whatmodel.sh / decision / Aleria Judge 1.1.1 (Gemma 4 31B) (decision readout)

Aleria Judge 1.1.1 (Gemma 4 31B) (decision readout)

+ contribute

Aleria Judge 1.1.1 (Gemma 4 31B) (decision readout) is a source-available decision implementation from ALERIA-ML, released 19 October 2026. Its published size is 31.27B parameters.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine aleria-judge-1.1.1; reported model Aleria Judge 1.1.1 (Gemma 4 31B). Type: inference technique; technique: autoregressive. Implementation: https://github.com/ALERIA-ML/aleria-judge/tree/v1.1.1. Comparison entry; no current run command, API price or speed inferred from the benchmark.

Model information sources

Release date ↗ · Parameter count ↗

Publisher parameter count; includes the served backbone, not just adapter size.

66.8±1.4#39 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of Aleria Judge 1.1.1 (Gemma 4 31B) (decision readout), out of 357 with a score.

#	model	score	where	released
37	Sieve 27B v2 Sthānika AI	67±1	model files	2026-10-18
38	H2O Lightning 31B H2O.ai	67±4	request access
39	Aleria Judge 1.1.1 (Gemma 4 31B) (decision readout) ALERIA-ML	67±1	source code	2026-10-19
40	Cerno 27B apertixai	67±1	model files
41	Torchcast Decision 27B Torchcast AI	67±1	model files	2026-10-01

see all decision models · find the ones that fit your machine

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #31 of 250 · 5.8% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Jeffan-31b-1710, Fastino GLiDE 1.2, Ainvest-Decision-27B v1.0 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Solomon v1.1, Clef-flash, Clef-omni here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	85.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 176/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 1.7%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	69.7% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 231/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	65.9% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 163/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 1.0%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	82.6% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 160/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.0%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BFCL (case exact accuracy) submitted	97.8% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 219/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇ 0.9%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	79.9% ✎	no other model yet		—	failed run: Publisher excludes this protocol because its prompt reveals GPT-4 as the best route. Evidence: https://huggingface.co/spaces/multimodalart/jev-decision-index/blob/c130faf65f82e81d3bdefb01e758c712dc5c5199/data/index.json

retrieval & classification▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #66 of 258 · 7.8% of its score · 7 tests

Beats AutoTrust-JEV-27B v1.1, oenogarum (Gemma 4 31B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails StartLux-Decision v1.1 0.8B, Standard One 8B SH (v4), StartLux-Decision v1.1 2B here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	51.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 243/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 3.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	57.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 182/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 2.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	76.0% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 127/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.6%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	89.9% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▃▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 211/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.6%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	79.4% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 89/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	91.9% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 153/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.3%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	1.8% ✎	no other model yet		—	failed run: Publisher reports a builder bug exposing dialogue turns after the classified turn; awaiting corrected rerun. Evidence: https://huggingface.co/spaces/multimodalart/jev-decision-index/blob/c130faf65f82e81d3bdefb01e758c712dc5c5199/data/index.json

language understanding▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #84 of 256 · 22% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Turion Jev 31B, AJev lm6q (Gemma 4 31B), oenogarum (Gemma 4 31B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Sieve 4B, Amber 4B, Decider 35B-A3B here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	78.6% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▃····▁ beats 226/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 5.5%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	81.9% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 169/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.2%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: HellaSwag (accuracy) submitted	93.5% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 165/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇ 2.9%	sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	62.6% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 198/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 2.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	41.9% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 206/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.8%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	79.7% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 219/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 1.1%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	79.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 158/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	80.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 182/246	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.7%	noisy

1 more test

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	93.9% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 211/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.5%	maxed out · noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▃▁▁ #15 of 247 · 10% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Jeffan-31b-1710, KnowLine 31B Gen1, vLLM-SR d3-turbo v1.1 (27B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails AnyJev L0 · Gemma-4-31B (decision readout) here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: New Yorker (accuracy) submitted	79.5% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 214/246	medium · avg 61%	▇▇ 4.0%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	66.4% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 220/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 2.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	42.8% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▃▅▃█ beats 163/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 1.3%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	65.5% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 189/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.3%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	97.7% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 232/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.9%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	48.6% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 172/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.4%	blunt · at its level

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #29 of 263 · 43% of its score · 14 tests

Beats Bespoke Nimble v4 Max (27B), vera-large, KnowLine 26B-A4B Gen2.5 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Solar Decide, Clef-omni, d1 (hosted) here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU-Pro (accuracy) submitted	73.0% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 228/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇▇▇▇ 11%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	76.2% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 166/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 5.9%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	88.2% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 228/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇ 5.8%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	52.5% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 215/246	medium · avg 39%	▇▇ 4.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	78.3% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 219/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 3.7%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	88.3% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 186/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 2.7%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	31.9% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 170/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 2.2%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	98.0% ✎	▂▂▂▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 244/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇ 1.8%	sharp · maxed out

6 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy) submitted	69.8% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 213/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	82.1% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 204/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 1.2%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	24.7% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 218/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 1.0%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	83.4% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 194/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	99.0% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 195/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇ 0.7%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	15.4% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 207/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 11% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	62.0600 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 217/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇▇ 6.9%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	73.5900 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 229/247	avg 38.861 points	▇▇ 3.8%	blunt

$ where to run it

Implementation and setup instructions ↗
Published implementation and setup documentation verified. This entry describes a decision readout or evaluated configuration, not necessarily separate trained weights. Follow the referenced version and model settings; hardware compatibility has not been verified. Source · checked 2026-10-31.

Model repository and documentation: github.com/ALERIA-ML ↗

$ how the score was worked out · Decision Index 0.4.1 99%

Each result implies a score on its own, after adjusting for how hard its test is and who ran it. The score is their weighted average, with a small pull toward the middle for thinly tested models. Each test's weight is its counts column above; here it's added up by who ran the tests. How it works

source	results	share of the score	licence
Decision Index 0.4.1 · submitted; independent execution unverified	42	▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 99%	CC BY 4.0
prior · pull toward the middle		▇ 1%
weighted average		= 66.8

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	79.9%	failed run: Publisher excludes this protocol because its prompt reveals GPT-4 as the best route. Evidence: https://huggingface.co/spaces/multimodalart/jev-decision-index/blob/c130faf65f82e81d3bdefb01e758c712dc5c5199/data/index.json
Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) [correct]	1.8%	failed run: Publisher reports a builder bug exposing dialogue turns after the classified turn; awaiting corrected rerun. Evidence: https://huggingface.co/spaces/multimodalart/jev-decision-index/blob/c130faf65f82e81d3bdefb01e758c712dc5c5199/data/index.json

$ improve this page

Update model information Add a place to run it Add a test result Propose a benchmark Correct a benchmark score Edit data on GitHub

Use a short GitHub form or edit the data through a pull request. Every number needs a source; here's which ones we can use.

data updated 2026-11-03 02:37 UTC · sources and licences · json