ExplorerData ScienceMachine Learning
Research PaperResearchia:202608.17006

Split the Labor: Separating Evidence Interpretation from Decision Aggregation

Zhelun Wu

Abstract

Systems that ask a language model to reach a conclusion from many sources usually concatenate them into one prompt. This conflates two operations with different requirements. Interpreting a source rewards capacity and context. Combining interpretations rewards fixed arithmetic, comparability across instances, and the option to return nothing. Once separated, the design problem becomes the interface between them. We propose a four-field evidence tuple (hypothesis, reliability bucket, rationale, p...

Submitted: August 17, 2026Subjects: Machine Learning; Data Science

Description / Details

Systems that ask a language model to reach a conclusion from many sources usually concatenate them into one prompt. This conflates two operations with different requirements. Interpreting a source rewards capacity and context. Combining interpretations rewards fixed arithmetic, comparability across instances, and the option to return nothing. Once separated, the design problem becomes the interface between them. We propose a four-field evidence tuple (hypothesis, reliability bucket, rationale, provenance) and show that fixing it determines both halves. The separation also reveals a failure mode in how such systems combine, which we call count-scale drift. Thresholding a sum of unnormalized weights is exactly posterior thresholding, but at an operating point that slides with the number of sources consulted. The slide grows with reader reliability. When source reliabilities differ, the vote rule and the posterior order instances differently, and no threshold reconciles them. Pooling calibrated log-likelihood ratios addresses both problems. The fix is arithmetic rather than architectural, and applies to a class of rules beyond language models: score-summing triage engines, diagnostic panels scored by counting positives, and additive multi-signal detectors. We then instantiate the principle twice on one longitudinal corpus, once after outcomes resolve and once before. The same partition helps in both, at different granularities: over reading in the first, over learning capacity in the second. There, a small sequence encoder on an easy auxiliary objective plus a tree ensemble carrying the censored survival loss reaches 0.921 AUPRC against 0.805 for a hand-crafted baseline. We separate what transfers from what must be re-estimated per domain, and state five predictions that would falsify the framework, three negative results, and which comparisons remain confounded.


Source: arXiv:2608.14509v1 - http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14509v1 PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.14509v1 Original Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14509v1

Please sign in to join the discussion.

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!

Access Paper
View Source PDF
Submission Info
Date:
Aug 17, 2026
Topic:
Data Science
Area:
Machine Learning
Comments:
0
Bookmark
Split the Labor: Separating Evidence Interpretation from Decision Aggregation | Researchia