whatmodel.sh / decision / EXAONE-4.0-1.2B-JEV v0.3

EXAONE-4.0-1.2B-JEV v0.3

+ contribute

EXAONE-4.0-1.2B-JEV v0.3 is an open-weights decision model from carrtesy, released 4 October 2026. Its published size is 1.28B parameters. Licence: other.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine exaone-4.0-1.2b-jev-v0.3; reported model EXAONE-4.0-1.2B-JEV v0.3. 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

Release date ↗ · Weights licence ↗ · Parameter count ↗

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

38.7±1.1#268 of 355 decision modelsfrom 44 benchmark results across 2 sources

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of EXAONE-4.0-1.2B-JEV v0.3, out of 357 with a score.

#	model	score	where	RAM	released
268	Valen-2B Valen	39±1	model files
269	Saina Helm 2 Omni (0.8B) Saina	39±1	model files
270	EXAONE-4.0-1.2B-JEV v0.3 carrtesy	39±1	model files		2026-10-04
271	Von 1.3 (JevBench mini) wfzyx	39±2	source code
272	vLLM-SR Decision 2.0 Sol 2B vLLM Semantic Router	38±1	local	~11GB

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #184 of 250 · 9.0% of its score · 6 tests

Beats JevK5 v0.3, FlyMy.AI Decision 4B v1.6, Valen-4B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails JevK5 Lite, Mola-68M, Mola-150M 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	87.4% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▃▄▅▆█▁ beats 65/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇▇ 4.4%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	50.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 49/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 2.3%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	91.7% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 237/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.1%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	63.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 114/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	0.0% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 3/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 0.4%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	69.1% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▁▃▁▃▃█▅ #229 of 258 · 4.9% of its score · 7 tests

Trails Bosun v3.1 0.6B LoRA, Crivo-32M v2, 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: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	27.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▂▃▃█▅ beats 26/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 1.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	36.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 77/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 1.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	90.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 127/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.5%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	56.9% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 35/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	50.0% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 10/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	88.5% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 167/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	62.7% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #188 of 256 · 24% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Nari Decision 4B v3.2, Solar Decide Flash, TokenRhythm NeoHorse-Jev-4B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails DecisionTune 1.0, vera-spark, JEV FLAN-T5 Large public v2 (342M) 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	76.9% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 70/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇▇▇ 8.8%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	63.5% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 54/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.2%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	51.4% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 72/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 4.2%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	17.2% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▃▄▅█▇▄ beats 17/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 1.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	52.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▂▇▇█ beats 34/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	70.7% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 42/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.8%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	43.6% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 49/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	52.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 59/246	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.7%	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	3.6% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 15/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.5%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #186 of 247 · 7.6% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Kev 9B v2, vLLM-SR d3-nano (2B), Kev 4B r10 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Qwen-2.5-1B-RLCD (decision readout), Bekko System One v0 68M, Crivo-17M 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	34.5% ✎	▁▁▃▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 25/246	medium · avg 61%	▇ 3.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	66.4% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 61/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.6%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	57.8% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▃▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 74/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	53.4% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 48/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	8.8% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 98/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.2%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	36.0% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 20/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.2%	blunt · at its level

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▃▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #199 of 263 · 46% of its score · 14 tests

Beats OneJev1.6-0.8B, GLiClass v4 edge (0.4B), Crivo-1B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails laya (DecisionBench 1c5edc17), DM-JEPA 1.1, Sieve 2B here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	75.8% ✎	▂▂▂▂▂▃▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 63/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇▇▇ 8.9%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	89.2% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▂▃▂▃▆█▅ beats 63/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇▇▇ 7.2%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	53.7% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 63/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇▇ 7.0%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU-Pro (accuracy) submitted	29.8% ✎	▄▄▃▃▃▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 65/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇▇ 6.4%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	48.1% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 60/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 5.7%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	66.5% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 63/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	25.4% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 58/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 2.1%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	37.2% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 96/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 2.0%	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	54.0% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 54/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	55.5% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 44/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	38.1% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 40/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 0.8%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	17.2% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▅█▂▁ beats 64/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.6%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	8.6% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 35/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.4%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	12.0% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 104/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests4 not in a task · 8.1% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	26.1800 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 55/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇ 3.9%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	12.2400 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 37/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 2.1%	blunt
Benchmark Heaven jevbench v1.6.1: intelligence (points)	14.8313 points ✎	▃···▃·▃▃█▅▅█ beats 0/13	avg 32.166 points	▇ 1.7%	blunt
Benchmark Heaven jevbench v1.6.1: calibration (points)	80.5286 points ✎	▂······▂▆▂██ beats 2/13	avg 70.133 points	▇ 0.5%	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/carrtesy ↗

$ how the score was worked out · Decision Index 0.4.1 97%, Benchmark Heaven (own decisio… 2%

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	▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 97%	CC BY 4.0
Benchmark Heaven (own decision evaluations)	2	▇ 2%	CC BY 4.0
prior · pull toward the middle		▇ 0%
weighted average		= 38.7

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	69.1%	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]	62.7%	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