whatmodel.sh / decision / Interfaze lev Qwen3.5-4B LoRA

Interfaze lev Qwen3.5-4B LoRA

+ contribute

Interfaze lev Qwen3.5-4B LoRA is an open-weights decision model from Interfaze. Its published size is 4.66B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine lev; reported model Interfaze lev Qwen3.5-4B LoRA. Type: LoRA + head; technique: autoregressive. Implementation: https://github.com/Abhinavexists/lev. 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.

47.9±1.2#223 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of Interfaze lev Qwen3.5-4B LoRA, out of 357 with a score.

#	model	score	where	released
223	Solar Decide Flash Upstage	48±1	api price unknown
224	razorback16 diffgemma (decision readout) vllm-project	48±1	source code
225	Interfaze lev Qwen3.5-4B LoRA Interfaze	48±1	model files
226	Open-Jev-2B (DecisionBench 0c7aa498) ZefanCai	48±2	model files	2026-09-20
227	Valen-4B Valen	48±1	model files

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #174 of 250 · 8.3% of its score · 6 tests

Beats LiquidAI d1-3B, Decider 4B, Together Tev1 Qwen3.5-4B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails JevK5 Lite, Mola-150M, Gevva E2B 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	90.2% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 75/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇ 2.9%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	79.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 114/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 2.5%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	52.3% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 48/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.1%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	62.2% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 92/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	19.3% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 87/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 0.9%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	79.9% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #170 of 258 · 5.8% of its score · 7 tests

Beats Solar Decide, decisio 0.4.0 (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B) (decision readout), JevK5 9B v0.3.3 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Bosun v3.1 1.7B LoRA, Dinah-1, 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: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	44.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 138/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 2.0%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	45.9% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 86/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 1.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	63.4% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 71/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.6%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	50.5% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 39/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	90.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 134/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.5%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	86.8% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 151/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	34.0% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #170 of 256 · 24% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Hopper 12B (trained), Nari Decision 4B v3.2, Kev 4B r10 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails DecisionTune 1.0, Decider 2B, vLLM-SR d3-lite (0.8B) 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	81.2% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 89/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇▇ 7.0%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	76.1% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 106/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	64.5% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 126/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 5.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	40.0% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 91/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 2.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	70.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 77/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.1%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	48.4% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 69/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	7.1% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 36/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.8%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	8.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▃▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 11/246	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	74.0% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 52/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.8%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #128 of 247 · 8.6% of its score · 6 tests

Beats JEV-35B, OneJev1.6-4B, Nace.AI Drex v1.5 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails vLLM-SR vela3-fast-vision (Vela 3.0, 0.25B), Crivo-400M, 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: New Yorker (accuracy) submitted	54.0% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 68/246	medium · avg 61%	▇▇ 3.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	60.1% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 96/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.7%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	87.7% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 121/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.4%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	62.2% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 131/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.0%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	5.4% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 77/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.5%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	46.2% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 148/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.3%	blunt · at its level

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #151 of 263 · 46% of its score · 14 tests

Beats Winnow-12B (DecisionBench b6ac22b0), StartLux-Decision v1.1 2B, Solomon v1.1 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Ryotide Qwen v0.3.1 (decision readout) 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	48.7% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 105/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇▇▇ 8.9%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	73.0% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 108/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇▇ 7.4%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	61.3% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 87/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇▇ 6.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	93.3% ✎	▂▂▂▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 115/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇ 6.0%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	97.5% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 109/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇ 3.7%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	66.8% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 65/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.4%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	29.1% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 76/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 3.0%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	40.3% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 113/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 2.6%	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	53.6% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 49/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	18.2% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▅█▂▁ beats 67/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.0%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	50.3% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 113/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	59.7% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 62/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	14.3% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 109/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.5%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	12.4% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 125/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 7.2% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	36.5800 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 86/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇ 4.6%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	33.8000 points ✎	▃█▃▃▃▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 101/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 2.5%	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/interfaze-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		= 47.9

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	79.9%	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]	34.0%	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