Skip to main content
ShippedNo vapor

The AI that actually shipped

Verdictchaoliang yan (chaoliangUNSW)

Editor's first pass (AI-assisted)

Scored by an AI research pass from the linked sources; a human editor will re-score it. How we score →

Real3.5Weights, GGUF and MLX builds and a free hosted API with an 8,000-token cap.
Useful2.5A small model that trails the one it imitates by 13 points on the same items.
Notable2.0A hobby-scale project.
Novel2.5Imitates an existing API.
Hype gap▼ −0.8 under
Shipped

Readers

Upvotes count the readers who want this seen. Ratings are 1 to 5 scores on the four dimensions; the rating count is the number of readers who rated it. The editor’s score is shown on its own and is the headline figure. Reader ratings join the ranking only once 5 or more readers have rated, and a reader mean from fewer than 5 ratings is too few to count. How ranking works →

An independent developer releases Jev-Style 2B Decision v3, a 2B model with a free hosted API

Apache-2.0 fine-tune of Qwen3.5-2B. The card reports 73.6% on public JevBench items against Jev 1.13 at 86.6%.

A Hugging Face user, chaoliang yan, published Jev-Style-2B-Decision-v3 on 27 September 2026, by repository creation date. The card calls it an independent project, not affiliated with TypeSafe AI, Jev, Laya or the Qwen team. It is a 2B decision model: give it a state and typed questions (choice, yes/no or score) and it returns a calibrated probability for each option in one pass. It does not generate text or take actions.

It has 1.88B parameters, is fully fine-tuned from Qwen/Qwen3.5-2B on a reduced 60M-token pool, and is licensed Apache-2.0. GGUF and MLX builds exist. Stock llama.cpp, Ollama and LM Studio cannot produce the decision scores; the shipped runtimes are needed. The input budget is 25,600 tokens, and the free hosted API caps input at 8,000.

The card reports 73.6% (170 of 231) on public JevBench v1.4.1 items, with a 95% interval of 67.6 to 78.9, and says this is not an official leaderboard entry. Jev 1.13 scores 86.6% on the same items. Fourteen benchmarks were in the training pool, so results on them are not zero-shot.

The card suggests sending low-confidence answers to a person or a larger model.

A modest model with a candid card. It is a tool for tinkering.

Sources

Editor's first pass (AI-assisted)

Primary evidence

Comments