whatmodel.sh / decision / Bekko System One v0 400M

Bekko System One v0 400M

+ contribute

Bekko System One v0 400M is an open-weights decision model from hotchpotch. Its published size is 0.4B parameters.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine bekko-v0-400m; reported model Bekko System One v0 400M. Type: full fine-tune; technique: encoder. 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

· Parameter count ↗

Publisher parameter count (estimated by publisher); includes the served backbone, not just adapter size.

31.8±1.0#300 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of Bekko System One v0 400M, out of 357 with a score, then more from hotchpotch.

#	model	score	where	RAM
300	Verdict 1.4 (JevBench mini) Heman10x	32±2	source code
301	Crivo-150M v2 tardellirs	32±1	model files
302	Bekko System One v0 400M hotchpotch	32±1	model files
303	vera-spark scar-ai	31±1	model files
304	vLLM-SR Decision 2.0 Eos 0.8B vLLM Semantic Router	31±1	local	~5.8GB
	more from hotchpotch
334	Bekko System One v0 68M hotchpotch	24±1	model files
347	Bekko System One v0 17M hotchpotch	19±1	model files

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▃▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #232 of 250 · 10% of its score · 6 tests

Beats DM-JEPA 1.1, JEV FLAN-T5 Large public v2 (342M) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Qwen-2.5-1B-RLCD (decision readout), Prumo (rule-based engine), GLiNER2.5-Decide here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: BFCL (case exact accuracy) submitted	42.7% ✎	▁▂▃▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 18/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇▇ 5.7%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	3.9% ✎	▁▁▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 10/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 2.1%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	34.7% ✎	▁▁▁▃▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 20/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.1%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	63.9% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 116/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.7%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	0.0% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 0/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 0.2%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	66.1% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #195 of 258 · 4.6% of its score · 7 tests

Beats JevK5 9B v0.3.3, Hopper (G) 1.2 Qwen3.5-4B LoRA, Solar Decide Flash here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Bosun v3.1 0.6B LoRA, Mola-68M, Bosun v3.1 1.7B LoRA here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	40.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 65/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 1.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	34.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▄▇█ beats 69/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 1.3%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	85.9% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 83/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.6%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	56.8% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 34/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	54.4% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 68/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	80.3% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 100/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.4%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	41.5% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #209 of 256 · 24% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Valen-2B, Saina Helm 2 Omni (0.8B), Gevva E2B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails DecisionTune 1.0, vera-spark here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: HellaSwag (accuracy) submitted	62.5% ✎	▂▄▂▃▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 47/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇▇▇ 10%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	59.7% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 43/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	41.1% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 41/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 3.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	26.0% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 39/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 1.2%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	65.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▇▇█ beats 58/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	72.5% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 49/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.9%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	42.5% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 41/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	1.2% ✎	▁▃▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 4/246	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.6%	at its level · noisy

1 more test

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	9.7% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 51/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.4%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #177 of 247 · 7.2% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Sieve 9B, Kev 9B v2, vLLM-SR d3-nano (2B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Bekko System One v0 68M, Crivo-17M, Crivo-32M v2 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	41.1% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 37/246	medium · avg 61%	▇ 3.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	72.4% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 71/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.7%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	55.0% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▃▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 56/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	50.2% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 17/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	31.6% ✎	▁▃▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 5/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	2.8% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 58/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.1%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▃▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #220 of 263 · 49% of its score · 14 tests

Beats vLLM-SR vela3-fast (Vela 3.0, 0.4B), Decision-1.0-Eos-0.8B (DecisionBench 3c2d6326), Amber 0.4B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails laya (DecisionBench 1c5edc17), LFM2.5-2.6B-RLCD, InternLM Intern-Decision Qwen3.5-0.8B here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	79.4% ✎	▁▁▂▁▃▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 42/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇▇▇▇ 11%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	60.4% ✎	▂▂▂▃▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 42/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇▇▇ 11%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	41.5% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 39/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇▇ 6.6%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	38.2% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 29/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 5.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU-Pro (accuracy) submitted	19.6% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 37/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇ 5.0%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	69.2% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 76/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	28.6% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 49/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 1.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	29.4% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 77/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 1.6%	sharp

6 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy) submitted	56.9% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 97/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	55.9% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 46/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	38.4% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 44/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 0.8%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	0.0% ✎	▃▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 1/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.5%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	11.3% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 76/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.3%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	12.6% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 127/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 5.7% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	20.7500 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 38/247	avg 41.206 points	▇ 3.7%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	13.8300 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 49/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 2.0%	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/hotchpotch ↗

$ how the score was worked out · Decision Index 0.4.1 100%

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	▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 100%	CC BY 4.0
prior · pull toward the middle		▇ 0%
weighted average		= 31.8

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	66.1%	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]	41.5%	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