whatmodel.sh / decision / openjev (DecisionBench ec4ff3df)

openjev (DecisionBench ec4ff3df)

+ contribute

openjev (DecisionBench ec4ff3df) is an open-weights decision model from razorback16. Its published size is 25.823778864B parameters. Licence: apache-2.0.

Catalogue identity notes

DecisionBench v1 comparison: razorback16/openjev, revision ec4ff3df205028f4e81c954c2227f9312b3ec2ea; language-model; adapter jev-compatible-server-native-systemone-v1; probability source native-probability-distribution. Kept separate from newer or unpinned Decision Index recipes; standard prompt, not compact. No unverified runtime or OpenRouter price imported. 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 ↗

Published served parameter count; not a RAM or download-size measurement.

56.7±1.7#139 of 355 decision modelsfrom 27 benchmark results across 1 source

$ how it compares

The decision models ranked either side of openjev (DecisionBench ec4ff3df), out of 357 with a score.

#	model	score	where	RAM	released
139	jqv (DecisionBench 9216db57) Octalab-Inc	57±2	model files
140	Trio-Spark DI (9B) MachineFi Labs	57±1	request access
141	openjev (DecisionBench ec4ff3df) razorback16	57±2	model files
142	matilda-jev-v1.5 (27B) Maincode	57±4	model files		2026-10-09
143	Jebadiah 9B v2.1 (T1e) frontier-infra	57±1	local	~25GB	2026-10

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

$ what it's good at

workflows▁▁▁▂▁▂▂▆█▄▁▁ #42 of 114 · 99% of its score · 27 tests

Beats Clef-omni, Jebadiah 27B v2.1 (Ollaya Q4_K_M), vLLM-SR d3-mini (4B) here, though they rank higher overall. Trails StartLux-Decision v1.1 2B, Solar Decide here, though they rank lower overall.

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
DecisionBench v1 · action selection (all-request accuracy) submitted	57.7% ✎	▂▁▂▃▄▃▁▁▂█▇▄ beats 37/56	medium · avg 51%	▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 20%	at its level
DecisionBench v1 · routing (all-request accuracy) submitted	72.3% ✎	▁▁▁▁▂▂▁▁▁▁▃█ beats 35/56	medium · avg 64%	▇▇▇▇▇ 13%	sharp · at its level
DecisionBench v1 · navigation (all-request accuracy) submitted	68.0% ✎	▁▁·▃▁▁▁▁▁▁▃█ beats 30/56	medium · avg 58%	▇▇▇▇ 11%	sharp · at its level
DecisionBench v1 · record classification (all-request accuracy) submitted	43.0% ✎	▃▂▁▂▂▂▄▁▃▆██ beats 32/56	medium · avg 39%	▇▇▇▇ 9.4%	at its level
DecisionBench v1 · verification (all-request accuracy) submitted	63.0% ✎	▁▁▅▁▃▂▂▁▁▇▇█ beats 47/56	medium · avg 56%	▇▇▇ 6.4%	blunt · at its level
DecisionBench v1 · document record classification (all-request accuracy) submitted	43.9% ✎	▂▂·▁▂▄▃▆▄█▁▁ beats 27/56	medium · avg 46%	▇▇ 5.2%	at its level
DecisionBench v1 · rubric scoring prioritization (all-request accuracy) submitted	52.1% ✎	▁▁▅▅▃▃▅█▃▃·▁ beats 46/56	medium · avg 45%	▇▇ 4.4%	at its level
DecisionBench v1 · triage (all-request accuracy) submitted	88.0% ✎	▁·▁·▂▃▄▃▂█▄▂ beats 48/56	easy · avg 78%	▇▇ 4.2%	sharp

