Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 4, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Decision models read a document and return a probability for each of a fixed set of options instead of generating text. Several appeared in 2026, but none has published results outside English. We describe Zuse, three decision models (4B, 9B and 27B) that train a low-rank adapter and a pointer head on frozen open-weight bases, targeting 27 European languages, and use them to study how this design behaves across languages and tasks. On a broad European suite of 11 sources excluded from training, covering 9 task groups and 27 languages, a development set that also guided model selection, the 27B model reaches 87.5% accuracy with a pooled expected calibration error of 0.016, and 0.035 when weighted per source. Post-hoc analyses of these single-seed results give three findings. First, miscalibration is structured by task rather than language: on parallel reading and topic items in 26 languages the confidence gap varies about as much as sampling noise, while across sources it spans -0.07 to +0.09, with knowledge tasks overconfident and acceptability judgements underconfident at all three sizes, so one fitted temperature cannot correct both. Second, the share of decisions that can be automated at a 5% error budget follows chance-corrected skill (Spearman 0.97 over 33 source and model pairs) more closely than raw accuracy (0.91). Third, reach beyond the training languages is set by the base model: across 210 languages, changing the training run moved scores by at most about 2 points within a size, while languages outside the base's documented list trail by 23 to 28 points at every size. On English public suites Zuse is behind Jev and Kev, including Kev models on the same bases. We also report two pitfalls in building multi-source training data: label-word collision between topic schemes, and an injection augmentation that taught a shortcut. Zuse can be tried at https://bineric.com/zuse.