Illustration

Reading Open-Weight Recipes:

A Lab-by-Lab Atlas of 2025–26 Model Reports

Written by Martin Ziqiao Ma

What 13 labs (DeepSeek, Kimi, GLM, MiMo, Gemma, Microsoft AI, Thinking Machines, Qwen, MiniMax, StepFun, Ling, Nemotron and Mistral) have published about how they train their models, release by release, split into pretraining, midtraining, posttraining and evals. Every value comes from the lab's own model card, report or blog and links to the page it came from.

Labs
13
Releases
170Dec 2024 to Oct 2026
Sourced facts
3,610
Eval scores
2,462
Sources fetched
Oct 24, 2026
DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaMicrosoft AIThinking MachinesQwenMiniMaxStepFunLingNemotronMistral

Disclaimer: This blog is compiled and edited with help from LLMs. Every number links to the public document it came from, so please check the source before citing it.

This is the hub of a small series, Reading Open-Weight Recipes, where I review what open-weight model releases have actually written down about their training recipes, from DeepSeek-V3 (December 2024) to October 2026. I went through the technical reports, model cards and blog posts of 13 labs and sorted every disclosed choice into pretraining, midtraining, posttraining and evals. This atlas is the lab-by-lab index; three companion notes go stage by stage: pretraining, midtraining and posttraining.

A few things to keep in mind while reading:

Summary

Where each lab is now

The most recent value each lab disclosed for each design choice. The release and date under each value show where it was last stated, so an older date usually means the lab stopped disclosing it.

Latest disclosedDeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaMicrosoft AIThinking MachinesQwenMiniMaxStepFunLingNemotronMistral
Size552B backbone parameters, plus 196B Engram (conditional-memory lookup… · 16B per token in decode; 8B per token in prefill (Causal Encoder-Deco…V4.1-Flash, Sep 10, 20262.8T (2.78T in report Table 1) · 104B (104.2B in report Table 1)K3, Jul 16, 2026320B · 18BGLM-5.3-Flash, Aug 26, 2026Pro 1.02T; Flash 310B (Flash card: 309B) · Pro 42B; Flash 15BV2.6, Sep 22, 202612B dense: 11.95B; Gemma 4 (Apr 2): 31B dense 30.7B, 26B-A4B MoE 25.2B · 3.8B activeGemma-4-12B, Jun 3, 20262.8T · 80BMAI-Base-2, Oct 15, 2026975B · 41BInkling, Jul 15, 2026125B main model + 51B n-gram embedding tables (host memory) + 4B MTP · 6B per token (n-gram tables are lookups, outside the matmul budget)Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, Aug 26, 2026~428B · 23BM3.1-Flash, Oct 19, 2026600B · 27BStep-5-Preview, Oct 15, 2026560B · 25BLing-3.1-flash, Oct 13, 202674B total (compressed from the 120B-A12B Super VL parent) · 9B active (parent 12B)Bolt-74B, Oct 15, 2026~1T (docs model card: 1.05T) · 52BLarge-4, Oct 6, 2026
AttentionPure Compressed Sparse Attention 2 (CSA2: compressed main KV + lightw…V4.1-Flash, Sep 10, 2026hybrid linear:full = KDA : Gated MLA at 3:1 (plus one final Gated MLA…K3, Jul 16, 2026Hybrid linear : sparse (DSA) attention; config: 34 linear (KDA) + 11…GLM-5.3-Flash, Aug 26, 2026hybrid sliding-window:global (window 128; Pro 6:1, Flash ~5:1); first…V2.6, Sep 22, 2026Hybrid sliding-window:global, 5:1 (4:1 for E2B), final layer always g…Gemma-4, Apr 2, 2026Hybrid local:global, global attention every 6 layers (5:1 ratio impli…MAI-Base-2, Oct 15, 2026hybrid sliding-window:global, 5:1Inkling, Jul 15, 2026Hybrid: 3 Gated DeltaNet layers per 1 global-attention layer; the glo…Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, Aug 26, 2026MSA in all 60 layers: M3's three full-attention layers replaced with…M3.1-Flash, Oct 19, 2026Hybrid 3:1 Gated sliding-window : full attention, full layers are Spa…Step-5-Preview, Oct 15, 2026Hybrid KDA + gated MLA at 7:1 (63 KDA + 9 gated MLA)Ling-3.1-flash, Oct 13, 2026Hybrid: interleaved Mamba-2, MoE and a few attention layers (config:…Nemotron-3.5-Super, Oct 15, 2026GQA: 96 query heads, 8 KV heads (no latent attention, no MoE)Medium-3.5, Apr 28, 2026
OptimizerMuon for linear weight matrices (head-wise Muon for Query and Key), A…V4.1-Flash, Sep 10, 2026Per-Head Muon (matrix params) + the weight-clipping mechanism from Ki…K3, Jul 16, 2026Muon (GLM-4.5 recipe) with 'Muon Split': per-head orthogonalization o…GLM-5, Feb 12, 2026AdamW in pretraining; Muown (Muon variant) for hidden matrices from mid-training onV2.6, Sep 22, 2026not disclosedMuon for non-embedding 2D parameters; AdamW for the restMAI-Base-2, Oct 15, 2026Hybrid: Muon for large matrix weights, Adam for other parametersInkling, Jul 15, 2026Muon for 2-D linear maps (attention, GDN, expert FFNs, n-gram K/V); A…Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, Aug 26, 2026AdamW (Text-01's optimizer); RL uses beta1 0.9, beta2 0.95, eps 1e-15…M1, Jun 16, 2025Muon throughout pre-training (weight decay 0.1, grad clip 1.0); also…Step-3.5-Flash, Feb 2, 2026AdamW for the shared base (inherited Ling-2.0 hyper-parameters); RL o…Ring-2.6-1T, May 14, 2026AdamW (inferred: same distillation recipe as Lightning 3.5, which kee…Nemotron-3.5-Super, Oct 15, 2026not disclosed
Training precisionNot stated for pre-training; FP8 implied (QAT 'reuses the existing FP…V4, Apr 24, 2026BF16 parameters with FP32 gradient accumulation; FP8 (E4M3, 1x128 til…K2, Jul 11, 2025RL: BF16 training, FP8 rollouts via online block-wise FP8 quantizatio…GLM-4.5, Jul 28, 2025FP8 mixed precisionV2.5-Pro, Apr 22, 2026not disclosedMXFP8 E4M3 (Base-1: tensor-wise delayed-scaling FP8 E4M3/E5M2)MAI-Base-2, Oct 15, 2026not disclosedNative FP8 pipeline (activations, MoE routing, GEMMs) with BF16 kept…Qwen3.5, Feb 16, 2026Overall precision not stated; LM output head raised to FP32 in RL to…M1, Jun 16, 2025FP8 mixed precision, with FP32 hidden states/gradients and FP32 RMSNo…Step-5-Preview, Oct 15, 2026FP8 base training through SFT; RL with ASystem integrated FP8 trainin…Ring-2.6-1T, May 14, 2026NVFP4 for the inherited Nemotron 3 Super Base (25T tokens); precision…Nemotron-3.5-Super, Oct 15, 2026not disclosed
Pretrain tokens45T tokens (multimodal corpus)V4.1-Flash, Sep 10, 202615T text tokens (inherited Kimi K2 base); K2.5 then adds ~15T vision-…K2.5, Jan 27, 202630T-token multimodal corpusGLM-5.3-Flash, Aug 26, 2026Flash 48T (26T text + 22T omni); Pro 30T (27T text + 3T omni)V2.6, Sep 22, 2026270M: 6T (Gemma 3 270M); Gemma 3n ~11T; Gemma 3 27B 14T; Gemma 4 does not state a countGemma-3-270M, Aug 14, 202550T tokensMAI-Base-2, Oct 15, 202645T tokens (text, images, audio and video)Inkling, Jul 15, 2026Not given in absolute terms: about 1/3 of the tokens of Qwen3.7-Plus-…Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, Aug 26, 202629.2T (19.9T constant phase + 9.3T decay phase)M2, Oct 27, 2025~17.6T (14.6T Stage 1 + 3T annealing Stage 2); the introduction says…Step-3.5-Flash, Feb 2, 2026≈30T, inferred from the released checkpoint name 'Ling-3.0-tiny-base-…Ling-3.0-tiny, Aug 10, 2026About 26T tokens across pretraining and continued pretraining (incl.…Nemotron-3.5-Super, Oct 15, 20261-3T tokens per model (the paper contrasts 36T for Qwen3 and 15T for…Ministral-3, Dec 2, 2025
Final context1M tokensV4.1-Flash, Sep 10, 20261M tokens (training context length 1M per Table 1)K3, Jul 16, 20261M (config max_position_embeddings 1,048,576)GLM-5.3-Flash, Aug 26, 20261MV2.6, Sep 22, 2026128K (E2B, E4B); 256K (26B-A4B, 31B)Gemma-4, Apr 2, 2026256K (262,144 tokens)MAI-Thinking-1, Jun 2, 2026Up to 1M tokensInkling, Jul 15, 2026262,144 native; up to 1,000,000 with YaRNQwen3.8-Flash-Next, Aug 26, 20261M (card: up to 1,000,000 tokens)M3.1-Flash, Oct 19, 2026Up to 1M tokens (config max positions 1,048,576); docs: max output 64KStep-5-Preview, Oct 15, 2026256K (training extended to 256K tokens)Ling-3.0-flash-Sante, Oct 19, 20261M tokensNemotron-3.5-Super, Oct 15, 20261MLarge-4, Oct 6, 2026
RL algorithmGRPO-style group-relative advantages (unchanged from V4); asynchronou…V4.1-Flash, Sep 10, 2026Kimi K2.5's policy-optimization algorithm (not named in K3 sources),…K3, Jul 16, 2026SAO: critic-based PPO on individual rollouts, with compaction (from GLM-5.2, kept in GLM-5.3)GLM-5.3, Aug 14, 2026GRPO, fully asynchronous with partial rollouts (staleness 4), one mix…V2.6, Sep 22, 2026RL finetuning based on improved BOND (best-of-N distillation), WARM (…Gemma-3, Mar 12, 2025GRPO variant: token-level policy gradient normalized over the global…MAI-Thinking-1, Jun 2, 2026not disclosedGSPOQwen-AgentWorld, Jun 22, 2026CISPO (M2-series report)M2.7, Mar 18, 2026Not named; online actor-critic agentic RL with a pretrained learnable…Step-5-Preview, Oct 15, 2026Not named; developer docs credit an 'RL strong-check mechanism' for l…Ling-3.0-flash, Aug 2, 2026Full end-to-end GRPO in agentic MCP and SWE environments, plus RLHFBolt-74B, Oct 15, 2026CISPOLeanstral-1.5, Jul 2, 2026
DistillationFinal post-training stage: full-vocabulary on-policy distillation on…V4.1-Flash, Sep 10, 2026Multi-Teacher On-Policy Distillation (MOPD): student samples effort e…K3, Jul 16, 2026Parallel on-policy distillation merging more than 10 expert models (GLM-5.2); slime later added top-k, full-vocabulary and multi-teacher OPD (their use in GLM-5.3 is implied, not stated)GLM-5.3, Aug 14, 2026MOPD2 after mixed RL: Standard MOPD (mixRL teachers on full student r…V2.6, Sep 22, 2026All sizes pre-trained with knowledge distillation: 256 logits sampled… · Improved knowledge distillation from a large instruction-tuned teache…Gemma-3, Mar 12, 2025No distillation from third-party models · Self-distillation: SFT of a mid-trained checkpoint on O(1M) successfu…MAI-Thinking-1, Jun 2, 2026On-policy distillation from Inkling (Inkling-Small preview); Inkling itself: bootstrap SFT on open-weights model outputsInkling-Small, Jul 30, 2026SFT reasoning traces are rollouts from an unnamed general-purpose rea…Qwen-AgentWorld, Jun 22, 2026Off-policy: cowork trajectories distilled from a rotating set of stro…M2, Oct 27, 2025Self-distillation: domain RL experts generate rejection-sampled traje…Step-3.5-Flash, Feb 2, 2026No distillation stage described; training-content summary says synthe…Ling-3.1-flash, Oct 13, 2026Off-policy: text SFT on Kimi-K3-generated synthetic data plus a very…Bolt-74B, Oct 15, 2026Cascade Distillation: prune Mistral Small 3.1 -> 14B -> 8B -> 3B, eac…Ministral-3, Dec 2, 2025

Release timeline

Every release covered here, with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google's Gemini line and Meta added below the divider as reference points. The reference labs appear on the timeline and in the Artificial Analysis comparison only; their recipes are not extracted, and nothing in this atlas describes how they are trained. Microsoft AI's models are closed-weight except MAI-DS-R1; they are included because Microsoft AI's reports describe the recipe in detail. The table under the chart links every reference-lab release to its announcement and system or model card.

2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOctLABS IN THIS REPORTREFERENCE LABS (TIMELINE ONLY)DeepSeekV3V3.2V4V4.1-FlashKimiK2K2.5K3K3.1-ProGLMGLM-4-0414GLM-4.5GLM-5GLM-5.3-FlashMiMoV2-FlashV2.5V2.5-ProV2.6GemmaGemma-3Gemma-4Microsoft AIMAI-1-previewMAI-Thinking-1MAI-Base-2Thinking MachinesInklingQwenQwen3Qwen3-NextQwen3.5Qwen3.8MiniMaxText-01M1M2M3StepFunStep-3Step-3.5-FlashStep-5-PreviewLingLing-plusLing-1TLing-2.5-1TLing-2.6-1TLing-3.0-flashLing-3.1-flashNemotronLlama-NemotronNano-23-Nano3-Super3-Ultra3.5-Lightning3.5-SuperMistralSmall-3Large-3Small-4Medium-3.5OpenAIGPT-4.5o3 + o4-minigpt-ossGPT-5oss-safeguardGPT-6 AstraAnthropicSonnet 3.7Claude 4Fable 5Opus 5.5Google Gemini2.0 Pro2.5 ProGemini 3 Pro3.5 FlashGemini 4 ArgonMetaLlama 4Muse SparkMuse GlimmerMuse WonderSpark Open
Filled dots are flagship releases and hollow dots are updates and smaller models. Diamonds are research releases; a dashed diamond is a model announced but not released. In the reference band, squares are open-weight releases. Hover a mark for what the lab says is new.
Reference-lab releases81 releases
LabReleaseDateKindAnnouncedSystem / model card
OpenAIOpenAI o3-mini (o3-mini-2025-01-31)2025-01-31smallannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-4.5 research preview (gpt-4.5-preview)2025-02-27flagshipannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-4.1 family in the API (gpt-4.1, gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-4.1-nano)2025-04-14updateannouncement—
OpenAIOpenAI o3 and OpenAI o4-mini2025-04-16flagshipannouncementcard
OpenAIcodex-1 (model behind the Codex cloud agent)2025-05-16codingannouncementcard
OpenAIOpenAI o3-pro (o3-pro)2025-06-10reasoningannouncement—
OpenAIgpt-oss-120b and gpt-oss-20b2025-08-05open · open weightsannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5 (ChatGPT: GPT-5 with thinking and pro; API: gpt-5, gpt-5-mini, gpt-5-nano)2025-08-07flagshipannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5-Codex (gpt-5-codex)2025-09-15codingannouncementcard
OpenAIgpt-oss-safeguard-120b and gpt-oss-safeguard-20b2025-10-29open · open weightsannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5-Codex-Mini (gpt-5-codex-mini)2025-11-07codingannouncement—
OpenAIGPT-5.1 (ChatGPT: GPT-5.1 Instant, GPT-5.1 Thinking; API: gpt-5.1, gpt-5.1-chat-latest)2025-11-12updateannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5.1-Codex and GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini (gpt-5.1-codex, gpt-5.1-codex-mini)2025-11-13codingannouncement—
OpenAIGPT-5.1-Codex-Max (gpt-5.1-codex-max)2025-11-19codingannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5.2 (ChatGPT: GPT-5.2 Instant, GPT-5.2 Thinking; API: gpt-5.2, gpt-5.2-chat-latest)2025-12-11updateannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5.2-Codex (gpt-5.2-codex)2025-12-18codingannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5.3-Codex (gpt-5.3-codex)2026-02-05codingannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5.3-Codex-Spark (gpt-5.3-codex-spark), research preview2026-02-12codingannouncement—
OpenAIGPT-5.3 Instant (gpt-5.3-chat-latest)2026-03-03updateannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5.4 (ChatGPT: GPT-5.4 Thinking; API: gpt-5.4, gpt-5.4-pro)2026-03-05updateannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5.4 mini and GPT-5.4 nano (gpt-5.4-mini, gpt-5.4-nano)2026-03-17smallannouncement—
OpenAIGPT-5.5 (GPT-5.5 Thinking and GPT-5.5 Pro; API gpt-5.5, gpt-5.5-pro from Apr 24)2026-04-23updateannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5.5 Instant (gpt-5.5-instant)2026-05-05updateannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-5.6 family: GPT-5.6 Sol, GPT-5.6 Terra, GPT-5.6 Luna (gpt-5.6-sol, gpt-5.6-terra, gpt-5.6-luna)2026-07-09updateannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-6 Astra (gpt-6-astra)2026-09-03flagshipannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna (gpt-6-sol, gpt-6-luna)2026-09-22smallannouncementcard
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Sol (gpt-6.1-sol)2026-09-29updateannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude 3.7 Sonnet (claude-3-7-sonnet-20250219)2025-02-24flagshipannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude 4: Claude Opus 4 + Claude Sonnet 4 (claude-opus-4-20250514, claude-sonnet-4-20250514)2025-05-22flagshipannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.1 (claude-opus-4-1-20250805)2025-08-05updateannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 4.5 (claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929)2025-09-29updateannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Haiku 4.5 (claude-haiku-4-5-20251001)2025-10-15smallannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.5 (claude-opus-4-5-20251101)2025-11-24updateannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.6 (claude-opus-4-6)2026-02-05updateannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 4.6 (claude-sonnet-4-6)2026-02-17smallannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Mythos Preview (claude-mythos-preview), gated research preview via Project Glasswing2026-04-07announcedannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7 (claude-opus-4-7)2026-04-16updateannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.8 (claude-opus-4-8)2026-05-28updateannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Fable 5 + Claude Mythos 5 (claude-fable-5, claude-mythos-5); Mythos 5 restricted to Project Glasswing2026-06-09flagshipannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5 (claude-sonnet-5)2026-06-30smallannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Opus 5 (claude-opus-5)2026-07-24updateannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Fable 5.1 + Claude Mythos 5.1 (claude-fable-5-1, claude-mythos-5-1); Mythos 5.1 via trusted access programs only2026-09-01updateannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5)2026-09-22flagshipannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5.5 (claude-sonnet-5-5)2026-09-28smallannouncementcard
AnthropicClaude Haiku 5.5 (claude-haiku-5-5)2026-10-07smallannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental (gemini-2.0-flash-thinking-exp-01-21)2025-01-21reasoningannouncement—
Google GeminiGemini 2.0 Flash GA (gemini-2.0-flash-001)2025-02-05updateannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 2.0 Pro Experimental (gemini-2.0-pro-exp-02-05)2025-02-05flagshipannouncement—
Google GeminiGemini 2.0 Flash-Lite (gemini-2.0-flash-lite-preview-02-05; GA gemini-2.0-flash-lite on 2025-02-25)2025-02-05smallannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 2.5 Pro Experimental (gemini-2.5-pro-exp-03-25)2025-03-25flagshipannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (gemini-2.5-flash-preview-04-17)2025-04-17smallannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 2.5 Pro Preview I/O edition (gemini-2.5-pro-preview-05-06)2025-05-06updateannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 2.5 Flash Preview 05-20 (gemini-2.5-flash-preview-05-20)2025-05-20updateannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini Diffusion (experimental text diffusion research model, waitlist demo)2025-05-20announcedannouncement—
Google GeminiGemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 (gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05)2025-06-05updateannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Preview (gemini-2.5-flash-lite-preview-06-17)2025-06-17smallannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 2.5 Deep Think (Gemini app, Google AI Ultra)2025-08-01reasoningannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 2.5 Flash and Flash-Lite Preview 09-2025 (gemini-2.5-flash-preview-09-2025, gemini-2.5-flash-lite-preview-09-2025)2025-09-25updateannouncement—
Google GeminiGemini 3 Pro (gemini-3-pro-preview)2025-11-18flagshipannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 3 Deep Think (Gemini app, Google AI Ultra)2025-12-04reasoningannouncement—
Google GeminiGemini 3 Flash (gemini-3-flash-preview)2025-12-17smallannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 3 Deep Think upgrade (science, research and engineering)2026-02-12reasoningannouncement—
Google GeminiGemini 3.1 Pro (gemini-3.1-pro-preview, plus gemini-3.1-pro-preview-customtools)2026-02-19updateannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview)2026-03-03smallannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 3.5 Flash (gemini-3.5-flash)2026-05-19flagshipannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 3.6 Flash (gemini-3.6-flash)2026-07-21updateannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (gemini-3.5-flash-lite)2026-07-21smallannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 3.5 Flash Cyber (restricted, via CodeMender)2026-07-21announcedannouncement—
Google GeminiGemini 3.7 Flash (gemini-3.7-flash)2026-08-13updateannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 3.8 Flash (gemini-3.8-flash)2026-09-02updateannouncementcard
Google GeminiGemini 3.8 Flash Cyber (restricted, Fairwind Program)2026-09-02announcedannouncement—
Google GeminiGemini 4 Argon (gemini-4-argon)2026-10-13flagshipannouncementcard
MetaLlama 4 Scout and Llama 4 Maverick2025-04-05flagship · open weightsannouncementcard
MetaLlama 4 Behemoth (preview)2025-04-05announcedannouncement—
MetaMuse Spark2026-04-08flagshipannouncementcard
MetaMuse Spark 1.12026-07-09updateannouncement—
MetaMuse Spark 1.2 (with the Muse Code agent)2026-08-05updateannouncement—
MetaMuse Glimmer (Muse-Glimmer-30B)2026-08-10open · open weightsannouncementcard
MetaMuse Spark 1.32026-09-02updateannouncement—
MetaMuse Wonder and Muse Wonder Full2026-10-12flagshipannouncementcard
MetaMuse Spark Open (Muse-Spark-Open-816B-A42B)2026-10-15open · open weightsannouncementcard
0

