whatmodel.sh / decision / Standard One 8B SH (v4)

Standard One 8B SH (v4)

+ contribute

Standard One 8B SH (v4) is an open-weights decision model from Standard Thinking. Its published size is 8.92B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine standard-one-8b-sh-v4; reported model Standard One 8B SH (v4). Type: LoRA + head; 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.

55.1±1.3#159 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of Standard One 8B SH (v4), out of 357 with a score, then more from Standard Thinking.

#	model	score	where	RAM	released
159	kev-4b (DecisionBench 485ace87) Jared Palmer	55±2	model files
160	Jebadiah 9B v2.1 (Ollaya Q8_0) frontier-infra	55±3	local	~9.1GB	2026-10
161	Standard One 8B SH (v4) Standard Thinking	55±1	model files
162	kev-8b (DecisionBench c80773da) Jared Palmer	55±2	model files
163	Winnow-12B EldanRing	55±1	model files
	more from Standard Thinking
47	Standard One 35B SH (v1) Standard Thinking	66±1	model files
174	Standard One 3B SH (v4) Standard Thinking	54±1	model files

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #116 of 250 · 7.5% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Senova-4B v2, Tern-35B-A3B, GEV-26B-Decide here, though they rank higher overall. 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	86.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 206/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 2.3%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BFCL (case exact accuracy) submitted	95.1% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 131/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇ 1.9%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	100.0% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 241/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 1.2%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	83.2% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 163/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.1%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	65.5% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 145/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.0%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	77.7% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #40 of 258 · 6.5% of its score · 7 tests

Beats Perplexity Decider v1.1 (27B), H2O Lightning 31B v1.1, AutoTrust-JEV-27B v1.1 here, though they rank higher overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	41.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 115/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 2.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	59.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 209/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 2.2%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	86.4% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 201/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.6%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	76.3% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 158/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	94.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 200/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.4%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	91.2% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 201/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	45.9% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #104 of 256 · 23% of its score · 9 tests

Beats jev-brain · Gemma-4-31B (decision readout), AnyJev L0 · Gemma-4-31B (decision readout), decisio 0.6.0 (Gemma 4 31B) (decision readout) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Decider 4B, jiwo 4B v2, Sieve 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	77.9% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 128/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.4%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	64.3% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 124/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 5.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HellaSwag (accuracy) submitted	92.6% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 151/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇ 5.2%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	52.0% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 145/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 2.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	27.5% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 155/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.2%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	85.4% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 229/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.1%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	71.7% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 146/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 1.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	75.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 130/246	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	83.1% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 86/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.7%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #164 of 247 · 9.4% of its score · 6 tests

Trails Crivo-17M, Crivo-32M v2, Crivo-68M 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	61.2% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 108/246	medium · avg 61%	▇▇ 4.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	53.7% ✎	▁·▁▃▃▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 48/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	77.7% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 83/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.2%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	62.5% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 135/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	78.6% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 212/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.9%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	58.7% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 192/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.3%	blunt · at its level

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #148 of 263 · 45% of its score · 14 tests

Beats Winnow-12B (DecisionBench b6ac22b0), StartLux-Decision v1.1 2B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Ryotide Qwen v0.3.1 (decision readout), razorback16 diffgemma (decision readout), Solar Decide Flash 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	50.1% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 112/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇▇▇ 10%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	74.0% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 115/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇▇ 7.0%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	75.6% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 162/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇▇ 6.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	91.5% ✎	▂▂▂▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 102/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇ 3.9%	sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	42.2% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 121/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 3.5%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	35.7% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 85/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 3.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	84.6% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 156/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.1%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	97.0% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 104/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇ 2.0%	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	23.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 98/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy) submitted	64.5% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 171/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	52.1% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 120/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 1.1%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	89.4% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 218/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	19.6% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 164/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.7%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	10.8% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 57/246	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)	49.9600 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 145/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇ 5.3%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	32.3700 points ✎	▃█▃▃▃▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 97/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 2.9%	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/StandardThinking ↗

$ 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		= 55.1

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	77.7%	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]	45.9%	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