whatmodel.sh / decision / LiquidAI d1-omni-600M

LiquidAI d1-omni-600M

+ contribute

LiquidAI d1-omni-600M is an open-weights decision model from Liquid AI. Its published size is 0.59B parameters. Licence: other.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine d1-omni-600m; reported model LiquidAI d1-omni-600M. Type: full fine-tune; technique: encoder. No 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. Reviewed Ollaya local route added 2026-10-31: d1-omni:600m, manifest 53dfa4be304b8ab233617f432ed655050d6d459a48f89dae94a574f75414f139, matching the independent accuracy-run manifest. Native family implementation; published runtime precision label F32. Memory is measured peak GPU increase (2681 MiB, rounded upward to 2.7 GiB) on RTX 5090 during the short five-question triage workload, not download size or a maximum-context guarantee. Runtime installation is required; no fresh execution performed here. Historical benchmark adapter and input protocol still vary by result.

Model information sources

· Weights licence ↗ · Parameter count ↗

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

29.5±0.9#312 of 355 decision modelsfrom 74 benchmark results across 4 sources

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of LiquidAI d1-omni-600M, out of 357 with a score, then more from Liquid AI.

#	model	score	where	RAM	released
312	Crivo-68M tardellirs	30±1	model files
313	GLiNER2.5-Decide (DecisionBench 0872ab14) Fastino	30±2	model files
314	LiquidAI d1-omni-600M Liquid AI	30±1	local	~2.7GB
315	laya-typed-decisions (DecisionBench bc76315b) ConvAI Innovations	29±2	model files
316	Bosun v3.1 1.7B LoRA Hanno Labs	29±1	model files
	more from Liquid AI
21	d1-ultra Liquid AI	69±2	api price unknown		2026-10-15
32	d1.1 (hosted) Liquid AI	68±2	api price unknown
61	d1 (hosted) Liquid AI	65±1	api price unknown

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▃▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #228 of 250 · 6.9% of its score · 6 tests

Beats DM-JEPA 1.1, JEV FLAN-T5 Large public v2 (342M), Bekko System One v0 400M here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Prumo (rule-based engine), Crivo-17M, JevK5 Lite 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	47.6% ✎	▁▂▃▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 22/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇▇ 4.2%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	40.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▃▂█▂ beats 30/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 1.4%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	40.8% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 29/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 0.7%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	15.7% ✎	▁▁▃▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 7/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	0.0% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 20/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 0.1%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	59.8% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▃▁▁▃▃█▅ #236 of 258 · 11% of its score · 13 tests

Beats Sieve 2B, DM-JEPA 1.1, Together Tev1 Qwen3.5-0.8B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails MoganAI Lavoir ModernBERT-large, Bekko System One v0 68M, Bosun v3.1 0.6B LoRA here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
System One Bench: MASSIVE intent (Arabic)	52.0% ✎	▄·▁·▁▃▃▃█▄▇▇ beats 1/29	easy · avg 76%	▇ 2.8%	at its level
System One Bench: MIRACL pairwise (Arabic)	66.5% ✎	▃···▁··▃▄▂█▇ beats 0/29	easy · avg 84%	▇ 2.4%	at its level
System One Bench: MIRACL rerank (Arabic)	55.0% ✎	▃▂·▁▁·▂·▄▄█▇ beats 0/29	easy · avg 79%	▇ 1.7%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	27.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▂▃▃█▅ beats 25/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	10.4% ✎	▁▃▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 5/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
System One Bench: MASSIVE scenario (Arabic)	37.5% ✎	▃▁·▄▃▂█▂▁▁·▃ beats 0/29	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.7%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	85.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 80/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.4%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	59.8% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 49/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.4%	blunt · at its level

5 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	44.8% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 1/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.3%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	83.7% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 126/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.2%	at its level · noisy
System One Bench: AG News (English)	87.5% ✎	▁···▅▁▅▂▆█▂▅ beats 7/29	easy · avg 88%	▇ 0.2%	blunt
System One Bench: Banking77 (English)	84.5% ✎	█▅▆█▅▃▃▃···▂ beats 7/26	very easy · avg 87%	▇ 0.0%	blunt · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	61.3% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #213 of 256 · 23% of its score · 18 tests

