whatmodel.sh / decision / Bobcat 1.3 (31B)

Bobcat 1.3 (31B)

+ contribute

Bobcat 1.3 (31B) is an open-weights decision model from sanghwa-na, released 11 October 2026. Its published size is 31.27B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine bobcat-1.3; reported model Bobcat 1.3 (31B). Type: LoRA; 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

Release date ↗ · Weights licence ↗ · Parameter count ↗

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

63.8±1.4#66 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of Bobcat 1.3 (31B), out of 357 with a score.

#	model	score	where	released
64	Jeffan-4B-2010 tattrongvu	64±1	model files
65	bosun-v3.1-0.6b (DecisionBench aaa9dd06) Hanno Labs	64±2	model files	2026-09-22
66	Bobcat 1.3 (31B) sanghwa-na	64±1	model files	2026-10-11
67	AnyJev L0 · Gemma-4-31B (decision readout) MorrisZJ	64±1	source code
68	OneJev1.6-9B OmniJev	64±1	model files	2026-10-17

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #57 of 250 · 6.2% of its score · 6 tests

Beats AutoTrust-JEV-27B v1.1, OneShot 27B, mogan-decision-31B-it here, though they rank higher overall. Trails baselabs joey-1 (2B), Solomon v1.1, Amber Hybrid 4B (decision readout) 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	85.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 189/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 1.9%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	62.5% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 150/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 1.1%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BFCL (case exact accuracy) submitted	97.3% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 196/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇ 1.1%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	66.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 163/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	77.0% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 123/246	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #32 of 258 · 7.4% of its score · 7 tests

Beats Perplexity Decider v1.1 (27B), H2O Lightning 31B v1.1, AutoTrust-JEV-27B v1.1 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails GEV-26B-Decide, JEV-35B 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	47.7% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 193/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 3.0%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	60.5% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 217/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 2.6%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	78.6% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 138/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.6%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	86.8% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 199/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.6%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	90.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 128/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.3%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	78.8% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 82/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	7.4% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #98 of 256 · 22% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Turion Jev 31B, FlexDM · Gemma-4-31B (decision readout), jev-brain · Gemma-4-31B (decision readout) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Decider 4B, jiwo 4B v2, Sieve 4B 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	73.5% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 183/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 5.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	85.0% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 213/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.2%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: HellaSwag (accuracy) submitted	92.7% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 154/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇ 3.4%	sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	52.2% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 146/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 2.7%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	24.0% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 136/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.7%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	70.7% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 143/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 1.1%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	72.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 91/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	77.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 153/246	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.8%	noisy

1 more test

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	94.4% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 225/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.5%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #127 of 247 · 10% of its score · 6 tests

Trails vLLM-SR vela3-fast-vision (Vela 3.0, 0.25B), Crivo-400M, Amber 0.4B 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	75.6% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 197/246	medium · avg 61%	▇▇ 4.1%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	63.4% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 182/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 2.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	26.2% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 141/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 1.3%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	64.0% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 161/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	87.4% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 119/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.9%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	46.3% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 150/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.4%	blunt · at its level

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #48 of 263 · 43% of its score · 14 tests

Beats OneJev1.6-27B, baselabs elephant-1 (9B), StartLux-Decision v1.1 9B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Solar Decide, 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: MMLU-Pro (accuracy) submitted	70.8% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 215/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇▇▇▇ 11%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	86.5% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 204/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇ 6.2%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	77.8% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 176/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 6.1%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	50.0% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 193/246	medium · avg 39%	▇▇ 3.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	73.8% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 199/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 3.7%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	84.1% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 153/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 2.8%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	97.4% ✎	▂▂▂▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 219/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇ 2.2%	sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	35.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 207/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.9%	at its level

6 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy) submitted	65.8% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 183/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	80.5% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 199/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 1.2%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	79.3% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 172/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	99.2% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 221/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇ 0.9%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	22.9% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 200/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.9%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	12.2% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 115/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 10% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	59.5400 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 206/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇▇ 6.4%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	72.8000 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 223/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 3.5%	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/sanghwa-na ↗

$ 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		= 63.8

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]	7.4%	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