19 more tests

test	result	vs the others in its run	difficulty	counts	why
DecisionBench v1 · completion assessment (all-request accuracy) submitted	92.0% ✎	▁▁▂▃▄·▂▁▁▆█▂ beats 37/56	very easy · avg 86%	▇▇ 3.9%	sharp
DecisionBench v1 · bounded extraction (all-request accuracy) submitted	94.1% ✎	▃▃▂·▁▁▁▁▁▁█▅ beats 41/56	very easy · avg 86%	▇ 3.2%	sharp · maxed out · noisy
DecisionBench v1 · content classification (all-request accuracy) submitted	80.0% ✎	▁····▁▁▁▁▁▁█ beats 42/56	easy · avg 73%	▇ 3.2%	typical
DecisionBench v1 · review scoring (all-request accuracy) submitted	62.0% ✎	▁······▂▃▅▇█ beats 47/56	medium · avg 52%	▇ 2.9%	at its level
DecisionBench v1 · retrieval ranking (all-request accuracy) submitted	56.0% ✎	▁▁·▁▁▂▃▂▃▁▁█ beats 40/56	medium · avg 35%	▇ 2.4%	at its level · noisy
DecisionBench v1 · target selection (all-request accuracy) submitted	50.0% ✎	▁▁·▁▁▁▃▁▂▁▁█ beats 54/56	hard · avg 29%	▇ 2.2%	at its level · noisy
DecisionBench v1 · risk scoring (all-request accuracy) submitted	60.0% ✎	▁▁·▁▂▂▁▃▃█▇▃ beats 23/56	medium · avg 62%	▇ 1.9%	blunt · at its level
DecisionBench v1 · reasoning (all-request accuracy) submitted	51.3% ✎	▂·▁▁▆█▅▃▃▂▁▁ beats 36/56	medium · avg 52%	▇ 1.2%	at its level
DecisionBench v1 · document workflows (all-request accuracy) submitted	48.1% ✎	█▄▃▁▁▃▂▂▁·▁▁ beats 4/56	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.8%	blunt · at its level
DecisionBench v1 · retrieval verification (all-request accuracy) submitted	77.7% ✎	█▁▂▁▁▁▃▁▂▅▁▁ beats 32/56	easy · avg 74%	▇ 0.7%	noisy
DecisionBench v1 · guardrails moderation (all-request accuracy) submitted	38.7% ✎	▁▁▁▂▆▃▃█···▁ beats 16/56	medium · avg 52%	▇ 0.5%	blunt · at its level · noisy
DecisionBench v1 · safety gating (all-request accuracy) submitted	71.0% ✎	▂·····▆█▃▂▄▇ beats 30/56	easy · avg 77%	▇ 0.4%	noisy
DecisionBench v1 · document classification (all-request accuracy) submitted	33.0% ✎	▂▁·▂▁▁▁▄▁▂▂█ beats 42/56	hard · avg 21%	▇ 0.4%	blunt · noisy
DecisionBench v1 · semantic filtering (all-request accuracy) submitted	82.0% ✎	▁·▁▁·▁▁█▂▃█▂ beats 37/56	easy · avg 71%	▇ 0.3%	blunt · at its level · noisy
DecisionBench v1 · content moderation (all-request accuracy) submitted	99.0% ✎	▁····▃▅▃▂▂·█ beats 38/56	easy · avg 82%	▇ 0.2%	noisy
DecisionBench v1 · context management (all-request accuracy) submitted	64.5% ✎	▁·····▁▇▆▁█▃ beats 24/56	easy · avg 73%	▇ 0.2%	blunt · noisy
DecisionBench v1 · entity alignment (all-request accuracy) submitted	98.7% ✎	▁·▁▄▇▄▅▄▂▁▄█ beats 45/56	easy · avg 66%	▇ 0.2%	at its level · noisy
DecisionBench v1 · function agent skill routing (all-request accuracy) submitted	97.3% ✎	▃▃▄▅▆▂▅▄▃▄█▃ beats 48/56	easy · avg 68%	▇ 0.1%	blunt · at its level · noisy
DecisionBench v1 · routing triage (all-request accuracy) submitted	78.5% ✎	█▁···▁·▂▆▅▃▂ beats 50/56	medium · avg 42%	▇ 0.0%	blunt · at its level · noisy

$ where to run it

Download model files ↗
Published model files verified. This is the revision recorded by the benchmark. 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/nvidia ↗

$ how the score was worked out · Hanno Labs DecisionBench v1 r… 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
Hanno Labs DecisionBench v1 reviewed results · submitted; independent execution unverified	27	▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 99%	CC0 1.0
prior · pull toward the middle		▇ 1%
weighted average		= 56.7

$ 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