How I split the stages

Labs name their training phases differently, so every phase is mapped onto three stages with one rule, the same one the midtraining notes use. Pretraining is the from-scratch run on its main learning-rate schedule, including any decay inside that schedule, data re-weighting during it, and sequence-length growth the lab does not name as a separate phase. Midtraining is (1) any phase the lab names mid-training, annealing, cooldown, learning-rate decay stage, context extension or continued pre-training; (2) a distinct stage after the main decay that changes the data mix or context length; or (3) continued training of an earlier base, such as adding images to a finished language model or retrofitting a new attention. Posttraining is everything from SFT on: SFT, RL, distillation, merging and, for most labs, quantization-aware training. Where a lab's own label differs from the rule, the row says both. Hover a lab's own phase name for the source quote.

LabReleaseWhat the lab calls itMy stageWhat happens
DeepSeekV3Pre-Trainingpretrain14.8T tokens at 4K context, including the LR decay tail (cosine 2.2e-4 -> 2.2e-5 over 4.3T, then 333B @2.2e-5 and 167B @7.3e-6). Pretrain by the rule: the decay sits inside the main schedule and the lab does not name it as a separate phase. ↗
DeepSeekV3Long Context ExtensionmidtrainYaRN 4K -> 32K -> 128K, two phases of 1000 steps each (batch 1920 then 480), LR 7.3e-6; 119K GPU hours ↗
DeepSeekV3Supervised Fine-Tuningposttrain1.5M instances, 2 epochs; reasoning data distilled from internal R1 via expert models + rejection sampling ↗
DeepSeekV3Reinforcement LearningposttrainGRPO with rule-based + model-based RMs over coding, math, writing, role-play, QA prompts ↗
DeepSeekV3Expert models for R1 data generation (SFT+RL experts, rejection sampling)posttrainDomain experts trained with SFT+RL generate the reasoning SFT data via rejection sampling; this is distillation from R1 into V3 ↗
DeepSeekR1DeepSeek-R1-Zero (pure RL on V3-Base)posttrainGRPO for 10,400 steps on DeepSeek-V3-Base with rule-based accuracy + format rewards, no SFT ↗
DeepSeekR1Cold start (long-CoT SFT) -> R1-Dev1posttrainThousands of curated long-CoT samples; SFT of V3-Base for 2-3 epochs ↗
DeepSeekR1First RL stage (reasoning RL) -> R1-Dev2posttrainGRPO with rule-based + language-consistency rewards, clip epsilon 10, max 32,768 tokens ↗
DeepSeekR1Rejection sampling + second SFT -> R1-Dev3posttrain~600K reasoning + ~200K non-reasoning samples; fine-tunes DeepSeek-V3-Base again (per App. B.4.2) ↗
DeepSeekR1Second RL stage (all scenarios) -> R1posttrain1,700 steps at temp 0.7; rule rewards for reasoning, helpful/safety RMs for general data (last 400 steps only) ↗
DeepSeekR1DeepSeek-R1 distillation (R1-Distill series)posttrainSFT-only on 800K R1-generated samples into Qwen2.5 / Llama-3 dense bases ↗
DeepSeekProver-V2stage 1: expert iteration (non-CoT) with subgoal curriculumposttrainIterative SFT on Lean-verified proofs of hard problems ↗
DeepSeekProver-V2stage 2: cold-start CoT SFT + reasoning RLposttrainSFT on V3-Base-671B with cold-start CoT data, then GRPO with binary Lean reward ↗
DeepSeekProver-V27B distillation: context extension 4K->32KmidtrainProver-V1.5-Base-7B context extended before fine-tuning on 671B rollouts (the fine-tune and RL are posttrain); midtrain as continued training of an earlier base ↗
DeepSeekR1-0528post-training upgradeposttrainCard states only more compute and algorithmic optimizations during post-training ↗
DeepSeekV3.1two-phase long context extension (V3.1-Base)midtrainOriginal V3 base checkpoint continued at 32K (630B tokens) then 128K (209B tokens) with extra long documents ↗
DeepSeekV3.1post-training on V3.1-BaseposttrainHybrid thinking/non-thinking model and tool-use optimization; method not described ↗
DeepSeekV3.2-ExpContinued Pre-Training: Dense Warm-up StagemidtrainIndexer-only training with dense attention on 128K data, 1000 steps, 2.1B tokens, LR 1e-3; continued training of an existing base to add an attention component ↗
DeepSeekV3.2-ExpContinued Pre-Training: Sparse Training StagemidtrainAll parameters adapted to top-2048 sparse attention, 15000 steps x 480 x 128K = 943.7B tokens, LR 7.3e-6, data = V3.1-Terminus 128K extension mix ↗
DeepSeekV3.2-ExpPost-Training: Specialist Distillation + Mixed RL TrainingposttrainSFT on data distilled from RL-trained domain specialists, then one merged GRPO stage; identical to V3.1-Terminus post-training ↗
DeepSeekMath-V2iterative verifier/generator RL with rejection fine-tuningposttrainAll Math-V2 training is post-training on V3.2-Exp-Base/SFT ↗
DeepSeekV3.2Continued Pre-Training (dense warm-up + sparse training)midtrainSame DSA continued pretraining as V3.2-Exp (card base_model = V3.2-Exp-Base) ↗
DeepSeekV3.2Specialist DistillationposttrainSix-domain specialists (each RL-trained) generate SFT data, thinking and non-thinking ↗
DeepSeekV3.2Cold-Start (thinking in tool-use)posttrainPrompt-engineered system prompts produce reasoning-with-tool-call trajectories that seed RL ↗
DeepSeekV3.2Mixed RL Training (scaled GRPO)posttrainSingle RL stage (reasoning + agent + human alignment), >10% of pretraining compute, thousands of steps; Speciale = reasoning-only RL with reduced length penalty + Math-V2 data/reward ↗
DeepSeekV4Pre-Training (main phase, constant LR after 2000-step warmup)pretrainFlash 32T / Pro 33T tokens with Muon; dense attention warmup (first 1T tokens for Flash) then CSA/HCA sparse attention for most of training ↗
DeepSeekV4sequence-length extension inside pre-training (4K -> 16K -> 64K -> 1M)pretrainContext grows in steps during the same run; per-stage token counts not given. Pretrain: length growth the lab does not name as a separate phase (it calls all of this pre-training). ↗
DeepSeekV4introduction of sparse attention (indexer warmup, then sparse training)pretrainArchitecture switch at 64K sequence length; sparse attention then covers most of pre-training, so kept in pretrain ↗
DeepSeekV4mid-training phase (agentic data)midtrainAgentic data added to strengthen coding; no further detail ↗
DeepSeekV4learning-rate decay near end of pre-trainingpretrainCosine decay to 10% of peak; MTP loss weight cut from 0.3 to 0.1 at decay start. Pretrain: the decay sits inside the main schedule and is not named as a separate phase. ↗
DeepSeekV4Specialist Training (SFT + GRPO RL per domain and per reasoning-effort mode)posttrainEach domain expert: SFT on domain data then GRPO with domain rewards / GRM ↗
DeepSeekV4On-Policy Distillation (multi-teacher)posttrain>10 teachers distilled into one student by full-vocabulary reverse-KL OPD; replaces V3.2's mixed RL stage ↗
DeepSeekV4FP4 Quantization-Aware Training (during post-training)posttrainMXFP4 QAT for MoE experts and indexer QK path, applied to student, teachers and reference models ↗
DeepSeekV4-DSparkDSpark speculative-decoding module attached to the V4-Pro checkpointposttrainSeparate draft module trained against target outputs; target weights unchanged ↗
DeepSeekV4-Flash-Vision-Expincorporating visual modules and continued trainingmidtrainContinued training of the V4-Flash LM with added vision encoder/aligner (adding vision to an existing LM) ↗
DeepSeekV4.1-FlashVision encoder training (contrastive pre-training + autoregressive fine-tuning)pretrainDeepSeek-ViT trained before LM pretraining: SigLIP loss on ~47B pairs, then AR fine-tuning with a 4B MoE LLM on 236B tokens; component pretraining ↗
DeepSeekV4.1-FlashPre-Training (45T multimodal tokens, constant LR to 28T)pretrainFrom scratch, 64K sequence length, sparse attention throughout, LR 2.6e-4 after 2000-step warmup ↗
DeepSeekV4.1-FlashSequence-length extension to 1M (at 34T tokens, inside pretraining)midtrain64K -> 1M at 34T tokens; remaining ~11T tokens at 1M. Midtrain: it runs inside the learning-rate decay stage the lab names, which starts at 28T. ↗
DeepSeekV4.1-FlashLearning-rate decay stage (28T-40T) + constant low LR (40T-45T)midtrainCosine decay 2.6e-4 -> 2.6e-5, then flat; vision encoder unfrozen at decay onset with smaller LR. Midtrain: the lab names it a learning-rate decay stage; with the 1M extension it covers 28T-45T, 17T of 45T. ↗
DeepSeekV4.1-FlashDSpark dedicated stage after pre-training (backbone frozen)posttrainTrains only the speculative-decoding drafter; mapped to posttrain because it follows pretraining and does not change backbone weights ↗
DeepSeekV4.1-FlashSupervised fine-tuning (SFT)posttrainFirst post-training stage; data not described ↗
DeepSeekV4.1-FlashReinforcement learning in synthesized tasksposttrainAsynchronous GRPO-style RL across text, multimodal and agentic tasks, multi-scaffold, effort-conditioned; includes FP4 main-KV QAT and Hierarchical Sparse Indexer adaptation; successive runs re-initialized from merged c… ↗
DeepSeekV4.1-FlashLarge-scale on-policy distillation (last stage)posttrainFull-vocabulary OPD from >40 heterogeneous teachers on all domains ↗
KimiMoonlightstage 1 + stage 2 (0-5.2T tokens)pretrain2k-step warmup to 4.2e-4, cosine decay to 4.2e-5 by 5.2T tokens, 8K context, batch 2048->4096 examples ↗
KimiMoonlightstage 3 / cooldown stage (5.2T-5.7T tokens)midtrainLR re-warm to 1e-4 then linear decay to 0 over 500B tokens; highest-quality math/code/reasoning data ↗
KimiKimi-VLViT Training Stages (CoCa-style + alignment)midtrainVision encoder continual pretraining from SigLIP-SO-400M (2T) then 0.1T alignment to the LM updating only MoonViT and projector ↗
KimiKimi-VLJoint Pre-training StagemidtrainContinued pretraining of the Moonlight 5.2T checkpoint with text + rising multimodal share, 1.4T tokens, same LR scheduler ↗
KimiKimi-VLJoint Cooldown Stagemidtrain0.6T high-quality text + multimodal data with synthetic QA; LR re-warmed ↗
KimiKimi-VLJoint Long-context Activation Stagemidtrain0.3T, 8K->32K->128K, RoPE base 50K->800K, 25% long / 75% replay ↗
KimiKimi-VLJoint SFT; Long-CoT SFT; RLposttrainJoint SFT at 32K then 128K gives Kimi-VL (Instruct); long-CoT SFT + online mirror-descent RL gives Kimi-VL-Thinking ↗
KimiKimi-LinearPre-training recipepretrain4K context, MuonClip, WSD, LR 1.1e-3, 32M-token batch, 5.7T tokens from the K2 corpus ↗
KimiKimi-Linearannealing schedule and long-context activation phase (as in K2)midtrainK2's anneal + long-context activation reused; final checkpoint supports 1M context ↗
KimiKimi-LinearSFT recipe; RL recipeposttrainMulti-stage SFT on extended K2 SFT data; K1.5 RL algorithm with truncated IS, adaptive KL/mini-batch, PTX loss ↗
KimiK2pre-training (WSD stable phase)pretrain10T tokens at constant LR 2e-4 after 500-step warm-up, 4k context, MuonClip, 67M-token batch ↗
KimiK2pre-training (WSD cosine decay)pretrain5.5T tokens with cosine LR decay 2e-4 -> 2e-5. Pretrain: the decay is inside the main WSD schedule of the 15.5T run, the lab calls it pre-training and states no data-mix change; only the annealing and long-context phases that follow are midtrain. ↗
KimiK2annealing phase + long-context activationmidtrainLR 2e-5 -> 7e-6; 400B tokens at 4k then 60B tokens at 32k; YaRN to 128k ↗
KimiK2supervised fine-tuning (incl. agentic data synthesis)posttrainMuon SFT on multi-domain instruction data generated by K1.5/expert models plus synthetic tool-use trajectories ↗
KimiK2joint reinforcement learningposttrainSingle joint RL stage over verifiable-reward gym and self-critique rubric reward ↗
KimiK2-Thinkingpost-training QATposttrainINT4 weight-only QAT on MoE weights during post-training ↗
KimiK2.5Kimi K2 base model (foundation)pretrainInherited: K2 1.04T-A32B MoE pretrained on 15T text tokens with MuonClip/QK-Clip; K2.5 starts from a near-end K2 checkpoint ↗
KimiK2.5ViT Training stagemidtrainMoonViT-3D continual pretraining from SigLIP with caption loss, ~1T tokens aligned to Moonlight-16B-A3B, then projector-only bridging to the 1T LLM; part of adding vision to an existing LM ↗
KimiK2.5Joint Pre-trainingmidtrainLab calls it pre-training, but it continues a near-end K2 checkpoint with 15T vision-text tokens at 4K (adds vision to an existing LM, changes mix) -> my midtrain ↗
KimiK2.5Joint Long-context Mid-trainingmidtrain500B->200B tokens, 32,768 -> 262,144 via YaRN, high-quality text & multimodal, long text/video, reasoning, long-CoT ↗
KimiK2.5Zero-vision SFTposttrainText-only SFT on responses from K2 / K2 Thinking / in-house experts ↗
KimiK2.5Joint multimodal RL (incl. outcome-based visual RL, RFT, PARL)posttrainAbility-organized RL on text+vision, GRMs, Toggle; PARL trains the swarm orchestrator ↗
KimiK2.5Native INT4 quantizationposttrainSame native INT4 method as K2-Thinking (QAT in post-training per K2-Thinking card) ↗
KimiK3Pre-Training (native multimodal, 8K then 64K)pretrainText and vision jointly optimized from step 0; Per-Head Muon, cosine LR, 8K context extended to 64K inside the main run ↗
KimiK3Long-Context Extension / cooldown phasemidtrain256K -> 1M context during cooldown with upsampled long documents/videos and synthetic long-range tasks; midtrain because the lab names it a cooldown. The 8K->64K step inside the main run is length growth the lab does not name as a phase, so it stays in pretrain, as DeepSeek V4's does. ↗
KimiK3Supervised Fine-Tuning (cold start)posttrainCold-start policy for RL; agentic trajectories from prior Kimi specialists; QAT starts here ↗
KimiK3Reinforcement Learning (domain x effort experts, incl. Reasoning Effort RL)posttrain3 domains x {low, high, max} = 9 experts; partial rollouts; token-budget reward control ↗
KimiK3Multi-Teacher On-Policy Distillation (MOPD)posttrain9 experts consolidated into one model with per-token on-policy distillation reward ↗
KimiK3Deployment-Aware Post-Training: MXFP4 QATposttrainMXFP4 expert weights / MXFP8 activations through SFT and RL ↗
KimiK3Draft Model Fine-TuningposttrainMTP layer tuned into an EAGLE-3 draft with LK loss, target frozen (inference aid, not a capability stage) ↗
GLMGLM-4.5Pre-training stage 1 (general corpus, 15T, 4K)pretrainMainly web documents at 4K; first part of one cosine LR run ↗
GLMGLM-4.5Pre-training stage 2 (code & reasoning corpus, 7T, 4K)pretrainPretrain: data re-weighting during the main run (7T of 22T, toward code/math/science) at the same 4K length and on the same cosine LR, before the main decay; the lab calls it pre-training. MiMo-7B's stage 2 differs because it comes after the main decay. ↗
GLMGLM-4.5Mid-training: repo-level code trainingmidtrain4K -> 32K, concatenated repo files + issues/PRs/commits, 500B tokens, RoPE base 10K -> 1M ↗
GLMGLM-4.5Mid-training: synthetic reasoning data trainingmidtrain32K, synthesized reasoning traces for math/science/code competitions, 500B tokens ↗
GLMGLM-4.5Mid-training: long-context & agent trainingmidtrain32K -> 128K, up-sampled long docs + synthetic agent trajectories, 100B tokens; LR decays to 2.5e-5 by end ↗
GLMGLM-4.5Post-training stage 1: Expert TrainingposttrainCold-start SFT + RL for Reasoning, Agent and General-chat experts ↗
GLMGLM-4.5Post-training stage 2: Unified TrainingposttrainOverall SFT distilling the experts (hybrid thinking) followed by general RL ↗
GLMGLM-5Pre-training (27T)pretrain4K-context pre-training prioritizing code and reasoning early ↗
GLMGLM-5Mid-training (32K / 128K / 200K)midtrain1T at 32K, 500B at 128K, 50B at 200K; long docs and agent trajectories up-sampled; SWE issue-PR data ↗
GLMGLM-5Continued pre-training with DSA (dense warm-up + sparse adaptation)midtrainArchitecture change (MLA -> MLA+DSA) via continued training from the end-of-mid-training base: 1,000-step indexer warm-up, then 20B tokens of sparse adaptation on mid-training data ↗
GLMGLM-5SFT (incl. INT4 QAT)posttrainMulti-task SFT up to 202,752 tokens with interleaved/preserved thinking; INT4 QAT applied here ↗
GLMGLM-5Reasoning RL -> Agentic RL -> General RLposttrainSequential RL stages ↗
GLMGLM-5On-Policy Cross-Stage DistillationposttrainFinal stage; earlier-stage checkpoints as teachers ↗
GLMGLM-4.5VMultimodal pre-trainingmidtrainContinued pre-training of an existing LLM (GLM-4.5-Air; GLM-4-9B-0414 for 4.1V) with a ViT and image-text data: 120,000 steps, seq 8,192, batch 1,536 ↗
GLMGLM-4.5VLong-context continual trainingmidtrainSeq 32,768 with video and long interleaved data, 10,000 steps ↗
GLMGLM-4.5VSFT (long-CoT cold start) + RL (RLCS)posttrainCold-start SFT then GRPO-based multi-domain RL ↗
GLMGLM-4.6V128K context extension stagemidtrainExtra 2,000 steps at 131,072 tokens, global batch 128 ↗
GLMGLM-Z1-0414Cold start + extended RL + general RL from pairwise ranking feedbackposttrainBuilt on GLM-4-32B-0414 ↗
GLMGLM-5.2Mid-training with IndexShare at 128KmidtrainIndexShare architecture trained from mid-training onward; base model not named ↗
GLMGLM-5.2Parallel OPD merging >10 expertsposttrainExpert models merged by on-policy distillation in ~2 days ↗
GLMGLM-5.3Scaled post-training on the GLM-5.2 baseposttrainNo new pre-/mid-training ↗
GLMGLM-5.3-FlashPre-training of a newly trained base (30T multimodal tokens)pretrainNew architecture trained from scratch ↗
MiMoMiMo-7BPre-training Stage 1pretrainAll sources except synthetic reasoning responses; 8K context; includes warmup, 10.2T constant LR and a 7.5T cosine decay to 3e-5 (~17.8T tokens) ↗
MiMoMiMo-7BPre-training Stage 2midtrainMath+code upsampled to ~70% at 8K, LR held at 3e-5 (4T tokens). Midtrain: a distinct stage after the main decay that changes the mix, although the lab calls it pre-training. ↗
MiMoMiMo-7BPre-training Stage 3midtrain+~10% synthetic reasoning responses, 8K->32K context, RoPE base 640K, final LR decay to 1e-5 (~2T tokens) ↗
MiMoMiMo-7BMTP layer fine-tuningposttrainTwo extra MTP layers fine-tuned after pretraining with the main model frozen (inference speedup only) ↗
MiMoMiMo-7BSFT / RL (RL-Zero from Base, RL from SFT)posttrain~500K-sample SFT then modified-GRPO RL; RL-Zero applies RL directly to the base ↗
MiMoMiMo-VL-7BStages 1-3 (projector warmup, VL alignment, multimodal pre-training)midtrainContinued pretraining of MiMo-7B-Base with vision (adding a ViT + projector to an existing LM), 8K context, ~1.87T tokens ↗
MiMoMiMo-VL-7BStage 4 'long-context SFT' (lab counts it as pre-training)midtrain8K->32K context with long documents/videos and much more long-form reasoning data, 550B tokens; a long-context + reasoning-upsampling phase despite the SFT name ↗
MiMoMiMo-VL-7BPost-training: MORLposttrainOn-policy GRPO mixing RLVR and RLHF ↗
MiMoV2-FlashStage 1 (Pre-training, 0-22T)pretrainGeneral corpus at native 32K; includes a 10T cosine decay to 1e-4 at the end ↗
MiMoV2-FlashStage 2 (Mid-training, 22-26T)midtrainCode-centric upsampling + ~5% synthetic reasoning; LR 1e-4 -> 3e-5 ↗
MiMoV2-FlashStage 3 (Context Extension, 26-27T)midtrain32K -> 256K, GA RoPE base 5M, long-range data upsampled ↗
MiMoV2-FlashPost-training Stage 1: SFTposttrainMillions of samples, thinking + non-thinking ↗
MiMoV2-FlashPost-training Stage 2: Domain-Specialized TrainingposttrainIndependent RL (or SFT) per domain to build teachers: search, coding, tool use, math, general reasoning, safety ↗
MiMoV2-FlashPost-training Stage 3: MOPDposttrainOn-policy multi-teacher distillation + ORM rewards into one student ↗
MiMoV2.51. Text Pre-trainingpretrainText-only LLM backbone pretraining ↗
MiMoV2.52. Projector Warmup + 3. Multimodal Pre-trainingmidtrainContinued pretraining that adds in-house vision/audio encoders to the text backbone ↗
MiMoV2.54. SFT & Agentic Post TrainingposttrainSFT on agentic data; straddles midtrain because the 32K -> 256K -> 1M context extension happens here ↗
MiMoV2.55. RL & MOPD TrainingposttrainRL plus multi-teacher on-policy distillation ↗
MiMoV2.5-ProPre-training (27T, native 32K, extended to 1M)pretrainText pretraining; where the 1M extension happens is not stated ↗
MiMoV2.5-ProSFT -> Domain-Specialized Training -> MOPDposttrainSame three-stage post-training as V2-Flash ↗
MiMoV2.6Pre-training stage 1 (text-only)pretrainFlash 26T / Pro 27T text tokens; AdamW; 32K extended to 256K partway, which stays in pretrain as length growth the lab does not name as a phase ↗
MiMoV2.6Pre-training stage 2 (omni)midtrainContinued pretraining that attaches the in-house ViT and audio encoder (Flash 22T, Pro 3T); the lab calls it pre-training ↗
MiMoV2.6Mid-training (agent-centric)midtrain256K then 1M; Muown optimizer; MXFP4 QAT; reward-hacking self-correction data ↗
MiMoV2.6Short SFTposttrainBrief SFT before RL ↗
MiMoV2.6Mixed RL ('You Only RL Once')posttrainSingle asynchronous GRPO run over code/general/visual/cyber with multiple harnesses, ~30 steps ↗
MiMoV2.6MOPD2posttrainMulti-prefix multi-teacher on-policy distillation after mixed RL ↗
MiMoV2.6-MOPDMOPD (rolled back 5 steps) + repetition-specialist teacherposttrainShort specialist RL teacher then teacher-prefix OPD ↗
MiMoV2.6-Distill-Qwen-9BSFT on MiMo-generated data; domain GRPOposttrainDistillation SFT then per-domain GRPO baselines on released environments ↗
GemmaGemma-3Pre-training (with knowledge distillation)pretrainKD from an unnamed teacher (256 sampled logits/token), 2T-14T tokens of text+images at 32K sequence length ↗
GemmaGemma-3Long-context scaling at the end of pre-trainingpretrain4B/12B/27B scaled from 32K to 128K with RoPE rescaling (factor 8). Pretrain: length growth at the end of the main run that the lab does not name as a separate phase. ↗
GemmaGemma-3Instruction-Tuning (distillation + RL finetuning)posttrainKD from a large IT teacher, then RL with improved BOND/WARM/WARP using WARM reward models, code execution and math ground truth ↗
GemmaGemma-3Quantization Aware Trainingposttrain~5,000-step QAT finetune producing int4 / SFP8 checkpoints ↗
GemmaGemma-3nMatFormer trainingpretrainE2B sub-model trained jointly inside E4B; post-training not described for 3n ↗
GemmaGemma-4Pre-training (similar to Gemma 3)pretrainText+image (+audio for E2B/E4B/12B) pre-training with frozen encoders; tokens, distillation and context schedule not disclosed ↗
GemmaGemma-4Instruction Tuning (similar to Gemma 3, plus thinking mode)posttrainMethod details not given beyond data filtering and the added thinking mode ↗
GemmaGemma-4Quantization-Aware TrainingposttrainQAT for mobile (int2/int4 + int8 act) and Q4_0 formats, and for the vision/audio encoders ↗
GemmaGemma-4Multi-Token Prediction drafter trainingposttrainAuxiliary drafter head trained 'with our models'; when it is trained relative to pre-training is not stated, mapped to posttrain as an add-on ↗
GemmaGemma-4-12BPre-training from scratch (encoder-free)pretrainTrained from scratch with projection modules instead of encoders; post-training shared with the Gemma 4 recipe ↗
Microsoft AIMAI-DS-R1post-training (unspecified method)posttrainDeepSeek-R1 post-trained on ~460k safety / bias examples ↗
Microsoft AIMAI-Thinking-1Pre-trainingpretrain30T tokens at 16,384 context, 8,192 GB200 ↗
Microsoft AIMAI-Thinking-1Mid-training phase 1midtrain3.4T tokens at 65,536 context; STEM/math 35%, code 55%; cosine LR 2e-5 -> 1e-5 ↗
