Valen-4B

+ contribute

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

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine valen-4b-r2; reported model Valen-4B. 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.

47.8±1.1#225 of 355 decision modelsfrom 54 benchmark results across 2 sources

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of Valen-4B, out of 357 with a score, then more from Valen.

#	model	score	where	released
225	Interfaze lev Qwen3.5-4B LoRA Interfaze	48±1	model files
226	Open-Jev-2B (DecisionBench 0c7aa498) ZefanCai	48±2	model files	2026-09-20
227	Valen-4B Valen	48±1	model files
228	RSI-Jev v5.0 VL 3B shgao	48±1	model files	2026-10
229	Sieve 2B v3 Sthānika AI	48±1	model files
	more from Valen
268	Valen-2B Valen	39±1	model files
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▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #185 of 250 · 7.5% of its score · 6 tests

Beats 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	87.3% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▃▄▅▆█▁ beats 64/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇ 2.6%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: API-Bank (accuracy) submitted	70.9% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▃█▂ beats 92/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 2.3%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	50.4% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 43/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	61.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 83/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	8.0% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 63/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 0.8%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	79.9% ✎	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #197 of 258 · 5.3% of its score · 7 tests

Beats 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: BRIGHT (nDCG@10) submitted	37.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 83/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 1.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	40.5% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 63/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 1.7%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	61.3% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 58/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	68.5% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 123/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	71.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 43/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.4%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	59.7% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▃█▇█ beats 21/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	52.2% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #181 of 256 · 21% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Nari Decision 4B v3.2, Solar Decide Flash here, though they rank higher overall. Trails DecisionTune 1.0, vera-spark, jdi-ptr14-0.8b 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	77.0% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 71/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇▇ 6.4%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	77.3% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 119/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 4.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ANLI (macro-F1) submitted	58.1% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 97/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 4.5%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	45.1% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 110/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 1.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	73.6% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 101/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	45.6% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 62/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	18.9% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 101/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.7%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	72.0% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 109/246	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: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	88.7% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 133/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.7%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #224 of 247 · 7.8% of its score · 6 tests

Trails LFM2.5-350M-RLCD, system-one-gemma, Bekko System One v0 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	53.2% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 65/246	medium · avg 61%	▇ 3.4%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	57.5% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▃▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 71/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.5%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	50.4% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 20/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.3%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	59.2% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 94/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	9.5% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 100/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.5%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	46.3% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 149/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.3%	blunt · at its level

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #162 of 263 · 41% of its score · 14 tests

Beats StartLux-Decision v1.1 2B, Solomon v1.1, Standard One 3B SH (v4) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails SemIf Qwen3.5-4B Base (decision readout), Saracura PT-BR 4B, Ryotide Qwen v0.3.1 (decision readout) 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	49.8% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 111/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇▇ 8.0%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	69.1% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 93/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇▇ 6.7%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	62.7% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 93/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 5.7%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	89.9% ✎	▂▂▂▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 95/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇▇ 5.5%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	96.5% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 97/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇ 3.3%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	69.7% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 81/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 3.0%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	45.0% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 129/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 2.7%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	42.9% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 135/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 2.4%	blunt · 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	54.4% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 56/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.0%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	53.7% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 125/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 0.9%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	32.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 173/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 0.9%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	62.1% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 72/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	10.6% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 66/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.5%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	11.2% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 68/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

vision▁·▃▂▃▃▇▄▄█▄▃ #54 of 79 · 10% of its score · 12 tests

Beats baselabs joey-1 (2B), QEV-2B, Shisa DE-2 (repeat) here, though they rank higher overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · Mind2Web (chance-corrected points) submitted	61.7700 points ✎	▁·▁▁▃▁▄▄▃▅█▂ beats 14/61	avg 63.423 points	▇ 1.2%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · MMMU-Pro vision (chance-corrected points) submitted	29.1900 points ✎	▁▁▅▁▄▁▄█▄▃▇▇ beats 25/61	avg 22.797 points	▇ 1.1%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · Winoground (chance-corrected points) submitted	65.7500 points ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁·▃▁▃▅█ beats 15/61	avg 66.987 points	▇ 1.0%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4: private same skills (points)	50.6900 points ✎	▁▁▃▃▁▂▄▆▃▃▅█ beats 19/61	avg 48.067 points	▇ 1.0%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · Moderation (Hateful Memes) (chance-corrected points) submitted	21.1900 points ✎	▆▃▃▆▄▄▇██▁▆▆ beats 11/61	avg 28.443 points	▇ 0.9%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · RealWorldQA (chance-corrected points) submitted	62.5400 points ✎	▁·▂▂▁▃▃▅▅▃▂█ beats 35/61	avg 53.651 points	▇ 0.8%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · CharXiv (chance-corrected points) submitted	70.9300 points ✎	▂▁▁▁▁▃▁▅▅▆██ beats 28/61	avg 62.137 points	▇ 0.8%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · InfographicVQA (chance-corrected points) submitted	93.4400 points ✎	▁·▁▂▁▁▃▁▂▂▅█ beats 32/61	avg 83.859 points	▇ 0.6%	blunt

4 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · R-Bench-M (chance-corrected points) submitted	22.9400 points ✎	▂▄▇▆█▄▄▇▂··▁ beats 27/61	avg 19.676 points	▇ 0.6%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · BLINK (chance-corrected points) submitted	51.1900 points ✎	▁···▁▂▂▂█▄▂▃ beats 20/61	avg 44.994 points	▇ 0.6%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · CV-Bench (chance-corrected points) submitted	74.6600 points ✎	▁▁▁▁▂▁▁▁▄█▃▃ beats 30/61	avg 67.662 points	▇ 0.5%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · KIE (CORD+FUNSD) (chance-corrected points) submitted	90.3800 points ✎	▁··▁▁▁▁▁▂▄█▁ beats 22/61	avg 85.184 points	▇ 0.3%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 6.5% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	38.5300 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 91/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇ 4.2%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	36.9000 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 109/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 2.3%	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/Valen-Team ↗

$ how the score was worked out · Decision Index 0.4.1 90%, Decision Index Vision 0.4 10%

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	▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 90%	CC BY 4.0
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · submitted; independent execution unverified	12	▇▇▇ 10%	CC BY 4.0
prior · pull toward the middle		▇ 1%
weighted average		= 47.8

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) [correct]	79.9%	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]	52.2%	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