jiwo 0.8B v2

+ contribute

jiwo 0.8B v2 is an open-weights decision model from eljiwo, released 10 October 2026. Its published size is 0.75B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine jiwo-0.8b-v2-r2; reported model jiwo 0.8B v2. 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; includes the served backbone, not just adapter size.

37.1±1.1#274 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of jiwo 0.8B v2, out of 357 with a score, then more from eljiwo.

#	model	score	where	released
274	Amber 0.4B MLukauskas	37±1	model files
275	kev-0.6b (DecisionBench dece6dba) Jared Palmer	37±2	model files
276	jiwo 0.8B v2 eljiwo	37±1	model files	2026-10-10
277	Gevva E2B davidburhans	37±1	model files
278	mojev (DecisionBench 0c8695b6) MoLeMo-Lab	37±2	request access
	more from eljiwo
189	jiwo 4B v2 eljiwo	52±1	model files	2026-10-09

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #196 of 250 · 9.3% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Cam1, mini-jev Qwen3-4B (decision readout), Decider 2B 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	83.9% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▃▄▅▆█▁ beats 53/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇▇ 4.7%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	19.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▃▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 17/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 2.3%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	54.6% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 53/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.1%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	61.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 76/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	8.0% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 64/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 0.4%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	66.7% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #155 of 258 · 4.9% of its score · 7 tests

Beats Quyet-1.0-Large, Decider chat · Qwen3.6-27B (decision readout), Solar Decide here, though they rank higher overall. Trails DecisionTune 1.0 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	49.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 103/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 1.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	38.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 91/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 1.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	81.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 70/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.6%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	58.6% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 42/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	65.6% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 107/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	60.7% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▃█▇█ beats 24/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	48.8% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #194 of 256 · 24% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Solar Decide Flash, TokenRhythm NeoHorse-Jev-4B, Jevstral 8B 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	74.4% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 62/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇▇▇ 9.2%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	62.8% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 51/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	47.1% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 53/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 4.2%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	25.9% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 38/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 1.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	78.5% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 150/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	81.6% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 76/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.9%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	42.3% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 39/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	71.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 106/246	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	9.8% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 53/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.5%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #226 of 247 · 7.6% of its score · 6 tests

Trails LFM2.5-350M-RLCD, system-one-gemma, Bekko System One v0 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	44.9% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 48/246	medium · avg 61%	▇ 3.2%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	50.6% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 23/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.7%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	53.6% ✎	▁·▁▃▃▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 46/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	61.7% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 122/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	38.3% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 44/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	0.5% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 6/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.2%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▃▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #210 of 263 · 48% of its score · 14 tests

Beats Crivo-1B, vLLM-SR vela3-fast (Vela 3.0, 0.4B), Decision-1.0-Eos-0.8B (DecisionBench 3c2d6326) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails laya (DecisionBench 1c5edc17), DM-JEPA 1.1, Valen-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-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	67.9% ✎	▂▂▂▂▃▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 49/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇▇▇ 9.5%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	85.7% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▃▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 54/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇▇▇ 8.1%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	50.7% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 59/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇▇ 7.0%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU-Pro (accuracy) submitted	29.0% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 61/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇ 6.2%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	47.9% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 59/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 5.7%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	55.3% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 31/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	26.0% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 29/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 2.0%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	23.2% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 52/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 2.0%	sharp · 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	56.9% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 99/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	51.4% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 22/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	30.0% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 1/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 0.8%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	22.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 84/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.6%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	7.7% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 15/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.3%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	13.6% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 161/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 6.0% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	29.9600 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 64/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇ 3.9%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	19.5700 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 73/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 2.1%	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/eljiwo ↗

$ 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		= 37.1

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	66.7%	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]	48.8%	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