Microsoft AIMAI-Thinking-1Mid-training phase 2 (context extension)midtrain150B tokens at 262,144 context, constant LR 1e-6, same mix re-packed ↗
Microsoft AIMAI-Thinking-1STEM Climb / Agentic Climb / Helpfulness and Safety ClimbposttrainThree specialist GRPO-style RL runs from the mid-trained model, no SFT cold start ↗
Microsoft AIMAI-Thinking-1Self-distillationposttrainSFT of a mid-trained checkpoint on the model's own RL rollouts, used between RL climb segments ↗
Microsoft AIMAI-Thinking-1Trace Distillation SFT (consolidation SFT)posttrainThree specialist teachers distilled into one model, 4 epochs ↗
Microsoft AIMAI-Thinking-1Final Climb (consolidation RL)posttrainLightweight RL for safety, over-refusal and style at 128k ↗
Microsoft AIMAI-Base-2Pre-training (incl. native vision data)pretrain50T tokens, 16k GB200, 38 days; vision data trained jointly from the start ↗
Thinking MachinesInklingpre-trainingpretrain45T tokens of text, images, audio and video; Muon+Adam; WD tied to LR^2 ↗
Thinking MachinesInkling(none described)midtrainNo annealing, mid-training or context-extension phase described, although the model supports 1M tokens ↗
Thinking MachinesInklinginitial SFT (bootstrap)posttrainSFT on synthetic data from open-weights models incl. Kimi K2.5; small share of compute ↗
Thinking MachinesInklinglarge-scale asynchronous RLposttrain>30M rollouts over two long continuous runs; includes effort control, calibration, rubric/claims graders, safety ↗
Thinking MachinesInkling-Smallpre-training (changed data mix and recipe)pretrainSeparate pretraining run started after Inkling's; details not disclosed ↗
Thinking MachinesInkling-Smallon-policy distillation from Inkling (preview checkpoint)posttrainInkling as teacher, used 'in part' to post-train Inkling-Small (preview) ↗
Thinking MachinesInkling-Smallcontinued agentic coding RLposttrainTwo more weeks of agentic-coding RL from the preview checkpoint to the released model ↗
QwenQwen2.5-VLViT trained from scratch (CLIP pre-training)midtrainNew window-attention ViT trained from scratch (CLIP, then alignment) to attach to the finished Qwen2.5 LLM. Midtrain by rule (3): adding vision to an existing LM. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-VLVisual Pre-Trainingmidtrain1.5T tokens at 8,192 (captions, visual knowledge, OCR), ViT only. Midtrain by rule (3): continued training around the Qwen2.5 base. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-VLMultimodal Pre-Trainingmidtrain2T tokens at 8,192, all parameters: interleaved, VQA, math, grounding, video, agent and pure-text data. Midtrain by rule (3). ↗
QwenQwen2.5-VLLong-Context Pre-Trainingmidtrain0.6T tokens at 32,768 with long video, long agent and long document data. Midtrain: context extension. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-VLSupervised Fine-Tuning (SFT)posttrain~2M ChatML samples, half text; domain-tailored rule and reward-model filtering; rejection-sampled CoT; ViT frozen. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-VLDirect Preference Optimization (DPO)posttrainSingle-pass DPO on image-text and text preference data, ViT frozen. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-1MStage 1 (4K, intermediate Qwen2.5 base)pretrainReuses an intermediate Qwen2.5 Base checkpoint trained at 4,096 tokens. Pretrain: this is Qwen2.5's own from-scratch run, not new training for this release. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-1MStage 2 (32K with ABF)midtrainContext 4K -> 32K with RoPE base 10,000 -> 1,000,000 (ABF), as in other Qwen2.5 models. Midtrain: a context-extension phase. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-1MStages 3-5 (64K, 128K, 256K)midtrain64K / 128K / 256K with RoPE base 1M / 5M / 10M; 75% max-length + 25% shorter sequences; natural long text plus synthetic long-range tasks. Midtrain: named context extension. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-1MTwo-stage Supervised Fine-tuningposttrainShort instructions (<=32K) first, then a mix of short and long (to 256K) built from Qwen-Agent-generated long-document QA. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-1MReinforcement Learning (offline, DPO-like)posttrainOffline preference optimization on short (<=8,192-token) pairs reused from Qwen2.5; gains transfer to long context (LongBench-Chat 7B: 7.32 -> 8.08). ↗
QwenQwQ-32BCold-start checkpointposttrainCold-start SFT of Qwen2.5-32B before RL; data not described. ↗
QwenQwQ-32BRL stage 1 (math and coding)posttrainOutcome-reward RL with a math accuracy verifier and a code-execution server instead of reward models; steady gains as episodes grow. ↗
QwenQwQ-32BRL stage 2 (general capabilities)posttrainShort RL run with a general reward model and rule-based verifiers for instruction following, preference and agent skills. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-VL-32BReinforcement learning optimizationposttrainRL on top of the Qwen2.5-VL recipe targeting answer style, math reasoning and fine-grained image understanding; algorithm and data not given. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-OmniPre-training stage 1 (encoders, LLM locked)midtrainLLM from Qwen2.5 frozen; Qwen2.5-VL vision and Whisper-large-v3 audio encoders trained (adapters first). Midtrain by rule (3). ↗
QwenQwen2.5-OmniPre-training stage 2 (all parameters)midtrain+800B image/video, 300B audio, 100B video-with-audio tokens plus text, at 8,192. Midtrain by rule (3). ↗
QwenQwen2.5-OmniPre-training stage 3 (32K)midtrainLong audio and video added; all data extended to 32,768 tokens. Midtrain: context extension. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-OmniThinker instruction fine-tuningposttrainSFT on text, visual, audio and mixed-modality dialogues. ↗
QwenQwen2.5-OmniTalker: ICL, DPO, speaker fine-tuningposttrainSpeech continuation, DPO ranked by WER and pause errors, then multi-speaker fine-tuning. ↗
QwenQwen3General Stage (S1)pretrain>30T tokens at 4,096 in 119 languages; per-model LR schedule and batch size from in-house scaling laws. ↗
QwenQwen3Reasoning Stage (S2)midtrain~5T tokens at 4K with more STEM, code, reasoning and synthetic data; LR decay accelerated. Midtrain: a named stage that changes the mix and carries the decay, though the lab calls it pre-training. ↗
QwenQwen3Long Context Stage (S3)midtrainHundreds of billions of tokens at 32,768 (75% 16K-32K docs); RoPE base 10k -> 1M via ABF; YaRN + DCA for 4x at inference. Midtrain: named context extension. ↗
QwenQwen3Stage 1: Long-CoT Cold StartposttrainSmall long-CoT SFT on verified math/code/logic/STEM queries with QwQ-32B responses, deliberately few samples and steps. ↗
QwenQwen3Stage 2: Reasoning RLposttrainGRPO on 3,995 query-verifier pairs, large batches, many rollouts, off-policy updates, controlled entropy; AIME'24 70.1 -> 85.1 in 170 steps. ↗
QwenQwen3Stage 3: Thinking Mode FusionposttrainSFT mixing self-generated thinking data with curated non-thinking data; /think and /no_think template; thinking budget emerges. ↗
QwenQwen3Stage 4: General RLposttrainRL over 20+ tasks (IF, format, preference, agent, RAG) with rule-based, reference-graded and RM rewards. ↗
QwenQwen3Strong-to-Weak DistillationposttrainFor 0.6B-14B and 30B-A3B: off-policy distillation of think/no_think outputs, then on-policy logit KL to Qwen3-32B or 235B-A22B (~1/10 the GPU hours of RL). ↗
QwenQwen3-CoderPre-Trainingpretrain7.5T tokens at 70% code, Qwen2.5-Coder-cleaned data, 256K native context with repo-scale and PR data; stage split and schedule not given. ↗
QwenQwen3-CoderScaling Code RLposttrainExecution-driven RL on diverse real-world coding tasks with automatically scaled test cases. ↗
QwenQwen3-CoderScaling Long-Horizon RL (Agent RL)posttrainMulti-turn tool-use RL on SWE-style tasks across 20,000 parallel environments on Alibaba Cloud. ↗
QwenQwen3-NextPre-training (15T)pretrain15T tokens uniformly sampled from Qwen3's corpus, under 80% of Qwen3-30B-A3B's GPU hours; context schedule, optimizer and LR not given. ↗
QwenQwen3-NextPost-training (Instruct and Thinking)posttrainTwo separate post-trained models; RL with GSPO to handle hybrid-attention + sparse-MoE instability; no SFT or RL data details. ↗
QwenQwen3-OmniAuT audio encoder trainingmidtrainNew ~0.6B audio encoder trained from scratch on 20M hours (ASR + audio understanding) to replace Whisper. Midtrain by rule (3): a new encoder for an existing LM. ↗
QwenQwen3-OmniEncoder Alignment Stage (S1)midtrainLLM initialized from Qwen3 and frozen; vision (from Qwen3-VL) and AuT adapters, then encoders, trained. Midtrain by rule (3). ↗
QwenQwen3-OmniGeneral Stage (S2)midtrainAll parameters, ~2T tokens: text 0.57T, audio 0.77T, image 0.82T, video 0.05T, video-audio 0.05T. Midtrain by rule (3). ↗
QwenQwen3-OmniLong Context Stage (S3)midtrain8,192 -> 32,768 with more long audio and long video. Midtrain: named context extension. ↗
QwenQwen3-OmniThinker: SFT, Strong-to-Weak Distillation, GSPOposttrainLightweight SFT; off- then on-policy distillation from Qwen3-32B/235B-A22B; GSPO RL with rule-based and Qwen3 / Qwen2.5-VL judge rewards. ↗
QwenQwen3-OmniTalker four-stage trainingposttrainSpeech mapping on hundreds of millions of samples, CPT + long context, multilingual DPO, speaker fine-tuning. ↗
QwenQwen3-OmniCaptioner fine-tuningposttrainAudio-captioning variant fine-tuned from Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B. ↗
QwenQwen3-VLVision encoder continued training (SigLIP-2)midtrainSigLIP-2 continued at dynamic resolution before joint training. Midtrain by rule (3): continued training of an earlier model. ↗
QwenQwen3-VLStage 0: Vision-Language Alignmentmidtrain67B tokens at 8,192 (captions, visual knowledge, OCR), merger only. Midtrain by rule (3): adding vision to Qwen3. ↗
QwenQwen3-VLStage 1: Multimodal Pre-Trainingmidtrain~1T tokens at 8,192, all parameters, VL + text-only data, some video. Midtrain by rule (3). ↗
QwenQwen3-VLStage 2: Long-Context Pre-Trainingmidtrain~1T tokens at 32,768; more text-only, video and agent instruction data. Midtrain: context extension. ↗
QwenQwen3-VLStage 3: Ultra-Long-Context Adaptationmidtrain100B tokens at 262,144 emphasizing long video and long documents. Midtrain: context extension. ↗
QwenQwen3-VLSupervised Fine-Tuning (incl. Long-CoT cold start)posttrain~1.2M samples (1/3 text), 32K epoch then 256K epoch; separate non-thinking and long-CoT cold-start data for thinking models. ↗
QwenQwen3-VLStrong-to-Weak DistillationposttrainOff-policy then on-policy logit-KL distillation on text-only data into the LLM backbone of smaller models. ↗
QwenQwen3-VLReasoning RLposttrainSAPO on ~30K verifiable text and multimodal queries (math, code, logic, grounding, puzzles), mixed-task batches, language-mismatch penalty. ↗
QwenQwen3-VLGeneral RLposttrainMulti-task RL on IF and preference with rule rewards and Qwen2.5-VL-72B / Qwen3 judges; targeted data to unlearn flawed priors and repetition. ↗
QwenQwen3-VLThinking with Imagesposttrain~10k cold-start agent SFT + tool RL on Qwen2.5-VL-32B, distilled into ~120k interactions for Qwen3-VL SFT and tool-integrated RL. ↗
QwenQwen3-Coder-NextMid-training (continued pretraining on the Qwen3-Next base)midtrainTrillions of tokens of code, repos (~600B), PRs, rewritten web text, synthetic QA and agent trajectories; context 32K -> 262K; NTP + FIM; best-fit packing. Midtrain: named mid-training of an earlier base. ↗
QwenQwen3-Coder-NextSupervised Fine-tuningposttrainSFT on in-house corpora, execution-verified agent trajectories and doc-grounded QA, filtered by a user-simulator agent and ranked by a pairwise judge. ↗
QwenQwen3-Coder-NextExpert Models (WebDev, UX, single-turn RL, SWE RL)posttrainFour experts from the SFT model: WebDev (render-verified data), UX (21 tool templates), single-turn execution RL, multi-turn SWE RL with turn and tool-format penalties. ↗
QwenQwen3-Coder-NextExpert DistillationposttrainThe four experts are distilled back into the SFT model to give one deployable model without expert routing. ↗
QwenWebWorldStage 1: Transition ModelingposttrainFull-parameter SFT of Qwen3 8B/14B/32B on 1.06M (state, action -> next state) trajectories, 1 epoch, LR 2e-5, 20K-token packing, 16xA100. Posttrain: the lab calls it SFT. ↗
QwenWebWorldStage 2: Reasoning Activationposttrain1K synthesized CoT samples from the Stage 1 checkpoint, 5 epochs, LR 8e-6, CoT-only loss, 8xA100 for 2-3 hours. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
QwenQwen3.5Pretraining (native multimodal, early fusion)pretrainFrom-scratch early-fusion text+vision pretraining on trillions of tokens, 201 languages, FP8 pipeline; no separate mid-training phase described. ↗
QwenQwen3.5Post-training: scaled asynchronous RLposttrainDisaggregated async RL over million-scale agent scaffolds and environments for all sizes, text and multimodal; FP8 end-to-end, rollout router replay. SFT details not given. ↗
QwenQwen-AgentWorldStage 1: Continual Pre-Training (CPT)midtrainContinued pre-training of Qwen3.5 base checkpoints on non-thinking environment trajectories (10M+ over 7 domains) plus domain-knowledge corpora, with turn-level loss masking. Midtrain: named continued pre-training. ↗
QwenQwen-AgentWorldStage 2: Supervised Fine-Tuningposttrain7,094 rejection-sampled thinking trajectories (best of 3 rollouts, judge-scored), 256k context, prompts from 10 template variants. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
QwenQwen-AgentWorldStage 3: Reinforcement LearningposttrainGSPO on 92,308 single-turn prediction samples (prompts up to 128k), 9:1 rubric-judge + rule-verifier reward; 440 steps tracked on 35B-A3B. Posttrain: RL. ↗
QwenQwen3.8Scaling Real-World RL SystemsposttrainRL with environments scaled by task, workspace and harness, a universal reward system (execution + rubric + agentic checks) and an online batch balancer. Pretraining not described. ↗
QwenQwen3.8-Flash-NextPre-training (new architecture, Muon)pretrainFrom scratch with GDN + full attention 3:1, Gated Residual, n-gram embedding, Muon; target batch from step 0; ~1/3 the tokens and ~1/9 the FLOPs of Qwen3.7-Plus-Base. ↗
QwenQwen3.8-Flash-NextCPT Stage 1: Dense Distillation (QSA indexer warm-up)midtrainAt 256K, only the QSA indexer learns to match full-attention scores (KL): 1,000 steps, LR 1e-3, ~2B tokens. Midtrain: named continued pre-training that retrofits attention. ↗
QwenQwen3.8-Flash-NextCPT Stage 2: Sparse Training (final stage of CPT)midtrainBackbone and indexer trained jointly with QSA active: 8,000 steps, LR 2.5e-5, 96 × 256K tokens per step (~200B). Midtrain: named continued pre-training stage. ↗
MiniMaxText-01Initial Pre-trainingpretrain8K sequences, AdamW, batch 16M -> 128M tokens; LR 2e-4 constant for 7.2T, then 1.3e-4 for 3.2T more after gradient-norm anomalies. Pretrain: the main constant-LR run. ↗
MiniMaxText-01fast decay phasemidtrain1T tokens, LR decayed exponentially to 3e-5. Midtrain: a named learning-rate decay phase. ↗
MiniMaxText-01Long-Context Extension (three stages)midtrain128K (RoPE 5M, 300B tokens) -> 512K (10M, 32B) -> 1M (10M, 26B); 10% long-context QA in the last 20% of each stage. Midtrain: a named context-extension phase. ↗
MiniMaxText-01Stage I-II: short- then long-context SFTposttrainSFT at 8K, then SFT at 1,032,192 tokens with 50% long-context prompts; RoPE base 10M throughout post-training. ↗
MiniMaxText-01Stage III-IV: short- then long-context DPOposttrainOffline DPO at 8K, then DPO on entirely long-context data at 1,032,192 tokens; pairs are best vs worst reward-model-scored samples. ↗
MiniMaxText-01Stage V: Online Reinforcement LearningposttrainOnline RL at 8K with modified GRPO, mainly math, on SFT-untrained prompts with moderate success rates. ↗
MiniMaxVL-01Vision encoder pre-trainingmidtrain303M ViT-L/14 trained from scratch with CoCa-style contrastive + captioning losses on 694M unique pairs. Midtrain: part of adding vision to the finished Text-01 LM. ↗
MiniMaxVL-01Stage I: Modality alignmentmidtrainViT and MLP adapter trained on 80B description tokens at fixed 336x336 to caption images. Midtrain: continued training that adds vision to a finished LM. ↗
MiniMaxVL-01Stage II: Enhancement of Vision Understandingposttrain420B multimodal instruction tokens mixed 20:1 with Text-01 post-training data, all parameters. Posttrain: the lab calls it instruction tuning, though it carries most of the vision tokens. ↗
MiniMaxVL-01Stage III: Enhancement of User Experienceposttrain44.8B tokens of labeled multi-turn conversations on app-sourced images, one epoch. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
MiniMaxVL-01Stage IV: Enhancement of PreferenceposttrainDPO on 40,000 image-text pairs plus text pairs, judged by Text-01, stopped before one full epoch. Posttrain: preference optimization. ↗
MiniMaxSynLogicZero-RL on SynLogic dataposttrainGRPO directly on Qwen2.5 base models with binary format/correctness rewards: 33k hard logic samples (32B); Mix-3 adds 35k math and 9k code. Posttrain: RL on a borrowed base. ↗
MiniMaxM1Continual Pre-Trainingmidtrain7.5T tokens on Text-01: LR 8e-5 constant for 2.5T, then decay to 8e-6 over 5T; STEM/code/book/reasoning share raised to 70%, no synthetic data. Midtrain: continued pre-training of an earlier base. ↗
MiniMaxM1Long Context ExtensionmidtrainFour stages from 32K to 1M, made smoother because aggressive extension caused gradient explosions. Midtrain: a named context-extension phase. ↗
MiniMaxM1Supervised Fine-TuningposttrainCold-start long-CoT SFT (reflection-style reasoning) across math, code, STEM, writing, QA and chat; math and code about 60%. ↗
MiniMaxM1RL with CISPO (40K)posttrainCISPO over math (~50K), logic (~53K), code (30K), SWE sandboxes and 25K general tasks with a rule-to-general curriculum; yields M1-40k. ↗
MiniMaxM1Extending RL Scaling to Longer Thinking (80K)posttrainHarder data filtered with the 40K model, synthetic reasoning data down-sampled, output window grown 40K -> 80K in 8K steps; yields M1-80k. Whole RL: 3 weeks on 512 H800s. ↗
MiniMaxM2constant phase of pre-trainingpretrain19.9T tokens at 8K with code, math and STEM upsampled and a single MTP module (loss weight 0.3). Pretrain: the main constant-LR run. ↗
MiniMaxM2decay phase (long-context extension)midtrain9.3T tokens of short-text decay data + long-context data, context 8K -> 32K -> 192K, MTP grown to 3 modules by weight copying. Midtrain: a named decay phase that also extends context. ↗
MiniMaxM2Supervised Fine-TuningposttrainRejection-sampled interleaved-thinking trajectories over chat, reasoning, code and cowork, with multi-stage cleaning. ↗
MiniMaxM2Reinforcement Learning (Forge, CISPO)posttrainAgent RL with CISPO in the Forge system: process, completion-time and outcome rewards; per-stage shifts toward agent/coding data, longer contexts and harder tasks. ↗
MiniMaxM2.1post-training update of M2posttrainFurther post-training of M2 for multi-language coding, Android/iOS/web, office tasks and more concise thinking; no new pre-training described. ↗
MiniMaxM2.5RL scaling in ForgeposttrainLarge-scale agentic RL (CISPO, process + completion-time rewards) over 200K+ coding environments and expert-built office tasks. ↗
MiniMaxM2.7self-evolving post-trainingposttrainContinued M2-series post-training in which an internal M2.7 ran 30-50% of the RL team's experiment loop; adds full-stack repo, office, Agent Teams and persona data. ↗
MiniMaxM3native multimodal pre-trainingpretrainText, image and video mixed from the first step with MSA attention and a rebuilt interleaved-data pipeline; token count and schedule not disclosed. Pretrain. ↗
MiniMaxM3agentic post-training with a user simulatorposttrainCoding-agent training against simulated developers (clarification, feedback, task switching); MiniMax Code harness trained together with M3; algorithm not disclosed. ↗
MiniMaxM3.1-Flashsparse attention throughoutmidtrainM3's three full-attention layers converted to MSA; how the conversion was trained is not described. Midtrain: retrofitting attention on an earlier base (inferred). ↗
MiniMaxM3.1-FlashQuantization-aware trainingposttrainQAT of routed experts (NVFP4 in the release) and attention paths (MXFP8); training stage not specified. Posttrain: most QAT. ↗
StepFunORZReasoner-Zero RL from the base modelposttrainPPO with GAE(1,1), no KL, binary correctness reward, 128 prompts x 64 responses per step on Qwen2.5 bases (0.5B-32B). Posttrain: RL on a finished base. ↗
StepFunORZORZ-32B 'annealing' stageposttrain100 extra RL steps on 13k hard prompts (<4/64 correct in the first 1,100 steps), LR decayed linearly to 3e-7. Posttrain: an RL phase the lab calls annealing. ↗
StepFunStep-3Pretrainingpretrain20T+ text tokens in 10+ languages plus 4T image-text mixed tokens; schedule, optimizer and context length not disclosed. ↗
StepFunStep-3Annealing phasesmidtrain3.7T high-quality text tokens from a domain-balanced, down-sampled annealing set. Midtrain: a phase the lab names annealing. ↗
StepFunStep-3Supervised fine-tuningposttrainSFT on filtered multimodal math, competitive programming, STEM and general conversations, plus reverse-synthesized reasoning and tool-use queries. ↗
StepFunStep-3Reinforcement learningposttrainRL with a value network: verified rewards on difficulty-balanced math, code, logic and multimodal perception prompts; preference model or human feedback for open-ended tasks. ↗
StepFunPaCoRe-8BRLVR-8B start checkpointposttrainReasoning-oriented post-training of Qwen3-8B-Base (details not given), released as RLVR-8B-0926. ↗
StepFunPaCoRe-8BPaCoRe RL Stage 1posttrain250 strict on-policy PPO iterations synthesizing 16-24 cached messages; 16 instances x 64 responses, 131K max length. ↗
StepFunPaCoRe-8BPaCoRe RL Stage 2posttrain450 more PPO iterations on a further-refined data distribution. ↗
StepFunStep-3.5-FlashPre-training Stage 1: Open-domain pre-trainingpretrain14.6T tokens at 4K on the broad mix; Muon, 2k-step warmup to 2.5e-4 then cosine to 5e-5; batch ramps 4,096 -> 16,384 sequences over the first 400B tokens. ↗
StepFunStep-3.5-FlashPre-training Stage 2: Annealing + long-context initializationmidtrain3T tokens: 2T at 4K (LR 5e-5 -> 2e-5) then 1T at 32K (LR 2e-5, full-attn RoPE 1M) on a mix annealed to code/PRs and quality knowledge. Midtrain: a phase the lab names annealing. ↗
StepFunStep-3.5-FlashMid-training Stage 1: Specialization at 32kmidtrain386B tokens at 32K including 81B (21%) replay; SWE and tool-use-centric mix; router frozen, LR warm to 2e-5 then constant. Midtrain: named mid-training. ↗
StepFunStep-3.5-FlashMid-training Stage 2: Long-context specializationmidtrain364B tokens at 128K (full-attn RoPE 5M) with 10.5B replay; synthetic long-horizon reasoning, >32K documents, agent data; LR to 7.3e-6. Midtrain: named mid-training and context extension. ↗
StepFunStep-3.5-FlashTwo-stage SFTposttrainStage 1: 871k samples / 7.23B tokens multi-domain at 128K; Stage 2: ~30k expert chemistry trajectories and synthetic arithmetic for three epochs. ↗
