OPEN DECISION MODELS Research preview

Less to generate.
More to decide.

Give a model context and explicit questions.
Get typed probabilities over the choices you provide.

Explore all tasks
Built on Qwen2B9B27BOne decision interface.
DECISION / 001Choice <3>
CONTEXT
“My order arrived damaged.
Can I get a refund?”
Which team should handle this?
ABilling
0.94
BEngineering
0.04
CSales
0.02
{"choice": "billing"}typed, by construction
Illustrative interface · not model output
THE WORK, IN NUMBERS

A growing set of
inspectable decision tasks.

282,484typed decision rows
23task-source identifiers
187,655training rows in inventory
73,333test + OOD rows in inventory

Prepared corpus inventory. The three new community control datasets are independently audited, with no training or model evaluation yet. Completed 2B/9B results below use the earlier release-v2 mixture.

01 / THE INTERFACE

A small vocabulary.
A useful way to think.

Choose an action. Test a condition. Score a criterion. Ask independent questions over the same context, with outputs you can use directly.

POST /v1/systemoneIllustrative request
{
  "state": "My order arrived damaged. Please refund it.",
  "questions": {
    "route": {
      "type": "choice",
      "instructions": "Which team should handle this?",
      "criteria": {
        "billing": "Refunds and charges",
        "engineering": "Software defects"
      }
    }
  }
}
Choice

The candidates are yours. The model assigns probabilities; your application decides what to do next.

Direct probability decisions, without autoregressive text generation or parsing generated JSON. Independent implementation inspired by Jev; no claim to reproduce its proprietary method or speedups.

MEASURE THE DECISION LOOP

How fast is 2B?

Measured requests from the released Open-Jev-2B checkpoint. Inspect the workload, timing boundary and every raw attempt.

Loading the latency report…

03 / MEASURED RESULTS

Show the work.
Keep the limits.

Full-data evaluation on every release-v2 test and OOD decision row. Independently audited, with failed, missing, and duplicate predictions checked.

Read the evaluation report

JF100 is a separate holdout.
100 questions × 3 option rotations, excluded from training. Final-model JF100 results remain pending.

HELD-OUT HARD-LABEL ACCURACYrelease-v2
Full-data 2B and 9B hard-label decision accuracy; 27B training ongoing
ModelTestOODStatus
Qwen3.5 2B94.71%86.02%Audited
Qwen3.5 9B97.54%91.97%Audited
Qwen3.8 27BTraining

Each completed model: 26,452 held-out decision rows, including 25,492 hard-label rows used for accuracy. Test: 10,046 hard labels; OOD: 15,446.

These are decision-row metrics, not gameplay or workflow completion rates. No full-data base-model comparison was run. Final-model closed-loop results remain pending.

Aggregate scores hide weak subgroups: 9B Wiki OOD expected accuracy is 32.74%, and reasoning OOD hard-label accuracy is 73.60%. T-Rex test has only 4 rows. All source-level results remain available.

Download verified results
OPEN RESEARCH, IN PROGRESS

Build a smaller
decision loop.

Inspect the contracts, follow the evidence, and make the next choice explicit.