Beats Valen-2B, Saina Helm 2 Omni (0.8B), Gevva E2B here, though they rank higher overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: HellaSwag (accuracy) submitted	60.0% ✎	▂▄▂▃▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 44/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇▇ 6.8%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	53.3% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 24/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 3.7%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	36.0% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 27/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 2.6%	at its level
System One Bench: BoolQ (English)	74.0% ✎	▃▁▁▃·▁▃▃▇▇█▅ beats 0/29	easy · avg 86%	▇ 1.7%	at its level
System One Bench: OSACT4 offensive (Arabic)	77.5% ✎	▁······▁▃█▇▄ beats 2/29	easy · avg 84%	▇ 1.6%	sharp · at its level
System One Bench: SST-2 (English)	86.5% ✎	▁·▃▁▂▂▃▅█·▂▁ beats 3/29	easy · avg 92%	▇ 1.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	27.5% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 47/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 0.8%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	66.2% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▇▇█ beats 64/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.7%	at its level · noisy

10 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	62.9% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▃▃▆█▃ beats 27/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.7%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	38.8% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 25/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.5%	at its level
System One Bench: SST-5 (English)	47.0% ✎	▃·▁▁▃·▇▄▄▄█▅ beats 4/29	medium · avg 51%	▇ 0.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	2.3% ✎	▁▁▃▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 6/246	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.4%	at its level · noisy
System One Bench: XNLI French (French)	65.3% ✎	▂▅·▁▁▅▅█▃▁·▃ beats 2/29	medium · avg 76%	▇ 0.3%	blunt · at its level
System One Bench: XNLI Arabic (Arabic)	52.7% ✎	▄▁▃▁▄▇█▅▃▁·▃ beats 1/29	medium · avg 68%	▇ 0.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	0.5% ✎	▃··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 0/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.2%	noisy
System One Bench: Tweet sentiment (Arabic)	32.5% ✎	▃······▁▁▄█▄ beats 0/29	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.2%	blunt · at its level
System One Bench: XNLI English (English)	82.0% ✎	▃·▁·▃▇█▄█▃▃▁ beats 4/29	easy · avg 85%	▇ 0.1%	blunt · at its level · noisy
System One Bench: DAIR Emotion (English)	85.0% ✎	██▃·····▃··▁ beats 28/29	medium · avg 59%	▇ 0.0%	blunt · at its level

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #244 of 247 · 5.0% of its score · 6 tests

Beats JEV Ettin 150M, JEV FLAN-T5 Large public v2 (342M) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Zev (decision readout), LFM2.5-350M-RLCD, Nirnaya 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	36.0% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 27/246	medium · avg 61%	▇ 2.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	45.7% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 3/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.2%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	51.1% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 30/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.0%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	56.4% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 59/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	36.3% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 24/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	0.8% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 13/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.1%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▃▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #231 of 263 · 39% of its score · 19 tests

Beats Decision-1.0-Eos-0.8B (DecisionBench 3c2d6326), Amber 0.4B, vLLM-SR vela3-fast-vision (Vela 3.0, 0.25B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails laya (DecisionBench 1c5edc17), LFM2.5-2.6B-RLCD, Jev-Style 0.8B v3 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	70.2% ✎	▁▁▂▃▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 30/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇▇▇ 8.6%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	51.4% ✎	▂▂▃▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 29/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇▇ 7.5%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	39.9% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 33/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇ 4.5%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	43.2% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 46/246	easy · avg 66%	▇ 3.6%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU-Pro (accuracy) submitted	20.0% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 39/246	medium · avg 46%	▇ 3.2%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	60.5% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 48/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 2.5%	at its level
Ollaya · BoolQ	69.0% ✎	▁··▃▃▁▄▁▃█▇▄ beats 2/25	easy · avg 84%	▇ 1.3%	at its level
Ollaya · PubMedQA	64.4% ✎	▃▂▃▃·▂▃▃▆█▆▂ beats 9/25	easy · avg 69%	▇ 1.3%	at its level

11 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	21.9% ✎	▃▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 5/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 1.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	18.4% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 19/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 1.0%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy) submitted	38.0% ✎	▃▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 7/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.6%	blunt · at its level
Ollaya · SQuAD 2 answerability	76.6% ✎	▁▁▃▁▇█▃▃▄▃·▁ beats 13/25	easy · avg 80%	▇ 0.6%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	49.7% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 6/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.6%	at its level
Ollaya · VitaminC verification	65.9% ✎	▁···▃·▄█▃··▁ beats 3/25	easy · avg 78%	▇ 0.6%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	40.9% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 65/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Ollaya · MultiNLI	79.9% ✎	▂··▄██▂▆▆█▆▂ beats 3/25	very easy · avg 87%	▇ 0.4%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	7.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▃▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 39/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.3%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	12.9% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 93/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.2%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	14.8% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 191/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