StepFunStep-3.5-FlashExpert models via domain-specific RLposttrainSeparate RL runs from the shared SFT model for math, code, STEM, tool use, long context, human preference and agentic reasoning. ↗
StepFunStep-3.5-FlashSelf-distillation into a unified studentposttrainExperts generate trajectories on the SFT prompt distribution; rejection sampling removes language mixing and overthinking; one student trained from the mid-train checkpoint. ↗
StepFunStep-3.5-FlashScalable RL (MIS-PO)posttrainRLVR + GenRM RLHF + agent rewards with MIS-PO, truncation-aware value bootstrapping, 128K rollouts and unbiased KL 0.001 in the final stage. ↗
StepFunStep-3.5-FlashMTP-2/3 joint trainingposttrainMTP-2 and MTP-3 cloned from MTP-1 and trained jointly, with position-dependent loss weights, in a short final phase. ↗
StepFunStep-5-PreviewPre-training (FP8, deep stack)pretrainFrom-scratch FP8 training of the 92-block 600B MoE with FP32 hidden states, FP32 RMSNorm scales and fine-grained gradient clamping; tokens and schedule not disclosed. ↗
StepFunStep-5-PreviewSFT, then MTP-3 headposttrainSFT (not described), then an MTP-3 head trained on top, giving roughly 30% end-to-end speedup in RL rollouts. ↗
StepFunStep-5-PreviewAgentic RLposttrainLong-horizon RL on million-level verifiable environments with bitwise train-inference alignment, routed-expert replay, pretrained critic, turn-level penalties and learned compaction. ↗
LingLing-plusInitial Pre-Trainingpretrain9T tokens at 4K, AdamW, WSD with peak 2.4e-4 halved at ~60% of tokens, batch 2,560 -> 8,960, mix re-weighted toward high-quality data during the run. ↗
LingLing-plusLong Context Pre-Trainingmidtrain150B tokens at 16K with RoPE θ 10K -> 600K; less web, more long-form (Plus) or math/code (Lite); LR schedule unchanged. Midtrain: a named context-extension phase. ↗
LingLing-plusAnnealingmidtrainInverse-square-root decay 1.2e-4 -> 1.2e-8 on curated high-quality data; token count not stated. Midtrain: a named annealing phase. ↗
LingLing-plusSupervised Fine-Tuning + Direct Preference OptimizationposttrainIterative SFT (1-2M seed scaled by synthesis; short then 4K-16K data at 95:5) followed by vanilla, robustness and format-only DPO rounds; tool-use data from knowledge graphs. ↗
LingLing-Coder-liteContinuous Pre-Training (Stage 1, Stage 2)midtrainFrom a 7T Ling-lite checkpoint: 870B then 1.7T tokens, code ≥60%, NTP + FIM, 16M-token batches. Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base. ↗
LingLing-Coder-liteAnnealingmidtrain630B tokens, inverse-sqrt LR 1.4e-4 -> 1.4e-6, less raw code and much more synthetic QA. Midtrain: a named annealing phase. ↗
LingLing-Coder-liteSupervised Fine-tuning; Direct Preference OptimizationposttrainSFT on 18.8M instructions for 5 epochs (LR 4e-5), then offline DPO on 1.4M pairs for 2 epochs (LR 3e-7). ↗
LingRing-lite-distill-previewReasoning-oriented SFT; Generalization-oriented SFT; DPOposttrainSFT on ~2.59M R1-distilled reasoning samples, then a balanced SFT with 1,082K general samples, then 7K-sample DPO for format and instruction adherence. ↗
LingRing-liteLong-CoT SFT (Ring-lite-distill)posttrainLong-CoT SFT of Ling-lite-1.5: 3 epochs, LR 3e-4 cosine, batch 256, 32K context with RoPE base 600K; checkpoint chosen by entropy. ↗
LingRing-liteTwo-stage RL Training; General SFTposttrainC3PO RL on math, then code + science (max length 24,576 -> 32,768), then a general SFT stage for instruction following, writing and safety. ↗
LingRing-lite-2507Reasoning RL; General RLposttrainReasoning RL on 67K math, 32K code, 9.9K science and 19K+ logic problems, then general RL with a reward model and rule verifiers. ↗
LingRing-mini-2.0Long-CoT SFT + RLVR + RLHFposttrainLong-CoT SFT on Ling-mini-2.0-base, then RLVR and RLHF optimised jointly. ↗
LingRing-flash-2.0SFT + RLVR + RLHF Multi-Stage TrainingposttrainLight Long-CoT SFT, RLVR with IcePop, then a separate RLHF stage (two-staged RL chosen over joint training for efficiency). ↗
LingRing-linear-2.0Continued training stagemidtrainLing 2.0 bases converted to hybrid linear attention, then 600B (mini) / 1T (flash) tokens at 4K. Midtrain: retrofitting attention onto an earlier base. ↗
LingRing-linear-2.0Mid-training stagemidtrainContext 4K -> 32K -> 128K with more reasoning data, WSM checkpoint merging; tokens not stated. Midtrain: named mid-training with context extension. ↗
LingRing-linear-2.0Supervised Fine-Tuning; Reinforcement Learningposttrain128K SFT on reasoning + general data, then RL at 64K across math, code, science, logic and subjective tasks after module-by-module train/inference alignment. ↗
LingLing-1TPre-Training Substage 1 and Substage 2 (4K)pretrain20T tokens at 4K in two 10T sub-stages, reasoning share 32% -> 46%, stricter decontamination; AdamW, constant LR after warm-up (WSM), FP8. ↗
LingLing-1TMid-Training: Long Context Extension (32K)midtrain150B tokens with 20% 32K sequences, 4K -> 32K; YaRN later extends to 128K. Midtrain: named mid-training and context extension. ↗
LingLing-1TMid-Training: Reasoning Pre-Activation + WSM mergemidtrain600B tokens with high reasoning share plus CoT corpora; top-32 checkpoints averaged in place of LR decay. Midtrain: named mid-training with data change. ↗
LingLing-1TDecoupled Fine-Tuning; Evolutional RL (Evo-CoT); RL with Group Arena RewardposttrainDFT with instant vs in-depth system prompts; Evo-CoT RL with LPO and length/format rewards in instant mode; RLHF with Group Arena Reward and RubriX. ↗
LingRing-1TLong-CoT SFTposttrainLong-CoT SFT of Ling-1T-base on math 46%, STEM 26%, code 20%, other 8%; 64K packing, 3 epochs. ↗
LingRing-1TReasoning RL; General RLposttrainReasoning RLVR with IcePop + C3PO++ (480 prompts x 8, 64K), then general RLHF with GRPO (80 x 8, 32K). ↗
LingRing-mini-sparse-2.0-expContinued training with MoBAmidtrainLing-mini-base-2.0-20T continued 100B tokens with MoBA block-sparse attention; YaRN 4x to 128K. Midtrain: retrofitting attention onto an earlier base. ↗
LingLing-2.5-1TIncremental training to hybrid linear attention + continued pre-trainingmidtrainLing-2.0-1T GQA converted to 1:7 MLA + Lightning, then 9T tokens for knowledge and agent ability with training context extended to 256K. Midtrain: retrofit of an earlier base. ↗
LingLing-2.6-1TMigration Pre-Trainingmidtrain~400B tokens at 4K: Lightning conversion, linear warm-up (only Wqkv/QK-Norm trainable), QK-Norm absorption + TransMLA, MLA warm-up. Midtrain: retrofitting attention. ↗
LingLing-2.6-1TContinue Pre-Trainingmidtrain8T tokens at 4K, ~46% reasoning / 50% general / 4% multilingual, new high-quality data from the outset. Midtrain: continued pre-training of an earlier base. ↗
LingLing-2.6-1TMid-Trainingmidtrain~1.2T tokens: 250B (20% at 32K, peak LR), 425B at 32K with more high-quality data, 525B at 256K with 15% agentic data; WSM merge. Midtrain: named mid-training. ↗
LingLing-2.6-1TCold-Start SFT; Specialist training; Specialist distillation; Bidirectional preference alignmentposttrainCold-start SFT, expert SFT + RL per specialist (Evo-CoT/LPO for reasoning, GSPO for agents), distillation into one model, bidirectional focus-reward alignment; MTP continued training. ↗
LingRing-2.6-1TCold-Start SFT; Reasoning & Agentic RL (KPop); Specialist distillation; Adaptive thinkingposttrainCold-start SFT, reasoning and agentic specialists trained with async KPop RL, specialist distillation, then adaptive-thinking SFT + RL for high/xhigh effort. ↗
LingLing-3.0-flashPre-trained checkpoint (Ling-3.0-flash-base-30T)pretrainFrom-scratch pre-training of the native KDA + gated MLA model, ~30T tokens by checkpoint name, 8K context, no LR decay (WSM). ↗
LingLing-3.0-flashMid-trained checkpoint; Merged checkpoint (WSM)midtrainNamed mid-training (context 8K -> 32K -> 256K; data not described) then weighted checkpoint merging in place of LR decay. Midtrain: named mid-training phase. ↗
LingLing-3.0-flashAgentic post-trainingposttrainPost-training with 10,000+ interactive environments for coding, general and deep-research agents; hybrid thinking on by default. Stages and algorithm not described. ↗
LingLing-3.0-flash-FinContinued training on financial dataposttrainDomain continued training starting from the post-trained Ling-3.0-flash (not its base); data and method beyond 'high-quality financial data' not described. ↗
LingLing-3.0-flash-VLVision extension of Ling-3.0-flashmidtrainViT encoder + MLP projector added to Ling-3.0-flash for image and video input at 256K; training stages not described. Midtrain: adding vision to a finished LM. ↗
NemotronLlama-NemotronStage 1: NAS (Puzzle) and FFN FusionmidtrainPuzzle block-wise local distillation from Llama 3.3-70B / 3.1-405B Instruct, MIP block selection; FFN Fusion for Ultra. Midtrain: retrofits the architecture of a finished Llama model. ↗
NemotronLlama-NemotronStage 2: recovery training (knowledge distillation and continued pretraining)midtrainSuper 40B tokens KD; Ultra 65B tokens KD then 88B tokens CPT on Nemotron-H phase 4 data. Midtrain: named continued pre-training of an earlier base. ↗
NemotronLlama-NemotronStage 3: supervised fine-tuningposttrain33M-sample synthetic set with 'detailed thinking on/off'; Nano 3-stage SFT (32k packing), Super 1 epoch at 16k, Ultra 24k packing with LR 1e-5 cosine to 1e-6. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronLlama-NemotronStage 4: large-scale RL for reasoningposttrainGRPO on LN-Ultra only (~140k H100 hours, FP8 rollouts, pass-rate curriculum); smaller models rely on distillation. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronLlama-NemotronStage 5: alignment (instruction following and human preference)posttrainRLOO instruction-following RL (Super, Ultra); RLHF with online RPO (Super), GRPO (Ultra), offline RPO (Nano); Super checkpoints merged. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-HPhase 1 (0-60% of training)pretrainDiversity blend (web crawl 59%, code 20%, academic 8.8%, multilingual 5%) at 8192 tokens, batch 768, warmup then cosine LR (4e-4 for 56B); 56B in FP8 ↗
NemotronNemotron-HPhases 2-3 (60%-80%, 80% to last 380B tokens)pretrainShift to high-quality data (math 14%, academic 12%, wiki up); phase 3 adds 12.6% SFT-style data. Pretrain: data re-weighting inside the main cosine schedule. ↗
NemotronNemotron-HPhase 4 (last 380B tokens)pretrainSFT-style data raised to 31.8%, web crawl cut to 13.5%. Pretrain: final data re-weighting within the single cosine run, not named as a separate stage. ↗
NemotronNemotron-HMiniPuzzle compression (56B -> 47B-Base)midtrainNAS-selected layer + FFN pruning, ~7B-token KD per candidate, then 63B-token forward-KL distillation in FP8 at 8192, batch 768. Midtrain: continued training of a finished base into a new base. ↗
NemotronOpenCodeReasoning-NemotronSFT on OpenCodeReasoningposttrainSFT of Qwen2.5 7B/14B/32B (base and instruct) on 736K DeepSeek-R1 Python solutions; 3 epochs, batch 256, 32,768 max length, LR 5e-5. No RL. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronOpenMath-NemotronFirst SFT round (CoT + TIR + GenSelect)posttrain5.5M samples (3.2M CoT, 1.7M TIR, 566K GenSelect), 6 epochs, batch 1024, LR 3e-4 (1.5B) to 1e-4 (14B/32B), 4-checkpoint averaging. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronOpenMath-NemotronSecond SFT round on harder problemsposttrain2.2M samples on olympiad-forum problems hard for Qwen2.5-Math-72B-Instruct TIR, solutions >=5000 tokens; 4 epochs; skipped for 32B. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronLN-Nano-4B-v1.1SFT stagesposttrainMulti-stage SFT of the Minitron 4B base on reasoning on/off data (math, code, science, safety, tool calling), sequence-packed. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronLN-Nano-4B-v1.1multiple RPO stagesposttrainSeveral RPO rounds on on-policy data; final checkpoint merges SFT and RPO checkpoints. Posttrain: preference optimization. ↗
NemotronLN-Nano-4B-v1.1RoPE scaling + reasoning accuracy recovery RPO roundposttrainRoPE scaling for 128K, then a light RPO round to recover reasoning accuracy. Posttrain: comes after RPO and the only training described is an RPO round. ↗
NemotronAceReason-NemotronAceReason-Nemotron-1.1: SFT from Qwen2.5-Math-7Bposttrain1.1 only: SFT on DeepSeek-R1 responses (383K math+code prompts, blends up to 2.2M samples), rope_theta raised to 1M for 128K. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronAceReason-NemotronMath-only RL (8K→16K→24K)posttrainGRPO strict on-policy, no KL; batch 128, 8-16 rollouts, LR 1e-6; harder prompts (pass rate <=6/16) at 24K. Starts from R1-Distill-Qwen (1.0) or own SFT (1.1). Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronAceReason-NemotronCode-only RL (24K→32K)posttrainTwo-stage code RL on 8,520 curated competitive-programming problems, 24K then 32,768 max response, epoch-wise filtering of easy problems. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronAceReason-NemotronFinal math-only RL (32K)posttrainClosing math-only RL round at 32K response length. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronLN-Nano-VLinterleaved image-text pre-training (three training stages)midtrainVision training of Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct with C-RADIOv2-H on commercial images, interleaved image-text with LLM unfrozen; stages not itemised. Midtrain: adds vision to a finished LM. ↗
NemotronLN-Nano-VLSFT (NV-CosmosNemotron-SFT)posttrainInstruction tuning on NV-CosmosNemotron-SFT with text-only instruction data re-blended in. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-H-ReasoningSFT Stage 1: math, code and science reasoningposttrain5:1 reasoning:non-reasoning samples with <think> traces plus paired no-reasoning answers; blog: ~30,000 steps at batch 256 ↗
NemotronNemotron-H-ReasoningSFT Stage 2: instruction following, dialogue and safetyposttrain~10x smaller blend, balanced reasoning/non-reasoning, improves reasoning-mode control ↗
NemotronNemotron-H-ReasoningLong-context trainingposttrainA few hundred steps on concatenated chats with synthetic long-range references, doc QA and keyword retrieval; 83% RULER@128k. Posttrain: an SFT-format phase after SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-H-ReasoningReinforcement learning with GRPOposttrainIFEval RL (16K LMSYS prompts, rule verifier, LR 1e-6), tool calling with abstention (~50K samples, blog), then ~200 GRPO steps on HelpSteer2 with a Qwen-32B reward model ↗
NemotronNemotron-H-ReasoningCheckpoint merging (8B)posttrain8B only: blend with an earlier, safer RL checkpoint at alpha ~0.5 to fix weak internal safety scores ↗
NemotronLN-Super-v1.5NAS + knowledge distillation (KD)midtrainSame Puzzle-NAS 49B architecture from Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct with 40B-token KD (FineWeb, Buzz-V1.2, Dolma), as in v1. Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base. ↗
NemotronLN-Super-v1.5supervised fine-tuning stageposttrainSFT on synthetic data from Qwen3 235B and DeepSeek R1 0528 (Nemotron-Post-Training-Dataset-v1, 26M+ rows). Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronLN-Super-v1.5RL stages: RPO, RLVR, iterative DPOposttrainRPO for chat, RLVR for reasoning, iterative DPO for tool calling; final model merges several RL and DPO checkpoints. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNano-2Pretraining Phase 1 (0-60%)pretrainDiverse blend (crawl tiers ~60%, code 20%, multilingual 5%) at 8192, batch 736, WSD warmup (8B tokens) then stable LR 4.5e-4, FP8 throughout ↗
NemotronNano-2Pretraining Phase 2 (60-90%)pretrainHigher-quality blend: syn-crawl-high 21%, code 20%, crawl-high 16%, stem-sft 14.5%, math 9.5%. Pretrain: re-weighting inside the main WSD run. ↗
NemotronNano-2Pretraining Phase 3 (90-100%) and WSD decaypretrainLR decays 4.5e-4 -> 4.5e-6 over the last 3.6T tokens (from 16.4T, computed); phase 3 from 18T: stem-sft 32%, code 16%, math 11%, code-sft 10.9%. Pretrain: decay inside the main schedule. ↗
NemotronNano-2Phase LC (long-context continuous pretraining)midtrain18.9B tokens at 512k, batch 12 (~6M tokens), TP8 + CP16; Phase 3 blend at 80% + 20% synthetic long-doc QA. Midtrain: a named continued-pretraining context-extension phase. ↗
NemotronNano-2SFT Stage 1posttrain~80B tokens of SFT data packed into ~128k-token sequences; ~10% reasoning-off examples ↗
NemotronNano-2SFT Stage 2 (tool calling)posttrainFixes tool-calling regression from 128k packing in Stage 1 ↗
NemotronNano-2SFT Stage 3 (long context + truncated traces)posttrainNemotron-H long-context SFT recipe plus truncated-trace examples for thinking-budget robustness ↗
NemotronNano-2IFEval RLposttrainGRPO with a rule-based instruction verifier; careful checkpoint selection ↗
NemotronNano-2DPO (tool calling)posttrainIterative on-policy DPO in WorkBench: successful vs failed multi-step tool-call trajectories ↗
NemotronNano-2RLHFposttrainGRPO with a Qwen-based reward model, rollouts with and without thinking, targeting Arena-Hard ↗
NemotronNano-2Model merging (12B)posttrainInterpolate reasoning-strong and chat-strong RL checkpoints at alpha ~0.5 to get the final 'Merged' 12B ↗
NemotronNano-2Pruning and distillation to Nemotron-Nano-9B-v2 (reasoning model)posttrainDepth 62->56 + KD ~60B@8K; width pruning + KD ~50B@8K, ~25B@49K, ~1B@262K; then DPO, GRPO, KD ~0.4B@262K, RLHF, 0.5 merge. Posttrain: distillation of the aligned model. ↗
NemotronNano-2Pruning and distillation to Nemotron-Nano-9B-v2-BasemidtrainThen ~2.5B KD tokens at 524,288, all on pretraining data. Midtrain: continued training of a finished base into a smaller base. ↗
NemotronNano-2-VLStage 0 (connector warm-up; 'Pretraining' in Fig. 2)midtrain~2.2M samples (up to 36B tokens) at 16K, only the MLP projector trained. Midtrain: adding vision to a finished LM. ↗
NemotronNano-2-VLSFT Stage 1 (16K)posttrainAll weights unfrozen; 26M multimodal samples (~72B tokens) + 6.5M Nano 2 text-reasoning samples (~40B); FP8 ↗
NemotronNano-2-VLSFT Stage 2 (49K context extension)posttrainVideo and multi-image data (1.4M samples, 17B tokens) + 25% Stage-1 reuse. Posttrain: an SFT stage after SFT Stage 1, although the lab calls it context extension. ↗
NemotronNano-2-VLSFT Stage 3 (49K text recovery)posttrainCode-reasoning-only SFT to recover LiveCodeBench lost in Stages 1-2 ↗
NemotronNano-2-VLSFT Stage 4 (300K context extension)posttrainNano 2 Stage-3 long-context SFT data, 8-way context parallelism; lifts RULER. Posttrain: SFT stage after SFT Stage 1. ↗
NemotronNano-2-VLQuantization-aware distillation (NVFP4)posttrainFP8 checkpoint via PTQ; NVFP4 student distilled from BF16 teacher with Stage-1 hyperparameters and LR 2e-6 ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-NanoPre-training Phase 1 (diverse data, 0-94%)pretrain23.5T tokens of a diversity-oriented 15-category mix at 8K context on the WSD schedule (8.4B-token warmup, constant 1e-3 to 80%, then decay). Pretrain: the main LR schedule. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-NanoPre-training Phase 2 (high-quality data, 94-100%)pretrain1.5T tokens weighted to high-quality data (stem-sft 22.3%, math 12.5%, wiki) during the WSD decay to 1e-5. Pretrain: data re-weighting inside the main LR schedule. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-NanoLong-Context Extension (LC-Phase, continuous pretraining)midtrain121B tokens at constant LR 1e-5, batch 48, mixing 512k and 4k sequences; 20% doc QA, 1% synthetic retrieval, 79% Phase-2 data. Midtrain: a named context-extension phase. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-NanoSupervised Fine Tuningposttrain18M+ chat, code, math, science, agentic and multilingual samples; 13,000 steps, batch 64, packed to 256K, LR 5e-5; adds reasoning on/off and budget control. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-NanoMulti-environment RLVR (first stage)posttrainSynchronous GRPO over all NeMo Gym environments at once (math, code, STEM QA, IF, JSON, long context, tool use), 128 prompts × 16 rollouts, curriculum sampling. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-NanoReinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (GenRM)posttrainAn RL-trained Qwen3-235B GenRM compares 16 responses per prompt in a circle; Group Relative Length Control cuts verbosity 30%. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-NanoMulti-environment RLVR (second stage)posttrainA second unified multi-environment RLVR run after RLHF. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-CascadeMulti-stage SFT, Stage 1 (16K)posttrainGeneral data with parallel thinking/non-thinking responses plus thinking-only math, science, code (R1-0528 / V3-0324 teachers); one epoch. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-CascadeMulti-stage SFT, Stage 2 (32K)posttrainAdds 32K-long math/science/code reasoning, tool-calling and SWE data to the general mix; one epoch. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-CascadeCascade RL 1: RLHFposttrainGRPO with a 72B reward model; math/competitive-coding prompts excluded; 12K max response, batch 128, 8 rollouts, LR 2e-6, ~800 steps. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-CascadeCascade RL 2: Instruction-Following RL (IF-RL)posttrainTwo-stage IF-RL (IFEval then IF-Bench-Train taxonomies) on ~40K filtered Llama-Nemotron IF prompts plus 60K custom; 8K-16K responses. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-CascadeCascade RL 3: Math RLposttrainAceReason-Math problems (paper says 18K, and later 49K filtered to 14K); 8B: 24K→32K→40K, 14B: 28K→40K; temp 1.0, LR 2-2.5e-6, ~100-200 steps per stage. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-CascadeCascade RL 4: Code RLposttrainSingle-stage on-policy code RL on the AceReason coding corpus, 44K-48K max response, binary unit-test reward, temp 1.0, LR 4e-6. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-CascadeCascade RL 5: SWE RLposttrainAgentless code-repair RL with an execution-free patch-similarity reward; 16 rollouts, temp 1, 16K max response, LR 2.5e-6. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-TerminalSFT on Terminal-CorpusposttrainSFT of Qwen3-8B/14B/32B on DeepSeek-V3.2 terminal trajectories (dataset adapters + Terminal-Task-Gen synthetic tasks); LR 2e-5, 2 epochs, 32,768 tokens. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperPre-training Phase 1 (0-20T tokens)pretrain20T tokens on a diversity-oriented blend; WSD warmup over 200B tokens to 4.5e-4, then stable LR; NVFP4, 8K sequences, batch 3,072 (~25.17M tokens). ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperPre-training Phase 2 (20T-25T tokens)pretrain5T tokens on a higher-quality blend (finepdfs-high, more stem/code-sft), coinciding with minus-sqrt LR decay to 4.5e-6. Pretrain: data re-weighting and decay inside the main schedule. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperLong-context phase (LC-Phase), stage 1midtrainContinuous pretraining at 1,048,576 context for 34B tokens, constant LR 4.5e-6, batch 16; 20% document-QA + 80% downscaled Phase 2 data. Midtrain: a named context-extension phase. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperLong-context phase (LC-Phase), stage 2midtrain17B tokens alternating 1M and 4K sequences to recover math benchmarks. Midtrain: part of the named context-extension phase. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperSFT Stage 1 (token-level loss)posttrainOver 7M samples with token-level averaged loss; 256K packing, batch 64, constant LR 1e-5 after 30k warmup samples; shared-weight MTP loss (scale 0.3) kept on. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperSFT Stage 2 (sample-level loss)posttrain85% of the Stage 1 blend plus 256K/512K long-context data; per-conversation normalized loss, 512K packing, batch 32, LR 1e-5; restores long-input-short-output accuracy. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperBudget-control semi-on-policy SFTposttrain350 steps on the model's own rollouts with 12% of reasoning traces truncated to random budgets, teaching inference-time reasoning budget control. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperRL Stage 1: Multi-environment RLVRposttrainAsync GRPO over 21 environments / 37 datasets in rounds (25-30 env types, then an agentic round with 37), 256 prompts x 16 rollouts, max generation 49K->64K, GenRM in the loop, PivotRL for agentic domains. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperRL Stage 2: SWE-RLposttrainEnd-to-end OpenHands agent loop in Apptainer containers with binary test reward, plus OpenCode/Codex-style tool formats; ~20B tokens (Fig. 12). ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperRL Stage 3: RLHFposttrainRLHF-only stage with the principle-following GenRM (initialized from Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507); ~18B tokens (Fig. 12). ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperStage 4: MTP healingposttrainOnly the MTP heads are trained (NLL on responses generated for RLVR prompts), backbone frozen; significantly improves MTP accuracy. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-SuperQuantization for inference (PTQ)posttrainFP8 PTQ calibrated on 256 SFT samples at 65,536 context; NVFP4 PTQ with MSE-chosen weight scales and AutoQuantize mixed precision (4.75-bit budget), under 2 hours on one 8xB200 node. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-4BNemotron Elastic compression + Stage 1 short-context distillation (8K)midtrainRouter-guided pruning of Nemotron Nano 9B v2 to 4B, then KD from the frozen 9B parent on 63B tokens at 8K (~70% post-training, 30% pretraining data). Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-4BStage 2 long-context extension (49K)midtrainDistillation continues for 150B tokens at 49K sequence length. Midtrain: a named context-extension phase. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-4BSupervised Fine-Tuning (two stages)posttrainBroad reasoning + non-reasoning SFT (math, code, science, chat, IF, agentic), then a small safety-focused stage. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-4BMulti-environment Reinforcement Learning (three RLVR stages)posttrainNeMo-RL/Gym: single-turn IF, then multi-turn IF + structured outputs, then conversational tool calling. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronCascade-2Supervised Fine-Tuning (single stage)posttrainSFT of Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-Base on multi-domain teacher data packed to 256K, ~1.5 epochs (33,000 steps, cosine LR 5e-5 to 5e-6). Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronCascade-2Instruction-Following RL (IF-RL)posttrainFirst Cascade RL stage: verifiable IF rewards, thinking mode only, no reward model, dynamic filtering and overlong penalty; ~180 steps, 128 prompts x 16 rollouts, LR 3e-6. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronCascade-2Multi-domain RLposttrainOne joint RL stage on ~55% STEM MCQA, 30% agentic tool calling, 15% structured output; ~70 steps. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronCascade-2Multi-domain On-Policy Distillation (MOPD)posttrainToken-level reverse-KL on-policy distillation from in-pipeline teachers (SFT ckpt for math, RLHF ckpt, IF-RL + multi-domain ckpt) with truncated importance weights; 52 steps. Posttrain: distillation. ↗
NemotronCascade-2Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF)posttrainPairwise GenRM rewards (Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507) with length normalization and conciseness bonus, thinking mode only, KL 0.03, 16K responses, ~25-30 steps. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronCascade-2Long-context RLposttrainLong-context subset of the Nano-v3 RL blend only, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 as judge, inputs up to 32K, ~30 steps. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronCascade-2Code RLposttrain3.5K hard competitive-programming prompts (those GPT-OSS-120B does not solve 8/8), strict binary test-case reward, 118K responses, 22 steps. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronCascade-2Software Engineering RL (agentless + execution-based agentic)posttrainAgentless code-repair RL with GPT-OSS-120B as reward model (98,304 seq), then OpenHands execution-based RL: 16 prompts x 64 rollouts, SWE-Gym + R2E-Subset. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-OmniSFT Stage 0: Vision projector warmupmidtrainVision MLP projector only, 9.35M samples (~15.5B tokens) at 16K. Midtrain: adds vision to a finished LM. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-OmniSFT Stage 1: Vision SFT 16kposttrainLLM and C-RADIOv4-H unfrozen on 86.3M vision-language samples (~214.8B tokens) at 16K. Posttrain: lab-named full-model SFT (as Nano V2 VL SFT Stage 1); only projector warm-ups count as midtrain. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-OmniSFT Stage 2: Audio projector warmupmidtrainAudio projector only on Granary v1.1 ASR, 59.2M samples (~11.4B tokens). Midtrain: adds audio to a finished LM. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-OmniSFT Stage 3: Audio projector & encodermidtrainParakeet encoder + projector on 100.5B tokens (ASR 22.8B, sound 24.5B, music 43.5B, speech 9.6B), LLM frozen. Midtrain: adds audio to a finished LM. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-OmniSFT Stage 4: Omni SFT 16kposttrain30.5M samples (~57.3B tokens) of vision, video, audio, omni, text and safety data, all parameters trainable, 16K. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-OmniSFT Stage 5: Omni SFT 48kposttrain6.08M samples (~33.5B tokens) weighted to long video, omni and reasoning data at 49,152 context. Posttrain: SFT (context grows inside the SFT curriculum). ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-OmniSFT Stage 6: Omni SFT 256kposttrain~34.0B tokens of long-document vision and long-context text at 262,144 context; audio encoder and projector frozen. Posttrain: SFT (context grows inside the SFT curriculum). ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-OmniPreference Optimization (MPO)posttrainOffline MPO: DPO preference loss + BCO quality loss on rejection-sampled vision responses labeled by correctness. Posttrain: preference optimization. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-OmniText-RL stage 1, Image-RL, Omni-RL, Text-RL stage 2posttrainAdapted GSPO (batch 4,096, 16 rollouts): text RLVR/RLHF on the LM, image RL with rule verifiers, omni RL on ~120K prompts, then text RL again. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-UltraPretraining phase 1 (diversity mix, 0-15T tokens)pretrainNVFP4 WSD run: 200B-token warmup to 2.5e-4, then stable LR on a diversity-biased 19-category mix (web crawl ~49%) for ~15T tokens. Pretrain: main schedule. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-UltraPretraining phase 2 (quality mix + LR decay, 15-20T tokens)pretrainQuality-biased mix (finepdfs-high upweighted, web ~38%) for the last ~5T with minus-sqrt decay to 2.5e-6; horizon cut to 20T after a ~16T divergence. Pretrain: decay inside the main WSD schedule. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-UltraLong-Context Extension (LC-Phase)midtrainCPT from a 500B-window merged checkpoint: 33B tokens, 92% of iterations at 1M and 8% at 4K, 46% long-context + 54% phase-2 data, LR 2.5e-6. Midtrain: a named context-extension phase. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-UltraSupervised Fine Tuning (Stage 1 and Stage 2)posttrainStage 1: 294,912-token packs, GBS 64, 204,800 samples, LR 1.5e-5→1e-6; Stage 2: 515K packs with ≤512K data, 19,200 samples; MTP objective kept. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-UltraReinforcement Learning (unified RLVR)posttrainAsync GRPO over all environments (agentic, code, math, safety, chat, IF, long context), batch 8192 with 16 rollouts, max generation 48K→64K; gives the RLVR student. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-UltraSpecialized TeachersposttrainSWE, office, search, terminal, tool-use, usability, agentic-safety, chat (GenRM RLHF), IF/factuality, STEM and coding teachers via SFT, PivotRL, GRPO or RLHF. Posttrain. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-UltraMOPD WarmupposttrainOne-time light SFT of the RLVR student on teacher-distribution data so student rollouts stay in teacher support (GDPval 46.7 with vs 35.3 without). Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-UltraMOPD (two iterations)posttrainAsync reverse-KL on-policy distillation, PPO-style clipping and IcePop masking, 1,024 prompts × 1 rollout, 192K max generation; round 2 adds teachers branched from MOPD1. Posttrain. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-UltraMTP BoostingposttrainHead-only forward-KL (T=2) of the shared MTP head to backbone logits over 7 draft steps, 12K steps at GBS 64 on 8K-token on-policy rollouts. Posttrain. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3-UltraQuantization (NVFP4 PTQ)posttrainMixed-precision PTQ at 5.03 bits/element: NVFP4 routed experts, FP8 shared experts and Mamba linears, BF16 attention/latent; FP8 KV cache, FP16-SR SSM cache. Posttrain: quantization. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-LightningMTP warmup trainingmidtrain100B tokens training only the new MTP head (standard 2-step recursive) on the frozen Nano 3 Base backbone. Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Lightning2.2 Distillationmidtrain1T tokens of logit distillation from Super 3 Base (forward KL 0.9 + CE 0.1, Ultra 3 Phase 2 data); LR 1e-5→1e-4 over 200B, linear decay to 1e-5 over 800B. Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-LightningLong-context phase (LC-Phase)midtrain21B tokens at 1M context, constant LR 1e-5, Nemotron 3 Ultra LC blend, on GB200. Midtrain: a named context-extension phase. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-LightningSupervised Fine Tuning (single stage)posttrainOne text-only SFT stage; no vision, no second SFT stage. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-LightningStage 4: Reinforcement LearningposttrainMulti-environment asynchronous GRPO (RLVR) with MTP-accelerated rollouts; no specialist teachers or MOPD. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-LightningMTP Boostingposttrain48k steps of MTP-only KD training against the frozen final backbone, LK loss, hidden-state mixing. Posttrain: after SFT/RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-LightningPost-training quantization + QAD (W4A16 NVFP4)posttrainModelOpt PTQ + quantization-aware distillation to W4A16 NVFP4 (FP8 Mamba projections, BF16 attention); 99.24% median recovery. Posttrain: QAT. ↗
NemotronLabs-Competitive-CodingSupervised fine-tuning on GLM-5.2 tracesposttrain1 epoch on 477,642 GLM-5.2 traces (22K problems): AdamW, GBS 64, peak LR 1.5e-5 cosine, 262,144-token packs, TP8 on 128 GB300; no RL or distillation stage. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronLabs-Competitive-CodingNVFP4 post-training quantizationposttrainModel Optimizer NVFP4 PTQ for live-contest throughput: 736.8 vs 199.1 tok/s/GPU at 52.8% vs 59.4% IOI 2025 Score@1. Posttrain: quantization. ↗
NemotronBolt-74BStage 1: Compression (architecture search + 8K recovery)midtrainStar Elastic search + logit KD from frozen Super VL 120B-A12B; router converges in 8B tokens, KD continues to 72B at 8K on 70% parent SFT + 30% Ultra-v3 pretrain data. Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base. ↗
NemotronBolt-74BStage 1: Compression (128K recovery)midtrain48B more KD tokens at 128K (128 sequences, ~16.8M tokens per batch) for 120B total; whole compression ~64 h on 128 GB200 GPUs. Midtrain: context extension of a compressed earlier base. ↗
NemotronBolt-74BStage 2: Vision Adaptor TrainingmidtrainParent vision tower re-attached; only the projector trained on ~6.6M image-only samples/epoch (captions, VQA, OCR, documents). Midtrain: re-attaching vision to an LM (rule 3), though NVIDIA files it under post-training. ↗
NemotronBolt-74BStage 3: Supervised Fine-Tuning (vision-heavy SFT) + SLERP mergeposttrainParent SFT blends reweighted to vision (ScreenSpot Pro ~10.1B, WebArena ~9.5B tokens) plus Kimi-K3/GLM 5.2 synthetic text; LLM, adaptor and encoder trained; SLERP 80:20 merge with adaptor-only ckpt. ↗
NemotronBolt-74BStage 4: Reinforcement Learning (MCP-Atlas RL, RLHF, SWE-RL) + final mergeposttrainE2E GRPO on a simulated MCP server (32x16=512) and SWE (64x16=1,024 trajectories/step, 196,608 max tokens, Adam 3e-6); RLHF with Nemotron 3 Ultra GenRM; branches SLERP-merged 75:25. ↗
NemotronBolt-74BQuantization-Aware Distillation (2 stages)posttrainIQ2_XXS experts + NVFP4 Mamba via Jaccard-loss QAD (LR 1e-5, cosine to 1e-7): 26B tokens from an earlier SWE-RL BF16 teacher, then 10M RLHF-blend tokens with the final BF16 teacher. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-SuperMTP warmup trainingmidtrain100B tokens training only the single shared MTP head, with hidden-state mixing, on the frozen Nemotron 3 Super Base. Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Super2.2 Distillationmidtrain1T tokens of logit distillation from Ultra 3 Base, Skew Reverse KL α=0.1, LR 4.5e-6→4.5e-5→4.5e-6, load-balance coeff 1e-5. Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Super2.3 Indic Continued Pretrainingmidtrain100B tokens: 10B synthetic + natural Indic, 90B prior mixture; Indic benchmarks +4.98 to +9.82 pt. Midtrain: named continued pre-training. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-SuperLong-context phase (LC-Phase)midtrain35B tokens CPT at 1M context, constant LR 4.5e-6, Ultra 3 LC blend, GB300 (CP16/TP8/EP64). Midtrain: a named context-extension phase. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Super2.5 Mid-training (agentic software engineering)midtrain65.4B tokens at 256K of issue-PR, repos, commits, CI logs, 10% agent traces; LR re-warmed to 1e-5 then constant. Midtrain: named mid-training stage. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-SuperLong-context recoverymidtrain9B tokens with the LC-Phase recipe after 256K mid-training; RULER-1M back from 33.5 to 81.0. Midtrain: context-length stage after the main run. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-SuperVision projector warm-up + two-stage SFTposttrainText-only base becomes a VLM: stage 1 broad vision/reasoning/chat/long-context/safety/agentic mix, small rebalanced stage 2; 524,288-token packing, batch 32, LR 1e-5. Posttrain: SFT. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Super3.2 Reinforcement Learning (RLVR + RLHF)posttrainAsync GRPO, batch 8,192 x 16 rollouts, generation 80K→128K, router replay + FP32 LM head; step-120 checkpoint is the trunk for teachers and MOPD student. Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-SuperSpecialized teachers (agentic, reasoning, vision, video, alignment)posttrainTeachers branched from RL step 120 via async GRPO (agentic sandboxes, 131K-token reasoning, video QA + SA-V tracking, vision tools, vision RLVR) and RLHF (alignment). Posttrain: RL. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Super3.6 MOPD (two stages)posttrainOn-policy reverse-KL distillation from specialists into RL step-120 student: stage 1 30 steps (LR 2e-6), stage 2 40 steps (LR 3e-6, α=0.2 proximal teacher). Posttrain: distillation. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Super3.7 MTP BoostingposttrainFrozen backbone; MTP head trained 4k steps at SFT, then 25k steps on the final backbone with LK-loss KD; AL at temp 1 3.787→4.612. Posttrain: after RL/MOPD. ↗
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Super4. Quantization (PTQ + QAD)posttrainAggressive NVFP4 PTQ (MSE calibration on multimodal SFT data) then 200-iteration SFT-based QAD with a KL objective; 4.82 bits/param, 99.62% median recovery. Posttrain: QAT. ↗
MistralSmall-3Pretrained base checkpoint (Mistral-Small-24B-Base-2501)pretrain24B dense base, 40 layers, 32k context, trained by Mistral; tokens, data mix, schedule and hardware not disclosed. ↗
MistralSmall-3Instruction tuning (no RL, no synthetic data)posttrainInstruction fine-tuning only; the lab states that neither RL nor synthetic data was used. ↗
MistralSmall-3.1Building upon Mistral Small 3: vision and 128k contextmidtrainSmall 3 is trained further with a 24-layer Pixtral-type vision encoder and its context goes from 32k to 128k (rope_theta 1e8 -> 1e9); tokens not given. Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base that adds vision. ↗
MistralSmall-3.1Instruction fine-tuningposttrainInstruct model fine-tuned from the 3.1 base; data and methods not described. ↗
MistralDevstral-Small-1.0Long context extension phase (base model)midtrainThe Mistral Small base (40 layers, GQA) gets a long-context extension to 128k before agentic fine-tuning; no token counts. Midtrain: a named context-extension phase. ↗
MistralDevstral-Small-1.0Two-stage SFT on agent trajectoriesposttrainSFT on OpenHands CodeAct trajectories from SWE-Gym: first a broad heuristic-filtered set, then only trajectories passing the strictest filters; vision encoder removed. ↗
MistralDevstral-Small-1.0Policy optimization on fresh rolloutsposttrainFurther rounds of rollouts from the SFT model, then training with an unnamed policy-optimization method. ↗
MistralMagistral-Small-1.0Reasoning SFT cold startposttrain4 epochs of SFT on Magistral Medium traces (RL-run traces plus answers to OpenThoughts/OpenR1-code prompts) with 10% general instruction data; best AIME'24 checkpoint kept. ↗
MistralMagistral-Small-1.0RL on top of reasoning SFT bootstrappingposttrainModified GRPO (no KL, eps_high 0.3, temperature 1.0), batch 2048, 32k non-penalized length, rule-based math/code rewards plus format, length and language terms. ↗
MistralSmall-3.2Minor instruct updateposttrainFurther post-training of Small 3.1 Instruct for instruction following, fewer infinite generations and a more robust function-calling template; method not described. ↗
MistralDevstral-Small-1.1Refreshing Devstral-Small dataposttrainSame 24B model retrained on refreshed agent data: pseudo-scaffolds, XML and native function-calling prompts, recalibrated first-stage trajectory filtering. ↗
MistralVoxtralPretraining: adapter warm-upmidtrainFirst pass trains only the audio-to-LM adapter with the Whisper encoder and Mistral Small 3.1 decoder frozen. Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base to add audio. ↗
MistralVoxtralPretraining: audio-text patternsmidtrainAudio-to-text repetition and cross-modal continuation samples (marked <repeat>/<next>) balanced 50/50, plus text pretraining data. Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base to add audio. ↗
MistralVoxtralSupervised finetuningposttrainMostly synthetic SFT: audio QA, summaries and translations from Mistral Large, TTS-converted text SFT incl. function calling, real-speech questions, transcribe mode. ↗
MistralVoxtralPreference alignment (DPO and Online DPO)posttrainDPO then Online DPO: two samples at T=0.5 ranked by a text reward model on the transcribed conversation; the online variant helped more. ↗
MistralMagistral-Small-1.2SFT from Magistral Medium traces and RL on topposttrainSame SFT-then-RL recipe, now starting from Small 3.2 and keeping a vision encoder; no further details. ↗
MistralLarge-3Pretraining from scratch on 3000 H200spretrain675B-A41B granular MoE with a 2.5B vision encoder trained from scratch on 3000 H200s; tokens, data and schedule not disclosed; YaRN factor 36 from 8,192 in params.json. ↗
MistralLarge-3Instruct post-trainingposttrainInstruction post-training to a non-reasoning instruct model released in FP8; methods not disclosed. ↗
MistralMinistral-3Cascade Distillation: prune + short-context distillationmidtrainPrune Small 3.1 (or the previous child), then forward-KL distillation from Small 3.1 on text and image-text at 16k; 1-3T tokens per model. Midtrain: continued training of an earlier base (lab calls it pretraining). ↗
MistralMinistral-3Long context stagemidtrainFurther distillation from Small 3.1 extending 16,384 -> 262,144 with YaRN and position-based temperature scaling. Midtrain: a context-extension phase. ↗
MistralMinistral-3Post-Training: Ministral Instruct (SFT + ODPO)posttrainfp8 SFT with logit distillation from Mistral Medium 3, then Online DPO with a pairwise reward model, loop-penalizing heuristics and tool execution. ↗
MistralMinistral-3Post-Training: Ministral Reasoning (SFT, GRPO, ODPO)posttrainShort+long CoT SFT (3B distilled from Magistral Small 1.2), GRPO in STEM then rubric-judged General stages (32K -> 80K generation), then ODPO on thinking-stripped outputs. ↗
MistralDevstral-2Instruct fine-tuning (FP8)posttrainAgentic-coding instruct fine-tuning of a 123B dense model (and a 24B one from Small 3.1 base); data and methods not disclosed. ↗
MistralLeanstralProof-engineering specializationposttrainA Small 4-family MoE specialized for Lean 4 proof engineering in realistic repositories and lean-lsp-mcp; training method deferred to a tech report. ↗
MistralLeanstral-1.5Mid-trainingmidtrainFirst of three stages; data and token counts not described. Midtrain: a phase the lab names mid-training. ↗
MistralLeanstral-1.5Supervised fine-tuningposttrainSFT on an improved Lean proof-engineering mixture; details not given. ↗
MistralLeanstral-1.5Reinforcement learning with CISPOposttrainCISPO RL in a multiturn prove-or-disprove environment with compiler feedback and a code-agent environment (bash, Lean LSP, compaction) verified by a SafeVerify fork. ↗
MistralLarge-4Training from scratch on Grace Blackwellpretrain~1T-A52B multimodal granular MoE trained from scratch on 3,800 GB-series GPUs, 160+ languages in the data; tokens and schedule not yet disclosed. ↗
MistralLarge-4Post-training: SFT and RL at scaleposttrainSFT, then asynchronous RL on ~3k GPUs (~33B tokens/day, ~16B trainable) over composable environments; the RL run continues after the preview. ↗
1

