Xor 1.2

+ contribute

Xor 1.2 is an open-weights decision model from Juspay Technologies, released 28 September 2026. Its published size is 35.95B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

Exact Decision Index tested engine xor-1.2; reported model Xor 1.2. 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

Release date ↗ · Weights licence ↗ · Parameter count ↗

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

58.8±1.2#121 of 355 decision modelsfrom 54 benchmark results across 2 sources

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of Xor 1.2, out of 357 with a score, then more from Juspay Technologies.

#	model	score	where	RAM	released
121	Clef-omni Cloudflare	59±1	api $0.15/M input tokens +local	~87GB	2026-10
122	Decider chat · Qwen3.6-27B (decision readout) Mapika	59±1	source code
123	Xor 1.2 Juspay Technologies	59±1	model files		2026-09-28
124	jev-d3-46k tinnel123	59±4	model files
125	Jebadiah 27B v2.1 (Ollaya Q4_K_M) frontier-infra	59±4	local	~16GB	2026-10
	more from Juspay Technologies
72	Xor 26B-A4B v1.2 Juspay Technologies	63±1	model files		2026-10-16
148	xor-26b-a4b-v1.1 Juspay Technologies	56±4	model files		2026-10-09

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

$ what it's good at

tools & automation▁▃▁▁▁▂▃▄▆██▆ #92 of 250 · 6.2% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Sieve 27B v2, Jev 1.13, Xor 26B-A4B v1.2 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails OneJev1.6-0.8B, Jev-Omni, baselabs joey-1 (2B) 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	84.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▂█▂ beats 141/236	easy · avg 70%	▇ 1.9%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BFCL (case exact accuracy) submitted	96.2% ✎	▁▂▁▁▁▂▂▄▅▆█▁ beats 159/246	very easy · avg 92%	▇ 1.4%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Home appliance simulator (case exact accuracy) submitted	47.7% ✎	█▁▁▃▄▄▆▄▁▂▁▃ beats 130/243	medium · avg 37%	▇ 1.1%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: When2Call (accuracy) submitted	73.7% ✎	▁▁▁▂▃▅▅▆█▇█▃ beats 108/246	easy · avg 72%	▇ 0.9%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ToolRet (nDCG@10) submitted	63.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁·▁▁▁▄█▁ beats 104/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 0.9%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RouterBench (selected quality (quality objective)) submitted	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▁▁▁·▁▁▁▁▃▃█▅ #140 of 258 · 6.1% of its score · 7 tests

Beats Quyet-1.0-Large, Decider chat · Qwen3.6-27B (decision readout) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails vLLM-SR vela3-fast (Vela 3.0, 0.4B), crystal-0.8b, Kas 4B 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	43.5% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▄▇█ beats 134/246	medium · avg 38%	▇ 2.3%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Amazon ESCI (macro-F1) submitted	51.8% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▃▃█▅ beats 116/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 2.1%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: HoVer (accuracy) submitted	73.3% ✎	▆▆▇▅▄▄▃▇▄█▆▄ beats 112/246	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.5%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: PhishNChips phishing decisions (accuracy) submitted	66.8% ✎	█▅▅▄▃▂▁▁▁▁·▁ beats 113/245	easy · avg 70%	▇ 0.5%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLINC150+OOS (macro-F1) submitted	85.7% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▃▆█▄ beats 82/238	easy · avg 83%	▇ 0.3%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: BANKING77 (macro-F1) submitted	78.3% ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁▁▁▂█▇█ beats 77/238	easy · avg 79%	▇ 0.3%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) submitted	35.0% ✎	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▂▂▂▃▂▅▆▃█▆▄▃ #76 of 256 · 20% of its score · 9 tests

