whatmodel.sh / decision / LFM2.5-2.6B-RLCD

LFM2.5-2.6B-RLCD

+ contribute

LFM2.5-2.6B-RLCD is an open-weights decision model from monotykamary. Its published size is 2.7B parameters. Licence: other.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine lfm2600; reported model LFM2.5-2.6B-RLCD. 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

· Weights licence ↗ · Parameter count ↗

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

26.2±1.0#323 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of LFM2.5-2.6B-RLCD, out of 357 with a score.

#	model	score	where
323	open-jev-deberta-v3-large (DecisionBench 19bf9a64) com-kotobalabs	27±2	model files
324	Crivo-32M v2 tardellirs	27±1	model files
325	LFM2.5-2.6B-RLCD monotykamary	26±1	model files
326	gliner2-large-v1 (DecisionBench f32ea6ef) Fastino	26±2	model files
327	rlcd-modernbert-151m (DecisionBench 8af2496e) heman10x	26±2	model files

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #239 of 250 · 10% of its score · 6 tests

Beats DM-JEPA 1.1 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails CLM-v0.1-8B Qwen3-8B heads, Verdict, Qwen-2.5-1B-RLCD (decision readout) 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	38.7% ✎	▁▃▁▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 11/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇▇▇ 6.4%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	1.8% ✎	▁▃▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 4/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 1.8%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	27.4% ✎	▁▁▃▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 12/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	12.2% ✎	▁▃▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 1/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.7%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	0.0% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 28/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 0.1%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	59.3% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▃▁▁▃▃█▅ #246 of 258 · 4.5% of its score · 7 tests

Beats DM-JEPA 1.1 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Laya, Prumo (rule-based engine), GLiNER2.5-Decide 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	22.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▃▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 13/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 1.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	18.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▃▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 14/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 1.2%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	7.3% ✎	▁▁▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 8/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.6%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	52.5% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 17/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.6%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	67.0% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 115/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	17.8% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▃▁▁▂█▇█ beats 8/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.4%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	52.9% ✎	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▂▂▃▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #226 of 256 · 23% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Valen-0.8B, vLLM-SR Decision 2.0 Eos 0.8B, Together Tev1 Qwen3.5-0.8B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails JevK5 Lite 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	45.6% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 30/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇▇▇ 10%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	33.4% ✎	▁▃▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 2/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	34.9% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 24/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 3.6%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	26.3% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 43/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 1.0%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	36.9% ✎	▁···▁▁▃▁▃▆█▃ beats 11/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	31.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▃▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 19/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	36.3% ✎	▁▁▁▃▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 18/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.7%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	51.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 53/246	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	5.6% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 30/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.3%	too hard for it · noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #195 of 247 · 7.0% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Kev 9B v2, vLLM-SR d3-nano (2B), Valen-4B 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	23.1% ✎	▃▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 7/246	medium · avg 61%	▇ 2.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	60.2% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 53/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.8%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	49.8% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 20/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	51.2% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 30/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	40.8% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 79/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	0.0% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 10/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.1%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▃▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #215 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	81.3% ✎	▁▁▂▁▃▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 45/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇▇▇▇▇▇ 14%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	66.0% ✎	▂▂▂▂▃▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 46/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇▇▇ 11%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	49.2% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 51/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇ 6.1%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	42.6% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 41/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 4.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU-Pro (accuracy) submitted	24.6% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 49/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇ 4.0%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	50.8% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 15/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.6%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	35.2% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 84/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 1.6%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	18.0% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 14/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 1.2%	sharp

6 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy) submitted	47.1% ✎	▁▁▃█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 23/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	51.6% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 24/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	36.8% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 35/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 0.7%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	0.1% ✎	▃▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 11/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.4%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	10.5% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 64/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.3%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	13.6% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 163/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 5.6% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	6.6800 points ✎	▂▃▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 11/247	avg 41.206 points	▇ 3.6%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	10.4300 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 19/247	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/monotykamary ↗

$ 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		= 26.2

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	59.3%	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]	52.9%	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