Sieve-9B

Sieve-9B is a decision model from the Sieve family. You give it a piece of text or JSON (the state) and typed questions, and it returns a calibrated probability for every option of every question. It reads the state once, scores the options directly, and never generates text.

It is a LoRA adapter (rank 32) and a 2.1M-parameter pointer head on Qwen/Qwen3.5-9B. The code and training data are at github.com/sthanika-ai/sieve.

How it works

Sieve follows the decision-model design of Kev:

• Backbone. Only the text part of Qwen3.5-9B is kept: 32 layers and the embeddings, 7.94B parameters.
  • Removed: the language-model head, the multi-token-prediction layer and the vision encoder, 1.72B parameters together.
• Readout. A pointer head scores the end of each option against the decision point.
• Isolation. Each question runs as its own row from the state's cache, so questions never see each other.

What Sieve-9B changes:

• Backbone. The post-trained Qwen3.5-9B instead of the base model.
• Averaged weights. The adapter and head are the exact average of two rank-16 runs from one initialisation.
• New data. 1,920 records from 240 rule structures not in the decision-v7 split, plus states padded with unrelated text.
• Serving:
  • CUDA graphs: 2 options take 18.6 ms instead of 70.2 ms.
  • Long questions run as one row: 255 options take 330.5 ms instead of 371.0 ms.

type	options	returns
choice	the caller's keys, optionally described (up to 255)	a probability per key
noul	yes / no	P(yes)
score	ordered levels	a probability per level

Use

pip install "sieve-decisions[cuda,serve] @ git+https://github.com/sthanika-ai/sieve"

from sieve import load_sieve, decide

m = load_sieve("sthanika-ai/Sieve-9B")
decide(m, {"subject": "Duplicate charge on invoice 4411", "body": "Billed twice. Refund today or we cancel."},
       {"department": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which team handles this?",
                       "criteria": {"billing": "invoices, payments, refunds", "technical": "bugs and outages"}},
        "churn_risk": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Does the customer threaten to cancel?"}})

• Loading. Load it with sieve; the adapter alone is not a text-generation model.
• Server. sieve-serve --model sthanika-ai/Sieve-9B --graphs.
• GPU memory. About 20 GB; 17.6 GiB was measured with a 4,000-token state.
• Temperature. head.pt stores T = 1.631, fitted by NLL on the decision-v7 calibration split (1,148 questions).
  • That split is used only to fit T and to choose the checkpoint; no reported number comes from it.
  • T never changes an answer, and temperature=1.0 gives raw probabilities.

Results

All numbers are Sieve-9B's own. They are recomputed from its saved per-question predictions and stored in result.json.

sieve-eval in the GitHub repository computes the same metrics for any labelled JSONL file. With --no-merge it reproduces the public-test rows below exactly.

Decision Index 0.2.1

Sieve-9B scores 41.71 (raw index 56.47, breadth 40.06) on our own run of the full frozen Decision Index suite. The run used the official kit at 87d4650 and its scorer.

• Coverage. 150,317 requests over 44 benchmarks, all answered, with no truncation or errors. The index averages 38 of the benchmarks.
• Results. sthanika-ai/Sieve-9B-decision-index-results.
• Not on the leaderboard yet. The score is self-reported and expected, not confirmed, until the maintainers review it. On the 2026-09-28 board it would place about 18th of 72.

Decision Index	Knowledge & Reasoning	Language Understanding	Retrieval & Classification	Tools & Automation	Arts & Human Taste
41.71	27.4	46.1	46.1	61.3	22.8

The index and area scores are chance-corrected: 0 is random guessing and 100 is perfect. The per-benchmark scores below are in each benchmark's own metric.