Beats Turion Jev 31B, AJev lm6q (Gemma 4 31B), oenogarum (Gemma 4 31B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Sieve 4B, Amber 4B, Decider 35B-A3B 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	69.9% ✎	▁▂▃▅▅█▂····▁ beats 157/246	medium · avg 60%	▇▇ 4.8%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: NLI4CT (macro-F1) submitted	79.1% ✎	▁▁▁▂▂▃▃▄▇▇█▄ beats 146/246	easy · avg 74%	▇▇ 4.7%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: HellaSwag (accuracy) submitted	94.2% ✎	▂▄▂▂▄▇▃▇█▅▃▁ beats 177/246	very easy · avg 85%	▇▇ 3.9%	sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: iSarcasmEval (Sarcasm F1 · track A, English) submitted	54.6% ✎	▁·▁·▁▁▂▄▅█▇▄ beats 155/246	medium · avg 44%	▇ 2.2%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ACOS (per-review F1) submitted	16.9% ✎	▁··▂▃▃▅▇█▇▃▃ beats 88/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.2%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: ContractNLI (macro-F1) submitted	74.9% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▂▇▇█ beats 115/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.9%	noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: VAST (macro-F1) submitted	70.0% ✎	▁▁▁▂▅▄▄▂▄▆█▄ beats 138/246	medium · avg 62%	▇ 0.9%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: RAGTruth (F1 on hallucinated class) submitted	71.1% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▆█ beats 101/246	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.7%	noisy

1 more test

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: FinEntity (macro-F1) submitted	89.1% ✎	▁···▁▁▁▁▃▆█▃ beats 140/246	easy · avg 84%	▇ 0.5%	noisy

arts & human taste▁▇▄▃▅▅█▅▄▂▁▁ #30 of 247 · 8.6% of its score · 6 tests

Beats Jeffan-31b-1710, vLLM-SR d3-turbo v1.1 (27B), WeMM-JEV-27B here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Kas 4B 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	72.9% ✎	▁▁▂▃▃▃▇▅█▅▃▁ beats 172/246	medium · avg 61%	▇ 3.6%	at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: Humicroedit (accuracy) submitted	63.8% ✎	▁·▁▃▂▂▅█▄▂▁▁ beats 190/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.8%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: cfcolor (accuracy) submitted	64.7% ✎	▁········▁▇█ beats 170/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.0%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: BPoMP (accuracy) submitted	96.7% ✎	▁█▄▄▅█▆▅▄▁▁▁ beats 218/246	easy · avg 83%	▇ 1.0%	sharp · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: POP909-CL (accuracy) submitted	31.9% ✎	▄▅▅▃▆▅▃▅▂▅▃█ beats 151/237	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.9%	sharp · at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: Habermas Machine (accuracy) submitted	45.5% ✎	▁▂▄█▇▅▁▁▄▄▁▁ beats 142/246	medium · avg 47%	▇ 0.3%	blunt · at its level

knowledge & reasoning▁▂▂▂▂▃▃▅▅▆█▂ #85 of 263 · 39% of its score · 14 tests

Beats StartLux-Decision v1.1 4B, KnowLine 4B Gen5.5, Jeffan-4B-2010 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Solar Decide, Clef-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	63.8% ✎	▄▄▃▃▂▄▅▇██▅▁ beats 170/246	medium · avg 46%	▇▇▇▇ 10%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: MMLU (accuracy) submitted	84.6% ✎	▁▄▄▃▃▂▅▇▅█▇▁ beats 184/246	easy · avg 70%	▇▇ 5.9%	sharp
Decision Index 0.4.1: BBH (accuracy) submitted	72.1% ✎	▄▆▄▄█▇▇▄▃▁▁▁ beats 146/246	easy · avg 66%	▇▇ 5.5%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: GSM8K (accuracy (4- and 10-choice)) submitted	39.9% ✎	▁··▄█▆▆▆▅▅▃▁ beats 109/246	medium · avg 45%	▇ 3.2%	sharp · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: GPQA Diamond (accuracy) submitted	50.0% ✎	▂▆▅▅▆█▆▃▁··▁ beats 194/246	medium · avg 39%	▇ 3.0%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Challenge (accuracy) submitted	96.4% ✎	▂▂▂▂▂▂▁▃▄▆█▆ beats 173/246	very easy · avg 90%	▇ 2.7%	sharp · maxed out
Decision Index 0.4.1: WinoGrande (accuracy) submitted	81.4% ✎	█▅█▅▄█▆▄▃▃▁▁ beats 134/246	easy · avg 78%	▇ 2.7%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: SATA-Bench (case exact accuracy) submitted	29.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▂▅█▂▁ beats 135/246	hard · avg 22%	▇ 1.4%	at its level

