Senova-4B v2

+ contribute

Senova-4B v2 is an open-weights decision model from WangSenQWQ. Its published size is 4.54B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine senova-4b-v2; reported model Senova-4B v2. 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.

63.3±1.4#73 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of Senova-4B v2, out of 357 with a score.

#	model	score	where	RAM	released
71	jev-vision-27b e12ex2	64±4	model files
72	Xor 26B-A4B v1.2 Juspay Technologies	63±1	model files		2026-10-16
73	Senova-4B v2 WangSenQWQ	63±1	model files
74	Clef Cloudflare	63±1	api $0.24/M input tokens +local	~68GB	2026-10
75	linne-fern 1.0 (27B) MISA-AICORE	63±1	model files

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #120 of 250 · 6.3% of its score · 6 tests

Trails OneJev1.6-0.8B, TokenRhythm NeoHorse-Jev-4B, razorback16 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	84.5% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 145/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 1.9%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BFCL (case exact accuracy) submitted	94.8% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 124/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇ 1.2%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	94.3% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▃▁▃ beats 208/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 1.2%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	68.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 216/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	92.7% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 242/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.0%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	78.7% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #43 of 258 · 7.4% of its score · 7 tests

Beats H2O Lightning 31B v1.1, AutoTrust-JEV-27B v1.1, MISA AI 2.0 Decision Plus · oak 1.1 (31B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Standard One 8B SH (v4), StartLux-Decision v1.1 2B, GEV-26B-Decide 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	45.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 151/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 2.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	59.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 206/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 2.6%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	86.5% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 202/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.6%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	94.5% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▃▁▁▁·▁ beats 228/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.6%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	95.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 210/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.3%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	93.9% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 234/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	41.7% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #53 of 256 · 22% of its score · 9 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.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	74.1% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 191/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 5.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	83.6% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 196/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.3%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: HellaSwag (accuracy) submitted	95.3% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 197/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇ 3.5%	sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	58.2% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 176/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 2.7%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	56.1% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 228/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.6%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	78.1% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 199/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 1.1%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	85.5% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 234/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	83.7% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 215/246	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.8%	noisy

1 more test

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	90.9% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 165/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.5%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▃▁▁ #16 of 247 · 10% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Jeffan-31b-1710, KnowLine 31B Gen1, vLLM-SR d3-turbo v1.1 (27B) here, though they rank higher overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: New Yorker (accuracy) submitted	72.2% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 165/246	medium · avg 61%	▇▇ 4.1%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	67.2% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▃▁▁ beats 226/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 2.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	82.7% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 232/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 1.3%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	67.4% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 229/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	97.6% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 230/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.9%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	60.3% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 206/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.4%	blunt · at its level

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #108 of 263 · 44% of its score · 14 tests

Trails Decider 35B-A3B, decisio 0.4.0 (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B) (decision readout), Solar Decide 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	56.7% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 142/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇▇▇▇ 11%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	77.9% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 138/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇ 6.2%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	77.9% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 178/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 6.1%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	42.9% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 134/246	medium · avg 39%	▇▇ 3.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	62.0% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 166/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 3.7%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	91.0% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 205/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 2.8%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	95.3% ✎	▂▂▂▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 145/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇ 2.3%	sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	45.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▃▁ beats 237/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.9%	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	72.7% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▃▁▁▁▁▁ beats 227/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	69.0% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 164/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 1.2%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	94.5% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▃▁▁ beats 237/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	98.3% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 144/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇ 1.0%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	28.4% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▃▁▁ beats 234/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.9%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	10.6% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 49/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 10% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	55.3800 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 172/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇▇ 6.4%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	44.4500 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 141/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 3.5%	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/WangSenQWQ ↗

$ 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		= 63.3

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	78.7%	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]	41.7%	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