Benchmarks
More
OverviewBenchmaxxingCompareChartsCost vs CapabilityProviders per ModelProvider explorerGatewaysEU & SovereignJev-class modelsAbout
JevBench by Benchmark Heaven · v1.4.1 · individual system

lev-350m (Franck Verrot, LFM2.5-350M)

This detail uses the public, hash-checked v1.4.1 aggregate. Scores and ranks can change when a new release is published; the page preview remains name-only.

JevBench v1.4.1 score

28.5

Rank #37 of 77 ranked systems.

34.8 points behind Jev 1.13.0's 63.3.

Where it sits among the 77 ranked systems. The marked tick is Jev 1.13.0 (63.3).

Published axes

intelligence
34.8
calibration
70.6
speed
85.3
cost
76.1

Accuracy per tier, incl. sealed

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.

  • A: Jev 1.13.0 — Jev (TypeSafe, closed) · Score 63.3 (#1)
  • B: lev-350m — Jev rebuild · Score 28.5 (#37)

The four score axes

Radar: the four score axes, two systemsThe four score axes, Jev 1.13.0 vs lev-350m. Intelligence: 53.1 vs 34.8; Calibration: 76.3 vs 70.6; Speed: 83.3 vs 85.3; Cost: 52.0 vs 76.1.50100Intelligence53.1 · 34.8Calibration76.3 · 70.6Speed83.3 · 85.3Cost52.0 · 76.1
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, Jev 1.13.0 vs lev-350m. Easy: 100% vs 99%; Standard: 99% vs 72%; Judge: 95% vs 69%; Hard: 74% vs 37%; Sealed: 37% vs 25%.50100Easy100% · 99%Standard99% · 72%Judge95% · 69%Hard74% · 37%Sealed37% · 25%
Share correct per tier; Sealed = the 308 private decisions, aggregate only.

Hard tier by family (v1.2 topics)

Radar: hard tier by family (v1.2 topics), two systemsHard tier by family (v1.2 topics), Jev 1.13.0 vs lev-350m. Adversarial: 100% vs 67%; Ambiguous: 79% vs 29%; Judge: 79% vs 52%; Long policy: 61% vs 21%; Multi-hop: 86% vs 29%; Probability: 80% vs 35%; Routing: 100% vs 60%; Temporal / numeric: 27% vs 23%; Trade-off: 92% vs 42%; Trap: 100% vs 56%.50100Adversarial100% · 67%Ambiguous79% · 29%Judge79% · 52%Long policy61% · 21%Multi-hop86% · 29%Probability80% · 35%Routing100% · 60%Temporal /numeric27% · 23%Trade-off92% · 42%Trap100% · 56%
Share correct within each family of the 47 v1.2 hard-tier decisions (public and held-out).

Sealed set by family

Radar: sealed set by family, two systemsSealed set by family, Jev 1.13.0 vs lev-350m. Ambiguous / abstain: 30% vs 16%; Judge: 34% vs 32%; Long policy: 28% vs 20%; Multi-hop: 45% vs 13%; Paraphrase: 64% vs 43%; Probability: 50% vs 21%; Safety judge: 38% vs 25%; Temporal / numeric: 29% vs 23%; Trade-off: 38% vs 42%; Trap / adversarial: 42% vs 42%.50100Ambiguous /abstain30% · 16%Judge34% · 32%Long policy28% · 20%Multi-hop45% · 13%Paraphrase64% · 43%Probability50% · 21%Safety judge38% · 25%Temporal /numeric29% · 23%Trade-off38% · 42%Trap /adversarial42% · 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 (code); weights under LiquidAI's LFM1.0 licence, following the LFM2.5-350M base
Cost evidence
estimated; the board’s row disclosure contains the published basis.
Endpoint condition
our RunPod GPU (L40 48 GB, Czechia), reached over the internet from Germany
Published source
https://github.com/franckverrot/lev

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