whatmodel.sh / decision / allec-oavg (Gemma 4 31B)

allec-oavg (Gemma 4 31B)

+ contribute

allec-oavg (Gemma 4 31B) is an open-weights decision model from plantwaterer. Its published size is 31.27B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine allec-oavg; reported model allec-oavg (Gemma 4 31B). Type: full fine-tune; technique: autoregressive. Comparison entry; no current run command, API price or speed inferred from the benchmark. Current repository metadata checked separately; an unpinned alias is not evidence that today’s weights reproduce this historical run.

Model information sources

· Weights licence ↗ · Parameter count ↗

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

65.9±1.4#48 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of allec-oavg (Gemma 4 31B), out of 357 with a score, then more from plantwaterer.

#	model	score	where	released
46	FlexDM · Gemma-4-31B (decision readout) 1000luca	66±1	source code
47	Standard One 35B SH (v1) Standard Thinking	66±1	model files
48	allec-oavg (Gemma 4 31B) plantwaterer	66±1	model files
49	Jev 1.13 TypeSafe	66±1	api $0.042/M input tokens	2026-09-15
50	Span-02 (Gemma 4 26B-A4B) Respan	66±1	api price unknown
	more from plantwaterer
36	oenogarum (Gemma 4 31B) plantwaterer	67±1	model files
87	garum (Gemma 4 31B) plantwaterer	62±1	model files
102	garas (Gemma 4 31B) plantwaterer	61±1	model files

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #79 of 250 · 5.9% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Sieve 27B v2 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Jev-Omni, baselabs joey-1 (2B), Hopper 12B (trained) 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 170/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 1.8%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	65.5% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 147/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	67.0% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 166/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 1.1%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BFCL (case exact accuracy) submitted	96.5% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 167/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇ 1.0%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	81.5% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 152/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.0%	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #85 of 258 · 7.7% of its score · 7 tests

Beats AutoTrust-JEV-27B v1.1, oenogarum (Gemma 4 31B), Decider 31B (NVFP4) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails StartLux-Decision v1.1 0.8B, Standard One 3B SH (v4), Solomon v1.1 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	47.2% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 186/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 3.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	55.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 166/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 2.7%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	79.4% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 142/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.6%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	88.2% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 205/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.6%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	77.4% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 72/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	89.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 116/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.3%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	35.4% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #82 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	76.3% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 208/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 5.5%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	85.3% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 217/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.2%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: HellaSwag (accuracy) submitted	93.6% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 167/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇ 3.0%	sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	71.8% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 241/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 2.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	28.7% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 160/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.8%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	72.1% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 148/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 1.1%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	70.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 74/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	79.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 171/246	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	93.8% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 210/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.5%	maxed out · noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #34 of 247 · 10% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Jeffan-31b-1710, vLLM-SR d3-turbo v1.1 (27B), Nace.AI Drex Max v1 (27B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Kas 4B, Xor 1.2, Clef-omni 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	74.8% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 188/246	medium · avg 61%	▇▇ 4.0%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	64.7% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 202/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 2.3%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	54.8% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 169/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 1.3%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	64.8% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 173/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.3%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	96.2% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 213/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.9%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	45.8% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 145/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.4%	blunt · at its level

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #33 of 263 · 43% of its score · 14 tests

Beats vera-large, KnowLine 26B-A4B Gen2.5, OneJev1.6-27B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Solar Decide, Clef-omni, Clef 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	72.5% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 222/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇▇▇▇ 11%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	79.5% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 190/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 5.9%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	87.8% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 218/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇ 5.9%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	52.0% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 210/246	medium · avg 39%	▇▇ 4.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	76.7% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 216/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 3.7%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	88.2% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 183/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 2.7%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	32.5% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 176/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 2.1%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	97.5% ✎	▂▂▂▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 225/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇ 1.9%	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	65.3% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 180/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	83.5% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 209/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 1.2%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	83.9% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 197/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	23.0% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 201/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 1.0%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	99.2% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 224/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇ 0.8%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	13.2% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 151/246	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)	62.0800 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 218/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇▇ 6.8%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	74.2900 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 236/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 3.7%	blunt

$ where to run it

Download model files ↗
Published model files verified. This is a verified repository snapshot; the benchmark does not establish an identical weight revision. A local run command and hardware requirements have not been verified for this entry. Source · checked 2026-10-31.

Model repository and documentation: huggingface.co/plantwaterer ↗

$ 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		= 65.9

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]	35.4%	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