All 44 benchmarks

benchmark	metric	score	requests
ACOS	per-review F1	0.241	1,565
ANLI	macro-F1	0.562	3,200
API-Bank	accuracy	0.726	508
Amazon ESCI	macro-F1	0.493	5,000
BANKING77	macro-F1	0.836	3,080
BBH fixed-option tasks	accuracy	0.672	5,507
BFCL	case exact accuracy	0.954	1,694
BPoMP	accuracy	0.665	5,000
BRIGHT	nDCG@10	0.420	220
CLINC150+OOS	macro-F1	0.760	5,500
CLadder	accuracy	0.633	5,000
CRUXEval	accuracy	0.537	570
ChessBench	accuracy	0.114	5,000
ContractNLI	macro-F1	0.615	123
FinEntity	macro-F1	0.888	979
ForecastBench	Brier (lower is better)	0.181	10,139
GPQA Diamond	accuracy	0.424	196
GSM8K	accuracy	0.460	2,638
HLE	accuracy	0.106	501
Habermas Machine	accuracy	0.404	1,676
HellaSwag	accuracy	0.830	10,042
HoVer claim verification	accuracy	0.635	4,000
Home appliance simulator	case exact accuracy	0.307	88
Humicroedit	accuracy	0.551	2,628
MMLU-Pro	accuracy	0.508	12,032
MuSR	accuracy	0.567	752
NLI4CT	macro-F1	0.779	5,500
New Yorker caption matching	accuracy	0.581	528
POP909-CL	accuracy	0.129	2,000
PhishNChips phishing decisions	accuracy	0.541	2,000
RAGTruth response-level hallucination	F1 on hallucinated class	0.629	2,700
SATA-Bench	case exact accuracy	0.296	1,650
ToolRet	nDCG@10	0.651	685
VAST	macro-F1	0.522	3,006
When2Call MCQ	accuracy	0.561	3,652
WinoGrande	accuracy	0.751	1,267
cfcolor	accuracy	0.580	5,000
iSarcasmEval	Sarcasm F1 · track A, English	0.506	4,600
ARC-Challenge (not in the index)	accuracy	0.938	1,172
ARC-Easy (not in the index)	accuracy	0.978	2,376
MMLU (not in the index)	accuracy	0.749	14,033
RouterBench (not in the index)	selected quality (quality objective)	0.793	10,000
SGD/SGD-X (not in the index)	macro-F1	0.627	2,500
SimpleBench (not in the index)	accuracy	0.200	10

Decision suites, held-out benchmark and public test sets

benchmark	questions	accuracy [95% CI]	NLL	Brier	ECE	wrong at p ≥ 0.9
decision-v7 development (in-domain)	1,264	0.872 [0.851, 0.892]	0.330	0.176	0.028	1.7%
transfer-v4 development (out-of-domain)	656	0.829 [0.797, 0.860]	0.447	0.242	0.045	3.7%
transfer-v9 development, strict (out-of-domain)	936	0.753 [0.724, 0.781]	0.689	0.337	0.050	3.8%
held-out decision benchmark ³	6,224	0.857 [0.848, 0.865]	0.451	0.207	0.055	0.4%
MMLU, 57 subjects, 4-way ²	14,042	0.758 [0.751, 0.765]	0.642	0.333	0.008	1.7%
SciQ	1,000	0.984 [0.976, 0.991]	0.063	0.026	0.024	0.1%
Banking77, 77 intents ¹	3,079	0.857 [0.844, 0.869]	0.563	0.224	0.043	1.6%
MASSIVE intent, 60 labels	2,974	0.765 [0.749, 0.780]	0.886	0.345	0.093	0.5%
MASSIVE scenario, 18 labels	2,974	0.711 [0.695, 0.728]	0.889	0.401	0.059	0.2%
typed-decisions test	2,000	0.704 [0.681, 0.726]	0.704	0.404	0.040	0.5%

• Calibration. The probability metrics use the stored temperature (T = 1.631), as served. Raw (T = 1) values are in result.json.
• Wrong at p ≥ 0.9 is the share of all questions answered wrongly with a probability of at least 0.9.
• Intervals. They come from a bootstrap with 4,000 resamples over groups of related records.
• Development partitions only. The decision suites are development partitions; no test partition of them has been scored.
• Unmerged adapter. These rows were scored with the adapter unmerged. The Decision Index run and the latency use the merged model, as served.

