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

openJev Verdict 1.4

Jev rebuild · by Hemant (heman10x)

JevBench v1.4.2.2 score

19.0

Rank #60 of 91 ranked systems.

44.3 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
29.4
calibration
72.0
speed
78.1
cost
82.4

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, openJev Verdict 1.4 vs Jev 1.13.0. Intelligence: 29.4 vs 53.1; Calibration: 72.0 vs 76.3; Speed: 78.1 vs 83.3; Cost: 82.4 vs 52.0.50100Intelligence29.4 · 53.1Calibration72.0 · 76.3Speed78.1 · 83.3Cost82.4 · 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, openJev Verdict 1.4 vs Jev 1.13.0. Easy: 86% vs 100%; Standard: 68% vs 99%; Judge: 56% vs 95%; Hard: 38% vs 74%; Sealed: 28% vs 37%.50100Easy86% · 100%Standard68% · 99%Judge56% · 95%Hard38% · 74%Sealed28% · 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), openJev Verdict 1.4 vs Jev 1.13.0. Ambiguous / abstain: 41% vs 43%; Judge: 43% vs 54%; Long policy: 33% vs 44%; Multi-hop: 19% vs 64%; Probability: 29% vs 63%; Temporal / numeric: 19% vs 28%; Trade-off: 32% vs 55%; Routing: 30% vs 100%; Trap / adversarial: 60% vs 83%; Paraphrase: 29% vs 64%; Safety judge: 19% vs 38%.50100Ambiguous /abstain41% · 43%Judge43% · 54%Long policy33% · 44%Multi-hop19% · 64%Probability29% · 63%Temporal /numeric19% · 28%Trade-off32% · 55%Routing30% · 100%Trap /adversarial60% · 83%Paraphrase29% · 64%Safety judge19% · 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, openJev Verdict 1.4 vs Jev 1.13.0. Ambiguous / abstain: 41% vs 30%; Judge: 34% vs 34%; Long policy: 38% vs 28%; Multi-hop: 21% vs 45%; Paraphrase: 29% vs 64%; Probability: 21% vs 50%; Safety judge: 19% vs 38%; Temporal / numeric: 13% vs 29%; Trade-off: 27% vs 38%; Trap / adversarial: 58% vs 42%.50100Ambiguous /abstain41% · 30%Judge34% · 34%Long policy38% · 28%Multi-hop21% · 45%Paraphrase29% · 64%Probability21% · 50%Safety judge19% · 38%Temporal /numeric13% · 29%Trade-off27% · 38%Trap /adversarial58% · 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
Cost evidence
estimated; the board’s row disclosure contains the published basis.
Endpoint condition
our CPU (4 threads, Ryzen 5 3600)
Note on this row
Same public weights as the earlier Verdict row, run through the author's fixed v1.4 engine. That engine auto-loads the calibrator for every option count, frames candidate labels as NLI sentences and uses a 512-token context budget. Run locally on our CPU, serially.
Published source
https://huggingface.co/heman10x/rlcd-modernbert-151m

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.