vision▁·▃▂▃▃▇▄▄█▄▃ #64 of 79 * · 0.6% of its score · 2 tests

Beats djev diffgemma (decision readout), StartLux-Decision v1.1 0.8B, mmastrac diffgemma (decision readout) here, though they rank higher overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Benchmark Heaven imagejevbench v0.3.0: intelligence (points)	5.7345 points ✎	▃·▃▃··▅█▅▅·▃ beats 0/12	avg 32.235 points	▇ 0.4%	blunt
Benchmark Heaven imagejevbench v0.3.0: calibration (points)	47.3405 points ✎	▃···▃·▅█▅▃▃▅ beats 0/12	avg 68.584 points	▇ 0.2%	blunt

workflows▁▁▁▂▁▂▃▆█▄▁▁ #82 of 114 · 11% of its score · 10 tests

Beats Qwen3-Reranker-4B (DecisionBench 22e68366), Decision-1.0-Eos-0.8B (DecisionBench 3c2d6326), kev-0.6b (DecisionBench dece6dba) here, though they rank higher overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Ollaya · Typed decisions test	57.5% ✎	▄·▂▆▄▄▃·▄█▆▆ beats 10/22	medium · avg 64%	▇ 1.9%	at its level
System One Bench: Typed decisions (English)	57.5% ✎	▁▁·▁▃▁▅▄▇██▁ beats 3/29	medium · avg 63%	▇ 1.8%	blunt · at its level
Ollaya · MASSIVE German intent	71.7% ✎	▁····▁·▂▃▆█▃ beats 4/23	easy · avg 84%	▇ 1.7%	sharp · at its level
Ollaya · PAWS paraphrase	70.4% ✎	▂▂▂▃·▃█▆·▂·▁ beats 7/25	easy · avg 81%	▇ 1.6%	at its level
Ollaya · Aegis 2 safety	64.0% ✎	▂·▁▁▃·▃▃▂█▃▁ beats 5/25	easy · avg 77%	▇ 1.2%	at its level
Ollaya · MASSIVE English intent	83.7% ✎	▁·······▂▃█▃ beats 8/23	very easy · avg 86%	▇ 0.9%	at its level · noisy
Ollaya · SummEval consistency	34.7% ✎	▁·▁▁··▁▃▁▁▄█ beats 4/25	easy · avg 75%	▇ 0.7%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Ollaya · SummEval relevance	22.5% ✎	▁··▁▂▁▅··▃██ beats 6/25	medium · avg 41%	▇ 0.7%	typical

2 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Ollaya · HelpSteer 2 scoring	42.2% ✎	▁▁··▁·▁▃▇█▅▄ beats 20/23	medium · avg 38%	▇ 0.3%	blunt · at its level
Ollaya · Civil Comments	86.0% ✎	▂▂▂·▂▅▅▆▃▅·█ beats 11/23	very easy · avg 86%	▇ 0.1%	blunt · noisy

other tests2 not in a task · 3.9% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	11.9600 points ✎	▂▃▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 19/247	avg 41.206 points	▇ 2.5%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	11.4500 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 28/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 1.4%	blunt

$ where to run it

Other ways to run it

Run it as published · needs 2.7 GB, NVIDIA only · from github.com/ollaya-dev
ollaya run d1-omni:600m --preset triage "The customer requests a refund."

Download model files ↗
Published model files verified. This is a verified repository snapshot; the benchmark does not establish an identical weight revision. A matching Ollaya runtime manifest and published short-workload GPU memory measurement were reviewed separately; see local variants and identity_note. The command was not executed in this review. Source · checked 2026-10-31.

Model repository and documentation: huggingface.co/LiquidAI ↗

$ how the score was worked out · Decision Index 0.4.1 70%, System One Bench (Ali Alhashi… 16%, Ollaya · original runs 13% and 1 more

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	▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 70%	CC BY 4.0
System One Bench (Ali Alhashimi)	16	▇▇▇▇▇ 16%	CC-BY-4.0
Ollaya · original runs	14	▇▇▇▇ 13%	Apache-2.0
Benchmark Heaven (own decision evaluations)	2	▇ 1%	CC BY 4.0
prior · pull toward the middle		▇ 0%
weighted average		= 29.5

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	59.8%	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]	61.3%	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