whatmodel.sh / decision / tasksource Decider nano v5 (150M)

tasksource Decider nano v5 (150M)

+ contribute

tasksource Decider nano v5 (150M) is an open-weights decision model from tasksource. Its published size is 0.15B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine tasksource-decider-nano-v5; reported model tasksource Decider nano v5 (150M). 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

· Weights licence ↗ · Parameter count ↗

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

34.1±1.1#284 of 355 decision modelsfrom 42 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of tasksource Decider nano v5 (150M), out of 357 with a score.

#	model	score	where	released
284	vLLM-SR vela3-fast-vision (Vela 3.0, 0.25B) vLLM Semantic Router	35±1	model files
285	wyat-1-800m teilomillet	34±1	model files	2026-10-18
286	tasksource Decider nano v5 (150M) tasksource	34±1	model files
287	JEV Ettin 150M Elfsong	34±1	model files	2026-10-23
288	Valen-0.8B Valen	34±1	model files

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #181 of 250 · 10% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Decider 4B, JevK5 v0.3, FlyMy.AI Decision 4B v1.6 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails JevK5 Lite, Mola-68M, Mola-150M 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	89.0% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 68/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇▇ 5.3%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	37.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▃▂█▂ beats 27/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 2.2%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	79.7% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 137/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.1%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	62.7% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 98/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.7%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	0.0% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 6/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 0.3%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	66.0% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #194 of 258 · 4.8% of its score · 7 tests

Beats JevK5 9B v0.3.3, Hopper (G) 1.2 Qwen3.5-4B LoRA, Solar Decide Flash here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Bosun v3.1 0.6B LoRA, Mola-68M, Bosun v3.1 1.7B LoRA 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	40.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 62/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 1.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	29.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▂▄▇█ beats 46/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	87.2% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 95/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.6%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	84.3% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 177/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	50.7% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 42/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	89.4% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 172/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	60.6% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #205 of 256 · 24% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Valen-2B, Saina Helm 2 Omni (0.8B), vLLM-SR Decision 2.0 Sol 2B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails DecisionTune 1.0, vera-spark, JEV FLAN-T5 Large public v2 (342M) 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	64.5% ✎	▂▄▂▃▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 51/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇▇▇ 10%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	59.1% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 40/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 5.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	45.4% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 49/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 4.0%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	29.9% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 59/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 1.3%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	78.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 152/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	71.6% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 45/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.9%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	75.0% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 171/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	67.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 87/246	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.7%	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	29.2% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 161/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.4%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #184 of 247 · 7.4% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Sieve 9B, Kev 9B v2, vLLM-SR d3-nano (2B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Qwen-2.5-1B-RLCD (decision readout), Bekko System One v0 68M, Crivo-17M 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	59.5% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 99/246	medium · avg 61%	▇ 3.1%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	66.9% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 63/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.7%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	48.7% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 10/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.4%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	51.5% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 31/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	40.4% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 70/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.2%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	1.5% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 27/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.2%	sharp · too hard for it · noisy

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▃▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #233 of 263 · 48% of its score · 14 tests

Beats Decision-1.0-Eos-0.8B (DecisionBench 3c2d6326), Amber 0.4B, vLLM-SR vela3-fast-vision (Vela 3.0, 0.25B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails laya (DecisionBench 1c5edc17), LFM2.5-2.6B-RLCD, Jev-Style 0.8B v3 here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	51.4% ✎	▂▂▃▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 30/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇▇▇ 10%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	71.6% ✎	▁▁▂▃▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 31/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇▇▇▇ 10%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	37.8% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 28/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇▇ 6.8%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU-Pro (accuracy) submitted	17.3% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 30/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇ 5.5%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	39.3% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 34/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 5.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	59.4% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 42/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	21.4% ✎	▃▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 2/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 1.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	25.7% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 60/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 1.7%	sharp

6 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy) submitted	58.5% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 115/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	52.8% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 26/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	43.0% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 75/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 0.8%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	11.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▂▅█▂▁ beats 47/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.5%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	10.0% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 58/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.3%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	14.4% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 181/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 5.8% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	25.3500 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 54/247	avg 41.206 points	▇ 3.7%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	11.6000 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 30/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 2.1%	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/tasksource ↗

$ 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		= 34.1

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	66.0%	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]	60.6%	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