¹ In-distribution: the training data contains 1,000 Banking77 training questions.

² Our conversion. On the Decision Index's own MMLU, 14,033 questions outside the index, Sieve-9B scores 0.749.

³ The held-out benchmark:

• Size. 6,233 questions over 10 synthetic decision domains, with no family overlap with training. 6,224 were scored; 9 were dropped because their options exceed the evaluation's 12,288-token question limit.
• Truncation. States over 384 tokens, the training limit, were truncated to 384.
• Option counts. 77 of the scored questions have 256 or 512 options, more than the served API accepts (255).

held-out benchmark by	questions	accuracy
state ≤ 384 tokens	5,186	0.889
state > 384 tokens (truncated)	1,038	0.697
2 options	2,452	0.976
3–10 options	2,969	0.823
11–50 options	522	0.728
51–255 options	204	0.431
256–512 options	77	0.377

Tool selection (BFCL v3, decision form)

The model picks the function to call from the offered ones, or "none of these". Argument values are not generated or scored, so these are not BFCL leaderboard numbers.

BFCL v3, decision form	questions	accuracy
function selection (simple, multiple, live simple, live multiple)	1,909	0.963
irrelevance detection (irrelevance, live irrelevance)	1,118	0.720

Latency

Server-reported p50 on one A100 80GB (bf16, merged, CUDA graphs), for one choice question on a cached state of about 75 tokens, excluding tokenisation and HTTP:

options	2	5	10	25	50	100	255
ms	18.6	19.3	22.8	42.8	74.5	128.4	330.5

Training

• Recipe:
  • LoRA r=16, α=32 on the attention, MLP and DeltaNet projections, with the pointer head trained from scratch;
  • lr 5e-5, OneCycle, 2 epochs, 8 records per step, bf16;
  • permuted choice options and "none of the above" augmentation, with a cross-entropy loss.
• Averaging. Two adapters were trained from one initialisation on different data mixes and averaged 50/50 ("model soups", Wortsman et al., 2022).
• Selection. The checkpoint was chosen by calibration-split accuracy, then NLL. That rule was fixed after both runs were evaluated and before the average was scored.
  • The benchmarks were never used to choose. The second data mix did target weaknesses seen on the development partitions.
  • No outputs of other models were used.
• Data. The four training files are in data/sieve-9b/, unchanged.
  • The recipe and hashes are in training_config.json, and the logs in train.log.
  • Sources and licences are in the repository's NOTICE.
• Data hygiene. The training files were checked against seven benchmark partitions (listed in provenance.json).
  • No overlap: by exact question, exact state, and an order-insensitive hash of each state.
  • Near-duplicates: the unknowable date-policy file has 4 near-duplicate states, and its families are excluded from every transfer-v9 number.
  • Rule structures: 30 of the 240 are logically equivalent to a decision-v7 structure after pushing negations inward. None equals or contains a held-out structure.

Files

file	contents
adapter_model.safetensors, adapter_config.json	the LoRA adapter (rank 32, PEFT format)
head.pt	the pointer head and the calibrated temperature
tokenizer.json, tokenizer_config.json	Qwen3.5-9B's tokenizer, unchanged
training_config.json, training_metrics.json, train.log	the recipe, the two runs and how they were averaged
result.json	the numbers above, from saved per-question predictions, with the same metrics as sieve-eval
provenance.json	SHA-256 of every file and of the training data, and library versions

Credits and license

• Design. The typed-decision format, the pointer-head design and the stored temperature follow Kev (Apache-2.0).
• Training data. It comes from Kev's decision-v7 suite, its date-policy files and its rule generator. It also contains text from ten public datasets under their own licences, listed in the GitHub NOTICE.
• Backbone. Qwen3.5-9B, Apache-2.0.
• License. The weights are Apache-2.0 (see LICENSE and NOTICE).