whatmodel.sh / decision / muria (Gemma 4 12B)

muria (Gemma 4 12B)

+ contribute

muria (Gemma 4 12B) is an open-weights decision model from plantwaterer. Its published size is 11.96B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine muria; reported model muria (Gemma 4 12B). 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.

55.4±1.3#153 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of muria (Gemma 4 12B), out of 357 with a score, then more from plantwaterer.

#	model	score	where	released
153	Open-Jev-9B (DecisionBench 47e96688) ZefanCai	56±2	model files	2026-09-20
154	Tev1-4B-experimental (DecisionBench 0b7becf0) Together	56±2	model files
155	muria (Gemma 4 12B) plantwaterer	55±1	model files
156	Decider 35B-A3B Mapika	55±1	model files	2026-09-20
157	Amber 4B MLukauskas	55±1	model files
	more from plantwaterer
36	oenogarum (Gemma 4 31B) plantwaterer	67±1	model files
48	allec-oavg (Gemma 4 31B) plantwaterer	66±1	model files
87	garum (Gemma 4 31B) plantwaterer	62±1	model files

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #109 of 250 · 7.4% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Senova-4B v2, SynACK Decide 26B-A4B v7, Tern-35B-A3B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails OneJev1.6-0.8B, TokenRhythm NeoHorse-Jev-4B, mmastrac diffgemma (decision readout) here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	81.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 123/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 2.3%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BFCL (case exact accuracy) submitted	95.5% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 137/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇ 1.9%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	44.3% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 122/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 1.2%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	76.8% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 121/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.1%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	64.9% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 129/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.0%	blunt · at its level
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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #122 of 258 · 6.5% of its score · 7 tests

Beats AutoTrust-JEV-27B v1.1, Quyet-1.0-Large, Tern-35B-A3B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails vLLM-SR vela3-fast (Vela 3.0, 0.4B), crystal-0.8b, Kas 4B 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	45.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 160/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 2.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	53.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 132/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 2.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	72.5% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 110/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.6%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	81.8% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 179/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	86.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 86/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.4%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	75.1% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 63/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	7.4% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #133 of 256 · 23% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Solar Decide here, though they rank higher overall. Trails vLLM-SR d3-nano (2B), JevK5 v0.3, Decider 4B here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	82.4% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 179/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.4%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	71.7% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 170/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 5.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HellaSwag (accuracy) submitted	87.3% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 120/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇ 5.1%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	63.3% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 200/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 2.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	21.4% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 118/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.2%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	68.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▇▇█ beats 68/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.1%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	54.7% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 92/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 1.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	76.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 139/246	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	92.6% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 183/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.7%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #84 of 247 · 9.4% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Jev 1.13, jev-brain · Gemma-4-31B (decision readout), Jeffan-4B-2010 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Amber 0.4B, Crivo-1B, GLiClass v4 edge (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	62.3% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 116/246	medium · avg 61%	▇▇ 4.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	63.7% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 186/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	91.6% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 162/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.2%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	64.3% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 165/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	25.1% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 136/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.9%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	44.3% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 124/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.3%	blunt · at its level

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #117 of 263 · 45% of its score · 14 tests

Beats OneJev1.6-4B, Mica v0.5 4B, Winnow-12B (DecisionBench b6ac22b0) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails PurpleMIST-Flash-1.0, Jevfire Qwen3.8-27B (decision readout), JevK5 9B v0.3.3 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	55.2% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 137/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇▇▇ 10%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	78.9% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 146/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇▇ 7.0%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	67.8% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 120/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇▇ 6.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	94.7% ✎	▂▂▂▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 137/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇ 3.8%	sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	36.5% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 99/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 3.5%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	37.2% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 97/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 3.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	74.2% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 104/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.1%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	98.5% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 156/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇ 1.9%	sharp · maxed out · noisy

6 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	26.9% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 117/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy) submitted	62.1% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 152/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	57.9% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 136/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 1.1%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	73.4% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 147/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	14.1% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 107/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.7%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	10.8% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 54/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 8.3% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	53.0700 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 159/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇ 5.4%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	51.7800 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 162/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 3.0%	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/plantwaterer ↗

$ 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		= 55.4

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]	7.4%	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