Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the decision-making capabilities of judgment models like \jev{} by evaluating them across diverse tasks including reflection tests, matrix games, ALFWorld, and robot control. The study reveals that \jev{} excels at tasks requiring direct evaluation of input but fails when simulation or prediction of future states is necessary. The key finding is that \jev{}'s performance is sharply bounded by its ability to evaluate versus simulate, suggesting a hybrid approach where code handles simulation and \jev{} handles evaluation.
Judgment models can solve complex problems when the answer is directly evaluable from the input, but fail catastrophically when simulation is required, even if they possess the underlying knowledge.
Judgment models such as \jev{} return, in a single call and without reasoning text, a probability for each described option. This makes them attractive as an agent's action-selection layer, but it is unclear which decisions they can be trusted with. We test \jev{} on reflection tests, one-shot matrix games, the text game ALFWorld and robot control, and find a sharp boundary. \jev{} succeeds when the right option can be judged from what the input describes, which we call \emph{evaluation}. Specifically, it solves 99\% of the counterintuitive Cognitive Reflection Test questions. However, it fails when the right option depends on \emph{simulation} (i.e., predicting something not in the input), such as the opponent's action or the subgoal that must come first. In games, \jev{} plays suboptimally as if its rational opponent acted at random, because the opponent's action is not given. In ALFWorld, \jev{} favors commands that mention an object or place named in the task description. For example, given the task ``put a clean knife in the drawer'', \jev{} carries an unwashed knife straight to the drawer instead of first washing it at the sink. Surprisingly, many of these failures are not due to a lack of knowledge. Asked separately what the opponent will do, \jev{} usually answers correctly, and it responds well given the opponent's action. It fails when one call must both perform the simulation and evaluate based on it. This suggests letting code make the prediction or simulation. When code supplies it, such as a lookahead in ALFWorld and physics simulation in robot control, \jev{} becomes an expert controller through its general evaluation ability.