Frontier Infra's open decision model. A LoRA merged into Qwen3.8-27B (thinking off) that answers one typed question per forward pass with a probability over the option labels, served through AINode's TypeSafe-compatible /v1/systemone.
Invergent's decision model for text and images. A fine-tune of Gemma-4-26B-A4B (about 4B parameters active per token) that answers Choice, Noul and Score questions, with an optional thinking mode for harder questions.
Decides
choice, score, noul, classify, route
choice, score, noul, classify, route
Architecture
jebadiah
rune
Fine-tuned from
qwen/qwen3.8-27b
google/gemma-4-26b-a4b-it
License
apache-2.0
apache-2.0
Availability
Open weights
Open weights + hosted API
Hosted by
—
Invergent
Input price
—
—
Decision accuracy
86.6%
—
Calibration error
0.113
—
Valid action rate
—
—
Median latency
—
—
p95 latency
—
—
Figures are from each model’s manifest; accuracy and latency are what the publishers report, on their own suites and hardware. Add a third model.
Questions
What is the difference between jebadiah and rune?
jebadiah is from Frontier Infra and rune from Surogate (Invergent). jebadiah has open weights you can download and run; rune has open weights and a hosted API. Both answer choice, score, noul, classify and route questions. rune is the smaller model, at 26B parameters to 27B.
Which is more accurate, jebadiah or rune?
Only jebadiah publishes an accuracy figure (86.6% on JevBench public set (231 items), maker's run with the v1.4.2 harness; ECE on the hard tier); rune does not, so there is no comparison to make without your own test.
Which is cheaper, jebadiah or rune?
jebadiah: Free (open weights). rune: Hosted, price not published, or free to self-host. Open weights cost nothing per call beyond your own hardware.
Can I run jebadiah or rune locally?
Yes, both: systemone pull frontier-infra/jebadiah and systemone pull surogate/rune download the weights.
Evaluation suite
JevBench public set (231 items), maker's run with the v1.4.2 harness; ECE on the hard tier
