whatmodel.sh / decision / Kodiak v0.2 1B (accuracy)

Kodiak v0.2 1B (accuracy)

+ contribute

Kodiak v0.2 1B (accuracy) is an open-weights decision model from Cortex Agent LLC. Its published size is 3B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine kodiak-v0.2-1b-accuracy; reported model Kodiak v0.2 1B (accuracy). Type: full fine-tune; technique: encoder. 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.

32.2±1.0#296 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of Kodiak v0.2 1B (accuracy), out of 357 with a score.

#	model	score	where	released
296	DM-JEPA 1.1 Danger Labs	33±1	model files
297	Laya (english) (JevBench mini) Convai Innovations	33±2	source code
298	Kodiak v0.2 1B (accuracy) Cortex Agent LLC	32±1	model files
299	JEV FLAN-T5 Large public v2 (342M) Elfsong	32±1	model files	2026-10-18
300	Verdict 1.4 (JevBench mini) Heman10x	32±2	source code

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▃▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #226 of 250 · 10% of its score · 6 tests

Beats DM-JEPA 1.1 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	50.1% ✎	▁▂▃▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 24/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇▇ 5.6%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	5.5% ✎	▁▁▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 12/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 2.1%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	32.4% ✎	▁▁▁▃▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 16/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.1%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	42.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▃▁▄█▁ beats 21/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.7%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	0.0% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 39/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 0.2%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	49.4% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #200 of 258 · 4.7% of its score · 7 tests

Beats Solar Decide Flash, Ryotide Qwen v0.3.1 (decision readout), SemIf Qwen3.5-4B Base (decision readout) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Bosun v3.1 0.6B LoRA, Mola-68M, Bosun v3.1 1.7B LoRA 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	39.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 58/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 1.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	33.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▄▇█ beats 64/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 1.3%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	91.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 150/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.6%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	60.2% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 50/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	50.0% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 19/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	63.1% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▃█▇█ beats 28/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.4%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	36.4% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #210 of 256 · 24% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Valen-2B, Saina Helm 2 Omni (0.8B), Gevva E2B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails DecisionTune 1.0, vera-spark, Bekko System One v0 400M 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	61.5% ✎	▂▄▂▃▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 46/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇▇▇ 10%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	56.7% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 30/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	40.8% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 40/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 3.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	18.9% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▃▄▅█▇▄ beats 20/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 1.2%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	52.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▂▇▇█ beats 35/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	35.9% ✎	▁···▁▁▃▁▃▆█▃ beats 10/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.9%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	43.9% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 53/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	40.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▃▆█ beats 38/246	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.6%	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	8.9% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 47/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.4%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #175 of 247 · 7.2% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Sieve 9B, Kev 9B v2, vLLM-SR d3-nano (2B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Bekko System One v0 68M, Crivo-17M, Crivo-32M 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	41.5% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 40/246	medium · avg 61%	▇ 3.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	73.5% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 73/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.7%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	55.6% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▃▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 64/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	52.1% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 36/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	34.7% ✎	▁▃▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 16/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	0.1% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 11/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.1%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▃▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #214 of 263 · 49% 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) 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	80.7% ✎	▁▁▂▁▃▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 43/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇▇▇▇ 11%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	69.8% ✎	▂▂▂▂▃▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 52/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇▇▇ 10%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	45.3% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 45/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇▇ 6.6%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	38.6% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 32/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 5.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU-Pro (accuracy) submitted	22.9% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 45/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇ 5.0%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	78.5% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 121/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	27.0% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 38/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 1.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	19.8% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 34/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 1.6%	sharp

6 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy) submitted	58.8% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 120/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	54.8% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 42/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	34.4% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 23/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 0.8%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	11.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▂▅█▂▁ beats 51/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.5%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	11.6% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 79/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.3%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	14.9% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 195/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 5.7% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	15.4700 points ✎	▂▂▃▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 28/247	avg 41.206 points	▇ 3.7%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	11.4500 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 29/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 2.0%	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/cortex-agent-llc ↗

$ 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		= 32.2

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	49.4%	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]	36.4%	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