Pretraining

Architecture, optimizer and data for each release that trained its own base model. In the tables, releases run left to right in date order. An amber changed mark means the lab itself describes that row as changed in that release; hover it to see how.

1.1 Architecture

The 2025 starting point was DeepSeek-V3's recipe: about 671B total and 37B active parameters, MLA attention, 256 routed experts with auxiliary-loss-free balancing, and one multi-token-prediction head. Kimi K2 kept that design at 1T scale with more experts; GLM-4.5 used grouped-query attention instead of MLA. Since then the labs moved in three directions. They grew total size to 1–3T while keeping active parameters near 15–100B. They replaced full attention with sparse, compressed, linear, state-space (Mamba-2) or windowed layers so 1M context is affordable. And they changed the residual stream: DeepSeek V4 and GLM-5.3-Flash use manifold-constrained hyper-connections, and Kimi K3 uses block attention residuals.

2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct0.1B1B10B100B1T10TTotal parameters (billions, log scale)V3V4V4.1-FlashK2K2.5K3GLM-4-0414GLM-4.5GLM-5GLM-5.3-FlashV2-FlashV2.5V2.5-ProV2.6Gemma-3Gemma-4MAI-Base-2InklingQwen3Qwen3-NextQwen3.5Text-01M2M3Step-3Step-3.5-FlashLing-plusLing-1TLing-3.0-flashNano-2Nemotron-3-NanoNemotron-3-UltraSmall-3Large-3
DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaMicrosoft AIThinking MachinesQwenMiniMaxStepFunLingNemotronMistral
Largest model in each release that trained its own base. Filled dots joined by lines are flagship releases; hollow dots are smaller, research or vision models. Drafters, distilled students and post-training-only updates are left out. MAI-Base-2 is not released yet.
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct0510152025304050Active share of parameters per token (%)V3V4V4.1-FlashK2K2.5K3GLM-4.5GLM-5GLM-5.3-FlashV2-FlashV2.5-ProV2.5V2.6Gemma-4MAI-Thinking-1Inkling
DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaMicrosoft AIThinking MachinesQwenMiniMaxStepFunLingNemotronMistral
Active parameters as a share of total, for mixture-of-experts releases. Lower is sparser. Several 2025 flagships started near 10% (Qwen3, MiniMax-Text-01, Step-3, Ling-plus); the latest flagships sit between 2.9% and 5.6%, except Nemotron's at about 10%. The higher hollow dots are small research models such as Moonlight (16B total, 3B active).
DeepSeek17 releases
ArchitectureV3Dec 26, 2024R1Jan 20, 2025V3-0324Mar 25, 2025V3.1Aug 21, 2025V3.1-TerminusSep 22, 2025V3.2-ExpSep 29, 2025V3.2Dec 1, 2025V4Apr 24, 2026V4-Flash-Vision-ExpAug 21, 2026V4.1-FlashSep 10, 2026
Total params
671B total↗
671B (MoE, inherited from DeepSeek-V3-Base)↗
·
671B (V3.1 and V3.1-Base)↗
·
671B total / 37B active (V4 report Table 1, DeepSeek-V3.2-Base; card inference config config_671B_v3.2.json agrees)↗
671B total / 37B active (DeepSeek-V3.2-Base per V4 report Table 1); V3.2 and V3.2-Speciale share the V3.2-Exp structure↗
changed
total params Pro: 1.6T↗
total params Flash: 284B↗
·changed
552B backbone parameters, plus 196B Engram (conditional-memory lookup) parameters↗
Active params
37B activated per token↗
37B (inherited from DeepSeek-V3-Base)↗
·
37B↗
··not disclosed
active params Pro: 49B↗
active params Flash: 13B↗
·changed
16B per token in decode; 8B per token in prefill (Causal Encoder-Decoder skips decoder layers for prompt tokens)↗
Layers · width
layers 61 Transformer layers↗
hidden dim 7168↗
······changed
layers Pro: 61↗
layers Flash: 43↗
hidden dim Pro: 7168↗
hidden dim Flash: 4096↗
·changed
layers 40 Transformer layers: 20-layer causal encoder + 20-layer decoder↗
hidden dim 5120↗
Attention
attention type MLA (Multi-head Latent Attention), as in DeepSeek-V2↗
attention detail 128 heads x head dim 128; KV compression dim 512; query compression dim 1536; decoupled RoPE q/k head dim 64; only the KV latent and RoPE key are cached↗
attention type MLA (inherited from DeepSeek-V3)↗
···changed
attention type DSA sparse (DeepSeek Sparse Attention) instantiated on MLA, MQA mode↗
attention detail Lightning indexer (few heads, ReLU, FP8-capable) scores preceding tokens; each query attends to top-k=2048 selected KV entries↗
attention type DSA sparse on MLA (MQA mode); identical to V3.2-Exp↗
attention detail Lightning indexer (ReLU, few heads, FP8-capable) + top-k=2048 KV entries per query↗
changed
attention type Hybrid CSA + HCA, interleaved: CSA = KV compressed 4x then DSA top-k sparse attention (lightning indexer); HCA = KV compressed 128x with dense attention; both add a slid…↗
attention detail Flash: first 2 layers pure sliding-window attention, then CSA/HCA interleaved; CSA m=4, indexer 64 heads x 128 dim, top-k 512; HCA m'=128; 64 query heads, head dim 512,…↗
attention detail Pro: first 2 layers HCA, then CSA/HCA interleaved; CSA m=4, indexer 64 heads x 128 dim, top-k 1024; HCA m'=128; 128 query heads, head dim 512, query compression dim 1536…↗
attention detail Core attention is shared-key-value MQA over (selected) compressed entries; grouped output projection; attention sink logits per head↗
attention detail Smaller attention top-k than DeepSeek-V3.2↗
attention detail KV cache ~2% of a BF16 GQA8 (head dim 128) baseline at 1M context↗
·changed
attention type Pure Compressed Sparse Attention 2 (CSA2: compressed main KV + lightweight indexer top-k, with cross-layer KV/index reuse in Full/Reindex/Reuse modes) plus sliding-windo…↗
attention detail Encoder: 2 SWA-only layers, then 18 CSA2 layers (compression m=2) in 3 groups of 6 (1 Full + 5 Reuse). Decoder: 20 CSA2 layers (m=1) in 5 groups of 4 (group 1: Full + 3…↗
attention detail Hierarchical Sparse Indexer (decoder only): first Full-mode decoder layer selects up to 2,048 blocks x 8 positions = 16,384 candidate positions; later Reindex layers sco…↗
attention detail CSA2 simplifies CSA: no overlapping 2m-entry compression windows, no absolute positional embedding in the compressor, and indexer K projected from main KV instead of a s…↗
Experts
moe experts 256 routed experts per MoE layer (expert intermediate dim 2048)↗
moe active experts 8 routed experts per token↗
moe shared experts 1 shared expert per MoE layer↗
····
moe experts 256 routed experts (weight-conversion command)↗
·changed
moe experts Pro: 384 routed experts (expert hidden 3072)↗
moe experts Flash: 256 routed experts (expert hidden 2048)↗
moe active experts 6 routed experts per token (both sizes)↗
moe shared experts 1 shared expert (both sizes)↗
·
moe experts 384 routed experts per MoE layer (expert intermediate dim 2304)↗
moe shared experts 1 shared expert per MoE layer↗
moe active experts 6 routed experts per token (+1 shared)↗
Routingchanged
moe routing Sigmoid affinity scores, normalized over the selected top-K; auxiliary-loss-free balancing via per-expert routing bias (update speed gamma=0.001 for first 14.3T tokens,…↗
dense layers First 3 layers use dense FFNs; all others MoE↗
······changed
moe routing Affinity activation changed from Sigmoid to Sqrt(Softplus); aux-loss-free balancing plus slight sequence-wise balance loss; node-limited routing constraint removed↗
moe routing Aux-loss-free bias update speed 0.001; sequence-wise balance loss weight 0.0001↗
dense layers 0 dense FFN layers: all blocks MoE; first 3 MoE layers use token-ID Hash routing (replacing V3's initial dense FFN layers)↗
·changed
moe routing Auxiliary-loss-free load balancing with separate per-modality (text vs image) expert bias terms, bias update speed 0.001; small sequence-level balance loss (weight 0.000…↗
dense layers None: MoE in all Transformer blocks; SwiGLU with clamping at 10↗
Multi-token predictionchanged
Multi-token prediction, depth D=1 (one extra token), sequential MTP module with shared embedding and output head; loss weight lambda 0.3 for first 10T tokens then 0.1; M…↗
······
MTP depth 1, same strategy as V3; MTP loss weight 0.3, lowered to 0.1 at start of LR decay↗
·changed
No MTP during backbone pretraining; replaced by DSpark speculative-decoding drafter (3 Transformer blocks, 128-token sliding window, 5 draft positions per pass, Markov h…↗
Positions · norm · residual
position encoding RoPE on a decoupled key/query component (MLA decoupled RoPE)↗
normalization RMSNorm (pre-norm blocks per Fig. 2); extra RMSNorm after compressed latent vectors plus scaling factors at width bottlenecks, as in V2↗
······changed
position encoding Partial RoPE on the last 64 dims of queries and KV entries; RoPE with position -i also applied to attention outputs (relative position)↗
normalization RMSNorm; extra per-head RMSNorm on queries and on the compressed KV entry before core attention↗
residual design Manifold-Constrained Hyper-Connections (mHC): residual stream expanded n_hc=4, residual mapping projected to doubly stochastic matrices via 20 Sinkhorn-Knopp iterations↗
residual design mHC constrains residual mapping to the Birkhoff polytope (doubly stochastic), spectral norm <= 1↗
·changed
position encoding RoPE on part of the KV latent (report refers to non-RoPE and RoPE KV components); 2D-RoPE in the vision encoder↗
normalization RMSNorm↗
residual design Single-Pass mHC (manifold-constrained hyper-connections with input-mixing coefficients shifted by one block for one-pass kernel fusion); expansion factor 4, 20 Sinkhorn-…↗
Vocab · tokenizerchanged
tokenizer Byte-level BPE, 128K vocab; pretokenizer and tokenizer training data modified for multilingual compression; new tokens combining punctuation and line breaks, randomly sp…↗
vocab size 128K↗
······
vocab size 128K (DeepSeek-V3 tokenizer plus a few special tokens)↗
tokenizer DeepSeek-V3 tokenizer + new special tokens for context construction; token-splitting and FIM inherited from V3↗
··
Multimodal design········
Vision encoder + aligner modules added onto the V4-Flash LM (adapter-style is my reading); first, experimental multimodal V4 model↗
changed
Native early fusion: DeepSeek-ViT vision encoder trained from scratch (32 layers, hidden 1024, 16 heads, patch 14, 2D-RoPE, RMSNorm, SwiGLU) + 3x3 pixel-unshuffle + 2-la…↗
Other architecture
arch aux loss free balancing Bias term added to affinity scores only for top-K selection; bias decreased/increased by gamma per step for over/underloaded experts based on whole-batch load↗
arch init All learnable parameters randomly initialized with std 0.006↗
·
Architecture identical to DeepSeek-V3↗
Model structure same as DeepSeek-V3↗
Model structure same as DeepSeek-V3↗
arch dsa on mla mqa DSA built on the MQA mode of MLA so each latent KV entry is shared across all query heads (kernel efficiency)↗
arch complexity Core attention O(L^2) -> O(Lk); indexer remains O(L^2) but much cheaper than MLA↗
···
arch causal encoder decoder Causal Encoder-Decoder (CED, inspired by YoCo): decoder global KV is projected from the final encoder (layer L/2) hidden states, so prefill only needs the encoder; SWA s…↗
arch kv cache size Global KV cache 890 bytes/token (~1/4 of V4-Flash, ~1/437 of DeepSeek-V1); persistent KV cache ~1/8 of V4-Flash↗
arch engram Engram conditional memory: 196B params split over 2 modules at layers 1 and 14; N-gram orders {2,3,4}, 8 hash heads, ~16M-entry prime-sized tables per head; FP8 tables a…↗
arch vision encoder training DeepSeek-ViT pre-trained separately: SigLIP sigmoid contrastive loss on ~47B alt-text image-text pairs at <=224px, then autoregressive fine-tuning attached to a 4B MoE L…↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. V3Added auxiliary-loss-free load balancing (per-expert routing bias) instead of relying on auxiliary losses; only a tiny sequence-wise loss kept ↗Why: Large auxiliary losses hurt model quality; bias-based balancing keeps load balanced with less performance degradation
  2. V3Gating switched to sigmoid affinity scores with normalization over the selected experts ↗
  3. V3Added a multi-token prediction (MTP, depth 1) training objective ↗Why: Densifies training signal and improves benchmark performance; can be reused for speculative decoding
  4. V3FP8 mixed-precision training framework (first validated at this scale) ↗Why: Accelerated training and reduced GPU memory
  5. V3Corpus re-weighted toward math and code, multilingual coverage expanded; new pretokenizer with punctuation+line-break tokens ↗
  6. V3.2-ExpReplaced dense MLA attention with DeepSeek Sparse Attention (lightning indexer + top-2048 token selection, on MLA's MQA mode); the only architectural change ↗Why: Explore and validate training and inference efficiency in long-context scenarios as a step toward a next-generation architecture
  7. V3.2No architecture or continued-pretraining change (same architecture; card base_model is V3.2-Exp-Base) ↗
  8. V4Attention redesigned: V3.2's DSA sparse selection now runs over 4x-compressed KV (CSA), interleaved with heavily compressed dense attention (HCA, 128x), plus a sliding-window branch and shared-KV MQA ↗Why: long-context efficiency; makes 1M context practical (Pro: 27% FLOPs, 10% KV of V3.2 at 1M)
  9. V4Smaller attention top-k than V3.2 ↗Why: efficiency on short- and medium-length texts
  10. V4Residual connections upgraded to Manifold-Constrained Hyper-Connections (mHC, n_hc=4) ↗Why: more stable signal propagation across layers while keeping expressivity (plain HC was unstable when stacked)
  11. V4Muon optimizer introduced for most parameters (hybrid Newton-Schulz, no QK-Clip); AdamW kept only for embedding, head, norms and mHC biases ↗Why: faster convergence and better training stability
  12. V4MoE gating: Sigmoid -> Sqrt(Softplus); node-limited routing (cap on target nodes) removed with a redesigned parallelism strategy; dense FFNs in the first blocks replaced by Hash-routed MoE layers (first 3 MoE layers). Aux-loss-free balancing plus a slight sequence-wise balance loss is kept from V3, not new ↗
  13. V4New from-scratch pre-training at two sizes (1.6T-A49B Pro, 284B-A13B Flash) on 32T/33T tokens, with more diverse data, long-document emphasis, larger multilingual corpus and filtering of templated web text ↗Why: more diverse, higher-quality corpus with longer effective contexts
  14. V4Sample-level attention masking during pre-training (V3 did not use it) ↗
  15. V4New stability tricks: Anticipatory Routing and SwiGLU clamping ↗Why: loss spikes traced to MoE outliers amplified by routing
  16. V4.1-FlashNew Causal Encoder-Decoder layout: decoder global KV projected from the final encoder layer, so prefill runs only 20 of 40 layers (8B active in prefill, 16B in decode) ↗Why: Tool-call-heavy agentic workloads make prefill on KV-cache misses the bottleneck; CED nearly halves prefill compute
  17. V4.1-FlashReplaced V4's CSA + HCA hybrid attention with pure CSA2, which shares main KV and indexer K across layers and reuses top-k indices (Full / Reindex / Reuse modes) ↗Why: Cut global KV cache storage (to ~1/4 of V4-Flash together with FP4 KV) and indexer compute
  18. V4.1-FlashSimplified the CSA compressor and indexer: no overlapping compression windows, no absolute positional embedding, indexer K projected from main KV ↗Why: Simplify implementation and raise training efficiency
  19. V4.1-FlashmHC upgraded to Single-Pass mHC (input-mixing coefficients shifted by one block) with a fused Mega-mHC kernel ↗Why: Remove a data dependency so the residual is read/written once, halving activation memory traffic; negligible quality cost
  20. V4.1-FlashAdded Engram conditional memory (196B params, 2 modules) ↗Why: Strengthen model capabilities by decoupling memorization from computation
  21. V4.1-FlashDropped MTP from backbone pretraining; DSpark speculative-decoding drafter trained in a separate post-pretraining stage and co-trained (no backbone gradients) during post-training ↗Why: Improve decoding efficiency and keep the drafter aligned with the evolving policy to speed serving and RL/OPD rollouts
  22. V4.1-FlashNative multimodality: DeepSeek-ViT encoder + MLP projector with image-text data from the start of LM pretraining (7:1 text:multimodal tokens), plus modality-specific aux-loss-free load-balancing biases ↗Why: Image and text tokens have different routing preferences, so balancing them jointly can hide per-modality imbalance
  23. V4.1-FlashOptimizer changes: head-wise Muon for Query/Key weights; Sinkhorn-balanced momentum update (instead of Adam) for embeddings, prediction head and Engram tables ↗Why: Head-wise preconditioning handles heterogeneity across heads; Sinkhorn update saves optimizer-state memory and empirically beats Adam
  24. V4.1-FlashNew pretraining corpus: 45T multimodal tokens with filtering of low-information model-generated text and more recent code; base model is ~V4-Pro-Base level ↗Why: Higher data quality and better real-world deployment; lab reports V4-Pro-Base-level knowledge with 1/3 total and 1/4 active params
Kimi11 releases
ArchitectureMoonlightFeb 24, 2025Kimi-VLApr 10, 2025K2Jul 11, 2025K2-0905Sep 5, 2025Kimi-LinearOct 30, 2025K2-ThinkingNov 6, 2025K2.5Jan 27, 2026K2.6Apr 20, 2026K2.7-CodeJun 12, 2026K3Jul 16, 2026
Total params
16B incl. embeddings (15.29B excl. embeddings)↗
16B MoE LLM + 400M MoonViT↗
changed
