whatmodel.sh / decision / FlyMy.AI Decision 4B v1.6

FlyMy.AI Decision 4B v1.6

+ contribute

FlyMy.AI Decision 4B v1.6 is an open-weights decision model from FlyMy.AI. Its published size is 4.66B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine decision-4b-v1.6; reported model FlyMy.AI Decision 4B v1.6. 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

· Weights licence ↗ · Parameter count ↗

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

49.7±1.2#210 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of FlyMy.AI Decision 4B v1.6, out of 357 with a score.

#	model	score	where	released
210	djev diffgemma (decision readout) Davipar	50±1	source code
211	JevK5 v0.3 (JevBench mini) Alibi Serikbay	50±2	source code
212	FlyMy.AI Decision 4B v1.6 FlyMy.AI	50±1	model files
213	TinyJev-4B (JevBench mini) AnkitAI	50±2	source code
214	Nari Decision 4B v3.2 blackmallangcow	49±1	model files	2026-10-18

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #192 of 250 · 8.1% of its score · 6 tests

Beats JevK5 v0.3 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails JevK5 Lite, Mola-68M, Dinah-1 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	84.4% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▃▄▅▆█▁ beats 57/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇ 2.6%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	69.5% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▃█▂ beats 89/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 2.5%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	70.2% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 95/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.1%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	28.4% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 102/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 1.0%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	62.7% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 97/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	77.0% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #158 of 258 · 6.0% of its score · 7 tests

Beats Decider chat · Qwen3.6-27B (decision readout), Solar Decide, decisio 0.4.0 (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B) (decision readout) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails DecisionTune 1.0, jiwo 0.8B v2, 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: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	41.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 116/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 2.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	48.9% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 99/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 2.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	64.5% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 76/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.6%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	57.8% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 78/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	78.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 59/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.5%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	69.6% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 40/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	63.4% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #160 of 256 · 24% of its score · 9 tests

Beats PurpleMIST-Flash-1.0, Hopper 12B (trained), Jev-Omni here, though they rank higher overall. Trails DecisionTune 1.0, Decider 2B, Crivo-1B 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	82.1% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 94/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇▇ 6.6%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	76.2% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 109/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	62.4% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 113/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 5.1%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	45.0% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 109/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 2.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	72.2% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 87/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.1%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	46.2% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 63/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 1.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	16.1% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 86/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.9%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	71.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 102/246	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.8%	at its level · noisy

1 more test

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	83.8% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 93/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.7%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #152 of 247 · 8.8% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Jegue 0.1 (9B), Standard One 8B SH (v4), Sieve 4B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Crivo-32M v2, Crivo-68M, Crivo-150M 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	58.5% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 91/246	medium · avg 61%	▇▇ 3.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	60.6% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 108/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.7%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	81.7% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 94/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.4%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	61.4% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 117/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.0%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	62.4% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 180/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.6%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	45.5% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 141/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.3%	blunt · at its level

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #147 of 263 · 46% of its score · 14 tests

Beats Winnow-12B (DecisionBench b6ac22b0), StartLux-Decision v1.1 2B, Standard One 8B SH (v4) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Ryotide Qwen v0.3.1 (decision readout), razorback16 diffgemma (decision readout), Solar Decide Flash 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	51.2% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 116/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇▇▇ 9.3%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	73.5% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 110/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇▇ 7.3%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	64.6% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 103/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇▇ 6.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	93.2% ✎	▂▂▂▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 112/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇ 5.5%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	74.5% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 106/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.3%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	98.0% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 126/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇ 3.2%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	33.2% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 86/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 3.1%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	36.7% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 92/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 2.7%	blunt · 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	53.2% ✎	▁▁▃█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 47/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	31.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 161/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.1%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	49.8% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 110/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	63.3% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 82/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	11.6% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 78/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.5%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	12.2% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 116/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 7.4% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	42.5400 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 113/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇ 4.8%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	35.6800 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 106/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 2.6%	blunt

$ where to run it

Download model files ↗
Published model files verified. Includes adapters or readout weights; follow the model documentation for the required base model. 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/flymy-ai ↗

$ 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		= 49.7

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	77.0%	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]	63.4%	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