal for when to think, and calibration must be refit when the thinking budget changes. #LLMReasoning# #Calibration#
๋” ๋ณด๊ธฐ