1.04T (card rounds to 1T; Table 4 lists 1043B)↗
1T total / 32B active (same architecture as K2)↗
changed
48B↗
1T total / 32B active; same 61-layer MLA MoE (384 experts, 8 active) as K2↗
1T (report: 1.04T)↗
1T↗
1T↗
changed
2.8T (2.78T in report Table 1)↗
Active params
3B incl. embeddings (2.24B excl. embeddings)↗
2.8B LLM + 0.4B vision encoder↗
32B (Table 2 gives 32.6B)↗
·changed
3B↗
32B↗
32B↗
32B↗
32B↗
changed
104B (104.2B in report Table 1)↗
Layers · width
layers 27 calc↗
·changed
layers 61 layers (1 dense)↗
hidden dim 7168 (MoE expert hidden dim 2048)↗
···
layers 61 (incl. 1 dense layer)↗
hidden dim 7168 (attention hidden dimension)↗
··changed
layers 93 (69 KDA + 24 Gated MLA); 1 dense layer↗
hidden dim 7,168↗
Attention
attention type MLA (DeepSeek-V3-Small architecture)↗
·changed
attention type MLA (multi-head latent attention), as in DeepSeek-V3↗
attention detail 64 attention heads (half of DeepSeek-V3's 128) to cut long-context inference cost; at 128k, 128 heads would add 83% inference FLOPs for 0.5-1.2% lower val loss↗
·changed
attention type Hybrid linear:full = 3:1, layerwise (3 Kimi Delta Attention layers per 1 full MLA layer)↗
attention detail KDA = Gated DeltaNet with channel-wise (diagonal) forget gate; DPLR-variant chunkwise kernel ~2x faster than general DPLR; head dims dk=dv=128↗
attention detail KDA block: ShortConv + Swish on q/k/v, L2Norm on q/k, low-rank per-channel decay, sigmoid low-rank output gate after head-wise RMSNorm↗
·
attention type MLA↗
attention detail 64 attention heads↗
attention type MLA (same architecture as K2.5)↗
·changed
attention type hybrid linear:full = KDA : Gated MLA at 3:1 (plus one final Gated MLA layer)↗
attention detail 96 attention heads (K2: 64); 69 KDA + 24 Gated MLA; an extra Gated MLA at the end so the last layer is global; KDA = delta rule with channel-wise forget gate, ShortConv+…↗
Experts
moe experts 64 routed experts↗
moe active experts 6 routed experts per token, out of 64 routed (plus 2 shared experts) calc↗
moe shared experts present (count not stated)↗
·changed
moe experts 384 routed experts (vs 256 in DeepSeek-V3), expert FFN dim 2048↗
moe active experts 8 of 384 per token (sparsity 48)↗
moe shared experts 1 shared expert↗
·changed
moe experts 256 experts (incl. 1 shared); sparsity 32↗
moe active experts 8 (incl. the shared expert)↗
moe shared experts 1↗
·
moe experts 384 routed experts (sparsity 48)↗
moe active experts 8 per token↗
moe shared experts 1↗
··changed
moe experts 896 routed experts (sparsity 56)↗
moe active experts 16 routed per token↗
moe shared experts 2 full-width shared experts per layer↗
Routingchanged
dense layers 1 (first layer is dense)↗
moe routing DeepSeek-V3 aux-loss-free bias balancing with a modified bias update (centred sign); bias update rate 1e-3 in stages 1-2, 0.0 in cooldown; gate scaling factor 2.446↗
·changed
dense layers 1 dense layer (vs 3 in DeepSeek-V3)↗
moe routing No expert grouping (DeepSeek-V3 uses grouping); gating function and load-balancing method not stated↗
·
dense layers 1 (first layer dense)↗
·
dense layers 1↗
··changed
moe routing Sigmoid router scores, auxiliary-loss-free bias for top-k; bias set by Quantile Balancing (router-score quantile matching target load, estimated via all-reduced histogra…↗
dense layers 1↗
Multi-token predictionchanged
No MTP layers↗
·not disclosed······
1 MTP layer (same as K2); later fine-tuned into an EAGLE-3 draft model↗
Positions · norm · residual··
position encoding Decoupled rotary components inside MLA (head-specific q_R, shared k_R); YaRN for 128k extension↗
normalization RMSNorm (mentioned in Appendix E analysis)↗
·changed
position encoding NoPE on all MLA (global) layers; KDA layers carry position/recency↗
····changed
position encoding NoPE on all MLA layers; KDA supplies position/recency information↗
residual design Block Attention Residuals (AttnRes): learned pseudo-query per layer attends over embedding + block outputs; 8 blocks of 12 layers (9 incl. embedding)↗
normalization RMSNorm (head-wise RMSNorm on KDA output, RMSNorm before LatentMoE up-projection, RMSNorm on AttnRes keys); L2Norm on KDA q/k↗
Vocab · tokenizer··
vocab size 160K↗
···
vocab size 160K↗
··
vocab size 160K (unchanged from K2)↗
Multimodal design·
Adapter style: native-resolution MoonViT encoder -> pixel-shuffle 2x2 downsample -> 2-layer MLP projector -> Moonlight MoE decoder↗
····
Native multimodal: MoonViT-3D native-resolution encoder (400M, init from SigLIP-SO-400M, NaViT patch packing) + MLP projector + Kimi K2 MoE LM; video packs up to 4 frame…↗
MoonViT vision encoder, 400M (same as K2.5)↗
MoonViT 400M; image and video input supported↗
changed
Native multimodal: one shared backbone for text, images and video from the start; MoonViT-V2 encoder + lightweight MLP projector; 2x2 pixel-shuffle; inputs up to 3584x35…↗
Other architecture
2.446 (DeepSeek-V3 used 2.5; DeepSeek-V2-Lite none)↗
MoonViT: initialized from SigLIP-SO-400M, NaViT-style patch packing for native resolution, interpolated absolute pos-emb plus 2D RoPE↗
arch sparsity scaling law Sparsity scaling law with Muon: at fixed active params, more experts lowers loss; sparsity 48 needs 1.69x/1.39x/1.15x fewer FLOPs than sparsity 8/16/32 for val loss 1.5↗
arch activation SwiGLU↗
·
arch backbone Follows Moonlight backbone (MoE, MLA)↗
arch scaling law ~1.16x compute efficiency vs MLA at compute-optimal (fits: MLA 2.3092*C^-0.0536, Kimi Linear 2.2879*C^-0.0527; 653M-1.7B active, 8 of 64 experts, Muon)↗
arch hybrid ratio ablation KDA:MLA ratio ablation, val PPL: 3:1 5.65, 1:1 5.66, 7:1 5.70, 15:1 5.82, 0:1 (full MLA) 5.77; 3:1 chosen↗
arch vs full attention Matched 1.4T recipe vs full MLA: MMLU-Pro 51.0 vs 47.2 (base); RULER@128K 84.3 vs 81.3; long-context avg 54.5 vs 52.2; SFT GPQA-Diamond 62.1 vs 57.1↗
·
arch expert hidden dim 2048 per expert↗
arch activation SwiGLU↗
arch vision encoder params 400M (MoonViT)↗
··
arch kda decay Lower-bounded KDA log-decay g = g_min·Sigmoid(e^A z), g_min = -5 (Kimi Linear used unbounded negative-Softplus); keeps the reciprocal decay within BF16 range so diagonal…↗
arch output gates Full-rank, input-dependent sigmoid output gate on both KDA (after head-wise RMSNorm) and MLA↗
arch latent moe Stable LatentMoE: routed experts operate in a 3,584-dim latent space (0.5x of 7,168) with 3,072 hidden per expert; RMSNorm inserted between expert aggregation and up-pro…↗
arch activation SiTU-GLU (Sigmoid Tanh Unit GLU): tanh soft-cap on Swish linear factor (β1=4) and up branch (β2=25), output bounded by 100↗
arch vision encoder MoonViT-V2: 27 layers, ~0.4B (401M) params, patch 14, 12 heads, RMSNorm, no biases; trained from scratch with next-token prediction (no SigLIP init)↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. MoonlightOptimizer AdamW -> Muon with weight decay and AdamW-matched update RMS (same LR/WD reused) ↗Why: ~2x compute efficiency in scaling-law fits; better scores at 1.2T tokens, especially math and code
  2. MoonlightDropped MTP; modified aux-loss-free bias update to centre the sign term; gate scaling factor 2.446 instead of 2.5 ↗Why: MTP showed no significant pretraining benefit; bias change controls bias magnitude; scaling keeps dense-like output RMS
  3. K2Muon -> MuonClip: added per-head QK-Clip (tau=100) to Muon with weight decay and Adam-RMS matching ↗Why: Scaling Muon caused exploding attention logits (>1000 at 9B-active/53B); soft-cap insufficient and QK-Norm incompatible with MLA
  4. K2Introduced synthetic rephrasing of knowledge and math pre-training data ↗Why: Raise token utility when high-quality tokens are limited, without overfitting from multi-epoch repetition
  5. K2Same MLA MoE template but 384 experts (vs 256), 64 heads (vs 128), 1 dense layer (vs 3), no expert grouping ↗Why: Sparsity scaling law favours more experts; halving heads cuts long-context inference FLOPs (83% at 128k) for only 0.5-1.2% loss
  6. K2Scaled 16B-A3B / 5.7T tokens to 1.04T-A32B / 15.5T tokens; LR schedule cosine + cooldown -> WSD; pretraining context 8K -> 4K ↗
  7. Kimi-LinearFull MLA attention -> layerwise 3:1 hybrid of Kimi Delta Attention (linear) and MLA, with NoPE in the MLA layers ↗Why: Cut KV cache and decoding cost for long-horizon agentic and RL test-time scaling without losing quality
  8. Kimi-LinearMoE sparsity raised to 32: 256 experts (8 active incl. 1 shared) vs Moonlight's 64; total 16B -> 48B at ~3B active ↗
  9. Kimi-LinearOptimizer Muon -> MuonClip; LR schedule cosine+cooldown -> WSD; pretrain context 8K -> 4K ↗
  10. Kimi-LinearPretraining data: Moonlight corpus -> tokens sampled from the Kimi K2 pretraining corpus (same 5.7T total) ↗Why: Token count matched to Moonlight for comparison
  11. K2.5Training infra: Decoupled Encoder Process replaces manual pipeline-stage adjustment for the vision encoder ↗Why: Multimodal inputs cause load/memory imbalance on PP stage 0; DEP reuses text parallel strategy at 90% of text-only efficiency
  12. K3Scale: 1.04T total / 32.6B active, 61 layers, 64 heads -> 2.78T / 104.2B, 93 layers, 96 heads ↗Why: Push the pre-trained foundation past the ~1T-class regime where open models had stalled, alongside test-time scaling
  13. K3Attention: all-MLA (61 MLA layers) -> hybrid 3:1 KDA : Gated MLA (69 KDA + 24 MLA) ↗Why: KDA gives efficient long-sequence mixing; periodic Gated MLA keeps global interaction
  14. K3MLA layers move to NoPE (K2/K2.5 MLA used positional encoding); MLA gets a full-rank output gate ↗Why: KDA supplies position-sensitive mixing; NoPE avoids retuning RoPE or YaRN when extending context
  15. K3KDA log-decay: unbounded negative-Softplus -> lower-bounded scaled sigmoid (g_min = -5); output gate low-rank -> full-rank ↗Why: Bounded decay keeps rescaling within BF16 range so all causal tiles run as Tensor Core matmuls, removing the diagonal-tile bottleneck
  16. K3Residuals: standard residual stream -> Block Attention Residuals (8 blocks x 12 layers) ↗Why: Let each layer selectively retrieve earlier representations instead of accumulating them uniformly
  17. K3MoE: 384 routed / 8 active / 1 shared, 2,048 expert width -> Stable LatentMoE 896 / 16 / 2, 3,584 latent dim, 3,072 expert width ↗Why: Larger pool and more active experts expand specialization; routing in a latent space keeps communication affordable
  18. K3FFN activation: SwiGLU -> SiTU-GLU (tanh soft-caps on both branches) ↗Why: SwiGLU factors are unbounded, causing activation outliers and low-precision overflow; activations exploded at 2.8T scale and high sparsity
  19. K3Load balancing: fixed-step aux-loss-free bias update -> Quantile Balancing (bias from router-score quantiles, histogram estimate) ↗Why: Fixed-step update trades slow adaptation against oscillation, and balancing gets harder at 896 experts
  20. K3Optimizer: Muon (+K2 weight clipping) -> Per-Head Muon for Q/K/V (weight clipping kept) ↗Why: Equalize update scale across heads for balanced dynamics and stability at scale; slightly cheaper Newton-Schulz
  21. K3LR schedule: WSD (K2) -> cosine decay with 1% warmup ↗Why: Separate scaling-law searches per schedule showed cosine reaches lower final loss than WSD
  22. K3Lineage: K2.5 added vision to the K2 base; K3 is trained natively multimodal from the start of a new pre-training run ↗Why: Learn unified multimodal representations from the outset instead of grafting vision onto a pre-trained LM
  23. K3Vision encoder: SigLIP-initialized MoonViT-3D -> MoonViT-V2 trained from scratch with next-token prediction ↗Why: Pre-trained encoder made joint training unstable (higher grad norms, spikes); LM objective shapes the encoder directly; matched SigLIP baseline
  24. K3Vision data: substantially more programmatic multimodal data (code paired with rendered SVG, 3D, webpage, game, CAD) ↗
GLM14 releases
ArchitectureGLM-4-0414Apr 14, 2025GLM-4.1V-ThinkingJul 1, 2025GLM-4.5Jul 28, 2025GLM-4.5VAug 11, 2025GLM-4.6Sep 30, 2025GLM-4.7Dec 22, 2025GLM-4.7-FlashJan 19, 2026GLM-5Feb 12, 2026GLM-5.1Apr 7, 2026GLM-5.2Jun 16, 2026GLM-5.3Aug 14, 2026GLM-5.3-FlashAug 26, 2026
Total params
32B dense (GLM-4-32B-0414); 9B sibling↗
9B dense↗
changed
355B (Air: 106B); counts include MTP layers, exclude embeddings/output layer↗
106B total / 12B active (GLM-4.5-Air backbone)↗
··
30B total / 3B active↗
changed
744B (counts include MTP, exclude embeddings/output layer)↗
···changed
320B↗
Active params
32B (dense: all parameters active) calc↗
·
32B (Air: 12B)↗
···
3B↗
40B↗
···
18B↗
Layers · width
layers 61↗
hidden dim 6144↗
·changed
layers 92 = 3 dense + 89 MoE, plus 1 MTP layer (Air: 1 dense + 45 MoE + 1 MTP)↗
hidden dim 5120 (Air: 4096); dense FFN 12288, MoE FFN 1536↗
···
layers 47 (1 dense + 46 MoE per config)↗
hidden dim 2048↗
changed
layers 78 = 3 dense + 75 MoE (+1 MTP) per Table 10 and config; prose says 80↗
hidden dim 6144; dense FFN 12288, MoE FFN 2048↗
···changed
layers 45 (3 dense + 42 MoE per config) vs 92 for GLM-4.5↗
Attention
attention type GQA (48 query heads, 2 KV heads) calc↗
·changed
attention type GQA with partial RoPE↗
attention detail 96 query heads (2.5x the usual for hidden 5120), 8 KV heads, head dim 128; more heads did not lower loss but improved MMLU/BBH↗
···
attention type MLA (q_lora 768, kv_lora 512)↗
changed
attention type MLA + DSA (DeepSeek Sparse Attention), DSA added by continued pre-training↗
attention detail 'MLA-256': head dim 192 -> 256 with 1/3 fewer heads (64 heads), Q LoRA 2048, KV LoRA 512; DSA indexer 32 heads x 128 dim, top-k 2048↗
·changed
attention detail IndexShare: one DSA indexer per 4 layers (indexer in first layer, top-k reused by next 3); config: 21 'full' + 57 'shared' indexer layers of 78; 2.9x fewer per-token FLO…↗
·changed
attention type Hybrid linear : sparse (DSA) attention; config: 34 linear (KDA) + 11 DSA layers (3:1, every 4th layer sparse)↗
attention detail IndexPool: indexer key vectors pooled 4->1 by weighted pooling (config index_kpool 4); 3.0x less attention compute and 4.4x smaller KV cache than GLM-5.3↗
Experts··changed
moe experts 160 routed (Air: 128)↗
moe active experts 8↗
moe shared experts 1↗
···
moe experts 64 routed, 4 active, 1 shared↗
changed
moe experts 256 routed↗
moe active experts 8↗
moe shared experts 1↗
···
moe experts 288 routed, 8 active, 1 shared; hidden 4096↗
Routing··
dense layers 3 (Air: 1)↗
moe routing Loss-free balance routing with sigmoid gates; bias update rate 0.001 for first 15T tokens then 0.0; aux sequence-level balance loss weight 0.0001↗
moe routing Loss-free routing, router bias update rate 1e-3, aux sequence-level balance loss 1e-4 during multimodal training; EP 8, PP 4↗
···
dense layers 3↗
moe routing Sigmoid scoring, aux-free (noaux_tc) routing in config; hyper-parameters otherwise as GLM-4.5↗
····
Multi-token prediction··changed
1 MoE layer as MTP for speculative decoding; MTP loss weight 0.3 for first 15T tokens, then 0.1↗
···
1 MTP layer↗
changed
3 MTP layers with shared parameters during training (1 MTP layer of weights); accept length 2.76 vs 2.55 for DeepSeek-V3.2 at 4 speculative steps↗
MTP step parameters shared (as in GLM-5); GLM-5.2 blog says GLM-5.1's MTP had a training-inference discrepancy fixed in 5.2↗
changed
MTP with IndexShare + KV sharing across draft steps, rejection sampling for speculative decoding, end-to-end TV loss; 7 MTP steps; acceptance length 4.56 -> 5.47 (+20%)…↗
··
Positions · norm · residual
position encoding RoPE on half the head dim (partial_rotary_factor 0.5), theta 10,000↗
·changed
normalization QK-Norm (GLM-4.5 only, not Air); RMSNorm↗
position encoding Partial RoPE; base 10,000 in pre-training, raised to 1,000,000 when extending to 32K↗
······
position encoding RoPE theta 8,000,000 (was 1,000,000 in GLM-5/5.1 configs)↗
·changed
residual design Manifold-Constrained Hyper-Connections (mHC); config hc_mult 4, 20 Sinkhorn iterations↗
Vocab · tokenizer
vocab size 151,552↗
·
vocab size 151,552↗
···
vocab size 154,880 (same as GLM-5)↗
changed
vocab size 154,880 (up from 151,552)↗
····
Multimodal design·
ViT (AIMv2-Huge init, 3D conv, 2D-RoPE) + MLP projector + LLM decoder GLM-4-9B-0414 with 3D-RoPE↗
·
Adapter-style: ViT encoder (AIMv2-Huge init, 3D conv for 2x temporal downsampling, 2D-RoPE + interpolated abs pos-emb) + MLP projector + GLM-4.5-Air decoder with 3D-RoPE…↗
·······changed
Natively multimodal (first in GLM-5 series); vision tower in config: 24 layers, hidden 1024, patch 14, 2x spatial merge, temporal patch 2↗
Other architecture··
Narrower and deeper than DeepSeek-V3/Kimi K2 (smaller hidden dim, fewer routed experts, more layers)↗
AIMv2-Huge↗
Architecture identical to GLM-4.5 in config.json (92 layers, hidden 5120, 160 experts / 8 active, 96 heads / 8 KV) apart from max positions calc↗
config.json identical to GLM-4.6 (GLM-4.5 architecture, 202,752 max positions) calc↗
··
config.json identical to GLM-5 (glm_moe_dsa, 78 layers, 256 experts, 202,752 positions) calc↗
IndexCache paper (Mar 2026): training-free greedy layer search or training-aware multi-layer indexer distillation; removes up to 75% of indexers on a 30B DSA model (from…↗
config.json identical to GLM-5.2 (IndexShare DSA, 1M positions); released as FP8 (e4m3, 128x128 blocks) calc↗
·