6 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: ARC-Easy (accuracy) submitted	99.2% ✎	▁▁▂▁▂▂▂▂▃▆█▅ beats 216/246	very easy · avg 96%	▇ 1.3%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: MuSR (accuracy) submitted	60.6% ✎	▁▁▂█▅▄▁▁▁▁▁▁ beats 139/246	medium · avg 60%	▇ 1.1%	blunt · at its level
Decision Index 0.4.1: CRUXEval (accuracy) submitted	59.8% ✎	██▄▃▃▄▁▁···▁ beats 144/246	medium · avg 58%	▇ 1.0%	at its level · noisy
Decision Index 0.4.1: CLadder (accuracy) submitted	65.0% ✎	▁███▆▅▃▃▁▁▁▁ beats 97/246	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.9%	typical
Decision Index 0.4.1: ChessBench (accuracy) submitted	15.4% ✎	▄▇▄▄▄▆▄█▄▁▁▁ beats 117/246	hard · avg 16%	▇ 0.7%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: HLE (accuracy) submitted	12.8% ✎	▁▁▂▃▆█▇▅▅▃▁▁ beats 144/246	very hard · avg 13%	▇ 0.0%	blunt

vision▁·▃▂▃▃▇▄▄█▄▃ #34 of 79 · 12% of its score · 12 tests

Beats RSI-Jev v6.1 VL 27B (effort auto), StartLux-Decision v1.1 4B, Surogate Rune 26B-A4B v3 here, though they rank higher overall. Trails Clef-flash here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · Mind2Web (chance-corrected points) submitted	75.6100 points ✎	▁·▁▁▃▁▄▄▃▅█▂ beats 30/61	avg 63.423 points	▇ 1.5%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · MMMU-Pro vision (chance-corrected points) submitted	40.1300 points ✎	▁▁▅▁▄▁▄█▄▃▇▇ beats 43/61	avg 22.797 points	▇ 1.4%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · Winoground (chance-corrected points) submitted	84.2500 points ✎	▁·▁▁▁▁·▂▁▃▅█ beats 45/61	avg 66.987 points	▇ 1.3%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4: private same skills (points)	58.1500 points ✎	▁▁▃▃▁▂▄▆▃▃▅█ beats 34/61	avg 48.067 points	▇ 1.3%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · Moderation (Hateful Memes) (chance-corrected points) submitted	38.5000 points ✎	▆▃▃▆▄▄▇██▁▆▆ beats 34/61	avg 28.443 points	▇ 1.1%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · RealWorldQA (chance-corrected points) submitted	66.4300 points ✎	▁·▂▂▁▃▃▅▅▃▂█ beats 42/61	avg 53.651 points	▇ 1.0%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · CharXiv (chance-corrected points) submitted	71.1800 points ✎	▂▁▁▁▁▃▁▅▅▆██ beats 29/61	avg 62.137 points	▇ 1.0%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · InfographicVQA (chance-corrected points) submitted	94.5400 points ✎	▁·▁▂▁▁▃▁▂▂▅█ beats 38/61	avg 83.859 points	▇ 0.8%	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	35.3900 points ✎	▂▄▇▆█▄▄▇▂··▁ beats 50/61	avg 19.676 points	▇ 0.8%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · BLINK (chance-corrected points) submitted	56.9900 points ✎	▁···▁▂▂▂█▄▂▃ beats 40/61	avg 44.994 points	▇ 0.7%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · CV-Bench (chance-corrected points) submitted	76.4400 points ✎	▁▁▁▁▂▁▁▁▄█▃▃ beats 44/61	avg 67.662 points	▇ 0.6%	blunt
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · KIE (CORD+FUNSD) (chance-corrected points) submitted	92.8500 points ✎	▁··▁▁▁▁▁▂▄█▁ beats 54/61	avg 85.184 points	▇ 0.4%	blunt

other tests2 not in a task · 7.9% of its score

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
Decision Index 0.4.1: private same skills (equated points)	53.1700 points ✎	▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▅▅▇█▃ beats 160/247	avg 41.206 points	▇▇ 5.1%	blunt
Decision Index 0.4.1: private new domains (equated points)	54.2900 points ✎	▃█▃▃▂▆▃▃▄▄▄▄ beats 168/247	avg 38.861 points	▇ 2.8%	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/juspay ↗

$ how the score was worked out · Decision Index 0.4.1 88%, Decision Index Vision 0.4 12%

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	▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 88%	CC BY 4.0
Decision Index Vision 0.4 · submitted; independent execution unverified	12	▇▇▇▇ 12%	CC BY 4.0
prior · pull toward the middle		▇ 1%
weighted average		= 58.8

not counted (2)

Decision Index 0.4.1	Decision 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 0.4.1	Decision Index 0.4.1: SGD/SGD-X (macro-F1) [correct]	35.0%	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