Benchmarks
More
OverviewBenchmaxxingCompareChartsCost vs CapabilityProviders per ModelProvider explorerGatewaysEU & SovereignJev-class modelsImage JevBenchAbout
JevBench by Benchmark Heaven · v1.4.2.2 · individual system

NInfer Qwen3.8-27B NVFP4 (T=1.5)

Native-logit decision engine · by Igor L. / NInfer contributors

JevBench v1.4.2.2 score

26.9

Rank #49 of 91 ranked systems.

36.4 points behind Jev 1.13.0's 63.3.

Where it sits among the 91 ranked systems. The marked tick is Jev 1.13.0 (63.3).

Published axes

intelligence
51.5
calibration
76.0
speed
80.1
cost
35.2

Against Jev 1.13.0

Four radars compare this fixed pair across the score axes, accuracy per tier, and accuracy by family on the hard tier and sealed set. Further out is better on every spoke.

The four score axes

Radar: the four score axes, two systemsThe four score axes, NInfer Qwen3.8-27B NVFP4 vs Jev 1.13.0. Intelligence: 51.5 vs 53.1; Calibration: 76.0 vs 76.3; Speed: 80.1 vs 83.3; Cost: 35.2 vs 52.0.50100Intelligence51.5 · 53.1Calibration76.0 · 76.3Speed80.1 · 83.3Cost35.2 · 52.0
0–100, the values in the table. A label-only system has no calibration (counted as 0).

Accuracy per tier, incl. sealed

Radar: accuracy per tier, incl. sealed, two systemsAccuracy per tier, incl. sealed, NInfer Qwen3.8-27B NVFP4 vs Jev 1.13.0. Easy: 100% vs 100%; Standard: 98% vs 99%; Judge: 97% vs 95%; Hard: 70% vs 74%; Sealed: 33% vs 37%.50100Easy100% · 100%Standard98% · 99%Judge97% · 95%Hard70% · 74%Sealed33% · 37%
Share correct per tier; Sealed = the 308 private decisions, aggregate only.

Current question set by family (hard + sealed)

Radar: current question set by family (hard + sealed), two systemsCurrent question set by family (hard + sealed), NInfer Qwen3.8-27B NVFP4 vs Jev 1.13.0. Ambiguous / abstain: 53% vs 43%; Judge: 57% vs 54%; Long policy: 37% vs 44%; Multi-hop: 56% vs 64%; Probability: 44% vs 63%; Temporal / numeric: 24% vs 28%; Trade-off: 47% vs 55%; Routing: 100% vs 100%; Trap / adversarial: 83% vs 83%; Paraphrase: 36% vs 64%; Safety judge: 63% vs 38%.50100Ambiguous /abstain53% · 43%Judge57% · 54%Long policy37% · 44%Multi-hop56% · 64%Probability44% · 63%Temporal /numeric24% · 28%Trade-off47% · 55%Routing100% · 100%Trap /adversarial83% · 83%Paraphrase36% · 64%Safety judge63% · 38%
Share correct per family across the 220 hard-tier decisions (public and held out) and the 308 sealed decisions of v1.4, pooled; Routing is hard-tier only, Paraphrase and Safety judge sealed only.

Sealed set by family

Radar: sealed set by family, two systemsSealed set by family, NInfer Qwen3.8-27B NVFP4 vs Jev 1.13.0. Ambiguous / abstain: 41% vs 30%; Judge: 44% vs 34%; Long policy: 20% vs 28%; Multi-hop: 37% vs 45%; Paraphrase: 36% vs 64%; Probability: 29% vs 50%; Safety judge: 63% vs 38%; Temporal / numeric: 18% vs 29%; Trade-off: 31% vs 38%; Trap / adversarial: 50% vs 42%.50100Ambiguous /abstain41% · 30%Judge44% · 34%Long policy20% · 28%Multi-hop37% · 45%Paraphrase36% · 64%Probability29% · 50%Safety judge63% · 38%Temporal /numeric18% · 29%Trade-off31% · 38%Trap /adversarial50% · 42%
Share correct within each sealed family — system-level aggregates; the items stay private.

Availability and evidence

Openness
Code and weights marked open in the published row
License note
Apache-2.0 (engine and submitted 27B artifact/base)
Cost evidence
estimated; the board’s row disclosure contains the published basis.
Endpoint condition
our lium.io RTX 5090 32 GB, reached over the public internet from Sandy; serial
Note on this row
T=1.5 is an offline recomputation from raw logits of the same run, not a second execution. T=1.5 was chosen by sweeping public hard items (development-set calibrated, disclosed).
Published source
https://github.com/igorls/ninfer

From the public v1.4.2.2 aggregate. Scores and ranks can change when a new release is published.

Read the full board and published method. The overall score is a composite, not raw accuracy.