PICK-150M v5

+ contribute

PICK-150M v5 is an open-weights decision model from lCREEl, released 18 October 2026. Its published size is 0.15B parameters. Licence: cc-by-nc-4.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine pick-150m-v5; reported model PICK-150M v5. 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

Release date ↗ · Weights licence ↗ · Parameter count ↗

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

29.9±1.0#307 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of PICK-150M v5, out of 357 with a score.

#	model	score	where	RAM	released
307	Dinah-1 Lukitaduarte	30±1	model files
308	Kev 0.8B r15 Jared Palmer	30±1	local	~4.6GB	2026-09-24
309	PICK-150M v5 lCREEl	30±1	model files		2026-10-18
310	InternLM Intern-Decision Qwen3.5-0.8B Shanghai AI Laboratory (InternLM)	30±1	model files
311	OpenDecision (DecisionBench a51e07b5) deepanwadhwa	30±2	model files

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▃▃▄▆██▆ #213 of 250 · 10% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Cam1, InternLM Intern-Decision Qwen3.5-2B, Valen-0.8B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Prumo (rule-based engine), JevK5 Lite, 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: BFCL (case exact accuracy) submitted	73.7% ✎	▁▂▁▁▃▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 36/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇▇ 6.0%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	41.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▃▂█▂ beats 33/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 2.0%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	67.3% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 86/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	54.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▃▄█▁ beats 42/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.7%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	94.3% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▃▁▃ beats 211/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 0.2%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	52.0% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▃▃▃█▅ #216 of 258 · 4.6% of its score · 7 tests

Beats openvons Qwen3-4B (decision readout), Intelif Qwen3-4B, mini-jev Qwen3-4B (decision readout) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Bosun v3.1 0.6B LoRA, Crivo-32M v2, Mola-68M 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	32.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▃▃█▅ beats 41/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 1.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	27.2% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▂▂▄▇█ beats 36/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 1.3%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	91.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 142/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.6%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	71.3% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 106/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	49.1% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 7/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	91.7% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 208/238	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▂▂▃▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #227 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, LFM2.5-2.6B-RLCD, JEV Ettin 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	44.5% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 27/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇▇▇ 10%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	59.0% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 39/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	45.7% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 50/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 3.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	14.1% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▃▄▅█▇▄ beats 10/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 1.1%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	77.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 141/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	89.9% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 146/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	74.0% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 160/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	65.7% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 79/246	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	22.7% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 129/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.3%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #211 of 247 · 7.1% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Valen-4B, Saracura PT-BR 4B, TokenRhythm NeoHorse-Jev-4B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails LFM2.5-350M-RLCD, system-one-gemma, 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: New Yorker (accuracy) submitted	29.7% ✎	▁▁▃▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 17/246	medium · avg 61%	▇ 2.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	53.5% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 36/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.8%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	52.1% ✎	▁·▁▃▃▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 40/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	45.6% ✎	▁········▃▇█ beats 1/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	49.4% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 177/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	1.4% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 24/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.1%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▃▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #239 of 263 · 49% of its score · 14 tests

Beats Amber 0.4B, DecisionTune 1.0, Dinah-1 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails laya (DecisionBench 1c5edc17), JevK5 Lite, LFM2.5-2.6B-RLCD 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	64.2% ✎	▁▁▂▃▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 24/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇▇▇▇▇ 12%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	44.2% ✎	▂▂▃▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 23/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇▇▇ 11%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	34.1% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 18/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇▇ 6.4%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	34.9% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 15/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 5.1%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU-Pro (accuracy) submitted	13.7% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 14/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇ 4.6%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	56.3% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 35/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.6%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	24.0% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 10/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 1.7%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	17.9% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 12/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 1.4%	sharp

6 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy) submitted	55.0% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 68/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	67.5% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 114/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	41.4% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 67/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 0.7%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	0.2% ✎	▃▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 5/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.4%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	7.6% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 14/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.3%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	13.0% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 148/246	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)	18.9400 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 34/247	avg 41.206 points	▇ 3.6%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	10.6500 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 23/247	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/lCREEl ↗

$ 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		= 29.9

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	52.0%	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