whatmodel.sh / decision / Quyet-1.0-Large

Quyet-1.0-Large

+ contribute
Update model informationAdd a place to run itAdd a test resultPropose a benchmarkCorrect a benchmark scoreEdit data on GitHub

Quyet-1.0-Large is an open-weights decision model from chinhnc. Its published size is 32.68B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine quyet-1.0-large; reported model Quyet-1.0-Large. Type: LoRA; 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.

65.2±1.3#55 of 355 decision modelsfrom 52 benchmark results across 3 sources

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of Quyet-1.0-Large, out of 357 with a score.

#modelscorewhereRAMreleased
53Herbert v0.5 leinenterprises65±4model files
54StartLux-Decision v1.1 4B StartLux65±1model files
55Quyet-1.0-Large chinhnc65±1model files
56Mercury Decide (paid endpoint) Inception65±1api price unknown
57Jebadiah 27B v2.1 (T1e) frontier-infra65±1local~69GB2026-10

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #48 of 250 · 7.7% of its score · 8 tests

Beats Fastino GLiDE 1.2, vLLM-SR d3-ultra (Decision 3.0, 27B), AutoTrust-JEV-27B v1.1 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails baselabs joey-1 (2B), Solomon v1.1, Bespoke Nimble 9B v3 here, though they rank lower overall.

testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy)84.5% ✎▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 144/236easy · avg 70%▇ 1.5%sharp · noisy
DecideBench v1: agent routing98.0% ✎▄·····▂▄·█·▄ beats 5/10very easy · avg 93%▇ 1.3%sharp · maxed out · noisy
DecideBench v1: action review100.0% ✎▃▃·▃·█···█·▅ beats 9/10easy · avg 87%▇ 1.2%sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10)66.5% ✎▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 174/246medium · avg 60%▇ 0.9%blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy)56.8% ✎█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 142/243medium · avg 37%▇ 0.9%sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BFCL (case exact accuracy)97.5% ✎▁▂▁▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 199/246very easy · avg 92%▇ 0.9%sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy)67.6% ✎▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 89/246easy · avg 72%▇ 0.8%noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective))80.0% ✎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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #156 of 258 · 6.9% of its score · 8 tests

Trails DecisionTune 1.0, jiwo 0.8B v2, Amber 0.4B here, though they rank lower overall.

testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BRIGHT (nDCG@10)45.9% ✎▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 166/246medium · avg 38%▇ 2.6%blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1)48.1% ✎▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 97/246medium · avg 47%▇ 2.3%at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy)81.1% ✎▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 156/246easy · avg 74%▇ 0.5%blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy)90.0% ✎█▅▅▄▃▃▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 212/245easy · avg 70%▇ 0.5%noisy
DecideBench v1: support intent100.0% ✎▃····▂▂·▃··█ beats 8/10very easy · avg 95%▇ 0.4%sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1)84.7% ✎▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 131/238easy · avg 79%▇ 0.3%noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1)91.2% ✎▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 146/238easy · avg 83%▇ 0.3%sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1)11.3% ✎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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #46 of 256 · 24% of its score · 12 tests

Beats Ainvest-Decision-27B v1.0, Turion Jev 31B, MISA AI 2.0 Decision Plus · oak 1.1 (31B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Decider 35B-A3B, Sieve 9B v2, Clef-flash here, though they rank lower overall.

testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1)76.4% ✎▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 209/246medium · avg 60%▇▇ 4.7%typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1)84.3% ✎▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 206/246easy · avg 74%▇▇ 4.4%typical
DecideBench v1: review sentiment96.0% ✎▂··▂···▂▂█▄▂ beats 9/10easy · avg 85%▇ 2.7%sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: HellaSwag (accuracy)95.7% ✎▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 204/246very easy · avg 85%▇ 2.7%sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English)48.0% ✎▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 124/246medium · avg 44%▇ 2.3%at its level
DecideBench v1: content moderation98.0% ✎▂··▂···▄▄▂·█ beats 8/10easy · avg 83%▇ 1.8%sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1)32.6% ✎▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 174/246hard · avg 22%▇ 1.5%at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1)77.6% ✎▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 190/246medium · avg 62%▇ 0.9%at its level
4 more tests
testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1)84.8% ✎▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 227/246easy · avg 71%▇ 0.9%noisy
DecideBench v1: claim support98.0% ✎▄··▄·▄·▄▄███ beats 10/10easy · avg 82%▇ 0.8%sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class)83.8% ✎▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 217/246easy · avg 66%▇ 0.6%noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1)96.6% ✎▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 244/246easy · avg 84%▇ 0.4%maxed out · noisy
arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #80 of 247 · 8.7% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Jev 1.13 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Amber 0.4B, Crivo-1B, Kas 4B here, though they rank lower overall.

testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
Decision Index 0.4.1: New Yorker (accuracy)76.7% ✎▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 202/246medium · avg 61%▇ 3.4%typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy)63.4% ✎▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 179/246medium · avg 60%▇ 1.9%blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy)18.4% ✎▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 127/237hard · avg 21%▇ 1.1%sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy)67.3% ✎▁········▁▇█ beats 226/246medium · avg 60%▇ 1.1%blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy)92.1% ✎▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 168/246easy · avg 83%▇ 0.8%sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy)43.8% ✎▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 116/246medium · avg 47%▇ 0.3%blunt · at its level
knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #52 of 263 · 37% of its score · 14 tests

Beats OneJev1.6-27B, baselabs elephant-1 (9B), StartLux-Decision v1.1 9B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Solar Decide, Clef-flash, Clef-omni here, though they rank lower overall.

testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU-Pro (accuracy)67.0% ✎▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 190/246medium · avg 46%▇▇▇▇ 10%sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy)86.1% ✎▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 198/246easy · avg 70%▇▇ 5.1%sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy)89.7% ✎▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 234/246easy · avg 66%▇▇ 5.1%typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy)49.0% ✎▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 187/246medium · avg 39%▇ 3.4%blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice))83.5% ✎▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 229/246medium · avg 45%▇ 3.2%sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy)91.0% ✎█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 204/246easy · avg 78%▇ 2.3%typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy)30.1% ✎▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 145/246hard · avg 22%▇ 1.7%at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy)97.9% ✎▂▂▂▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 238/246very easy · avg 90%▇ 1.7%sharp · maxed out
6 more tests
testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy)63.4% ✎▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 163/246medium · avg 60%▇ 1.2%blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy)77.7% ✎██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 189/246medium · avg 58%▇ 1.0%at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy)75.1% ✎▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 157/246easy · avg 71%▇ 0.8%typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy)22.8% ✎▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 198/246hard · avg 16%▇ 0.8%blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy)99.0% ✎▁▁▂▁▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 185/246very easy · avg 96%▇ 0.7%sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy)13.2% ✎▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 150/246very hard · avg 13%▇ 0.0%blunt
workflows▁▁▁▂▁▂▂▆█▄▁▁ #5 of 114 * · 3.7% of its score · 2 tests

Beats baselabs mammoth-1 (27B), Nace.AI Drex Max v1 (27B), Perplexity Decider v1.2 (27B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Mercury Decide (paid endpoint) here, though they rank lower overall.

testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
DecideBench v1: ticket triage98.0% ✎▄·····▂█·▆·▂ beats 8/10very easy · avg 90%▇ 2.3%sharp · maxed out
DecideBench v1: returns policy94.0% ✎▃··▃··▃·▅▅█▃ beats 8/10easy · avg 81%▇ 1.4%sharp · noisy
other tests4 not in a task · 12% of its score
testresultvs the others in its rundifficultycountswhy
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)58.4600 points ✎▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 200/247avg 41.206 points▇▇ 5.7%blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)64.2300 points ✎▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 200/247avg 38.861 points▇ 3.1%blunt
Benchmark Heaven jevbench v1.6.1: intelligence (points)73.4014 points ✎▃···▃·▃▃█▅▅█ beats 13/13avg 32.166 points▇ 2.5%blunt
Benchmark Heaven jevbench v1.6.1: calibration (points)89.9762 points ✎▂······▂▆▂██ beats 9/13avg 70.133 points▇ 0.7%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/chinhnc ↗

$ how the score was worked out · Decision Index 0.4.1 84%, DecideBench (Cho Yin Yong) 12%, Benchmark Heaven (own decisio… 3%

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

sourceresultsshare of the scorelicence
Decision Index 0.4.142CC BY 4.0
DecideBench (Cho Yin Yong)8CC BY 4.0
Benchmark Heaven (own decision evaluations)2CC BY 4.0
prior · pull toward the middle
weighted average= 65.2

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]80.0%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 0.4.1Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) [correct]11.3%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 informationAdd a place to run itAdd a test resultPropose a benchmarkCorrect a benchmark scoreEdit 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 · sources and licences · json