Self-Posed Reasoning Distillation (SPRD) adds tasks generated by a frozen teacher, filters them for answer consistency, and trains on label distributions obtained from repeated teacher reasoning, achieving a 182-fold speedup in latency over reasoning rollout on Gemma-4-31B.
Abstract
Large language models make decisions through parallel prefill and sequential decoding. Although effective, this approach incurs decoding costs and does not explicitly expose decision probabilities. Existing task-specific classifiers require per-task training and offer limited generalization to unseen decision schemas. We propose Large Decision Models (LDMs), repurposing language models to return explicit probabilities over labels specified at run time using one prefill forward pass. We first adapt models to this interface through Diverse Decision Supervision (DDS), covering varied domains, rules and labels. To further narrow the performance gap to a reasoning model, Self-Posed Reasoning Distillation (SPRD) adds tasks generated by a frozen teacher, filters them for answer consistency, and trains on label distributions obtained from repeated teacher reasoning. We evaluate on DecisionVista, pairing new-schema tests with held-out human-labelled sources. Across three base models, the recipe improves accuracy over a step-matched baseline by 1.8 and 1.5 percentage points, respectively, achieving a 182-fold speedup in latency over reasoning rollout on Gemma-4-31B. Reasoning remains stronger on the new-schema test, motivating a confidence router for uncertain decisions. On development sets, routing recovers a median 92% of reasoning's accuracy advantage while generating 27-58% of its tokens. Code is available at https://github.com/JianhuiWei7/LDM.
System-1 Decision Models directly make structured probabilistic decisions over query-specified options given a state in a single forward pass, without autoregressively generating reasoning trajectories or textual responses. Recent evaluations cover diverse tasks but often rely on existing benchmarks, where prior exposu...
Typed decision models choose among a fixed set of answer options in a single forward pass, so unlike generative language models they cannot spend more test-time compute on hard inputs by generating more tokens. Looping a block of layers offers this compute in latent space without adding parameters, but prior work found...
D. Berghaus, A. Zela, Behzad Shomali et al.· 0 citations
Reliable decision-making requires more than accurate prediction: a model must preserve its beliefs, apply the relevant utilities, and recognize when the information needed to justify an action is missing. We study whether language models can learn this decision procedure from supervised fine-tuning and generalize it ac...
K. Yamin, Xavier Fernandes, Paul Koch et al.· 0 citations
Decision models such as Jev score candidate answers or actions. A small decision head trained label-free can recover about 99% of a frozen language model's multiple-choice accuracy while using only two-thirds of its transformer layers. It learns the full model's answer probabilities with KL divergence, without correct-...
Decision models target structured tasks by directly predicting choices or scores, avoiding autoregressive decoding latency. However, transferring a generative LLM's ranking knowledge to a decision model remains challenging: the teacher expresses preferences through a ranked list of document ID sequences, while the stud...
Yan-Ran Wu, Dian Yu, Chong-Yang Bai et al.· 1 citation
Despite the adoption of large language models (LLMs) in recommendation systems, prevailing approaches mostly model single-type behaviors (e.g., views or purchases). Even when incorporating multiple behaviors, existing methods flatten heterogeneous actions into homogeneous token sequences, ignoring their distinct decisi...
Lei Liang, Guo-Shuai Wang, Xin He et al.· 0 citations