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. GLM-4.5Dense 32B -> first GLM MoE (355B-A32B; Air 106B-A12B), deeper-not-wider, 96-head GQA, QK-Norm, MTP layer ↗Why: MoE for compute efficiency of training and inference; depth for reasoning
  2. GLM-4.5Pre-training data 15T -> 22T (15T general + 7T code & reasoning); 23T incl. mid-training ↗
  3. GLM-4.5Muon optimizer with cosine LR (GLM-4-0414 optimizer not disclosed) ↗Why: Muon accelerates convergence and tolerates larger batches; WSD underfit general benchmarks
  4. GLM-5GQA -> MLA (MLA-256 with Muon Split) plus DeepSeek Sparse Attention via continued pre-training ↗Why: Cut training/inference cost while keeping long-context fidelity; Muon Split needed for MLA to match GQA-8
  5. GLM-5Scale 355B-A32B -> 744B-A40B; experts 160 -> 256; layers 92 -> 78 (prose: 80); hidden 5120 -> 6144; vocab 151,552 -> 154,880 ↗Why: Scaling improves intelligence; fewer layers reduce expert-parallel communication
  6. GLM-5Tokens 23T -> 28.5T (27T pre-training); new DCLM and World-Knowledge web classifiers, refreshed code ↗
  7. GLM-5MTP: 1 layer -> 3 parameter-shared MTP steps in training ↗Why: Raise speculative acceptance rate without extra memory
  8. GLM-5.2IndexShare: one DSA indexer per 4 layers, trained from mid-training; improved MTP (IndexShare+KVShare, rejection sampling, TV loss) ↗Why: Make 1M context affordable; raise acceptance length up to 20%
  9. GLM-5.3-FlashNew from-scratch base: hybrid linear + sparse attention (first in GLM), mHC residuals, IndexPool, natively multimodal, 30T multimodal tokens, 320B-A18B with 45 layers ↗Why: Lower long-context serving cost and better scaling efficiency
MiMo8 releases
ArchitectureMiMo-7BApr 30, 2025MiMo-VL-7BMay 30, 2025V2-FlashDec 16, 2025V2.5Apr 22, 2026V2.5-ProApr 22, 2026V2.6Sep 22, 2026
Total params
~7B dense (exact count not given)↗
~7B class (ViT 32 layers/1280 hidden + 36-layer/4096 MiMo-7B LLM); exact total not given↗
changed
309B↗
310B↗
changed
1.02T↗
Pro 1.02T; Flash 310B (Flash card: 309B)↗
Active params
dense model: all ~7B parameters active calc↗
·changed
15B↗
15B↗
42B↗
Pro 42B; Flash 15B↗
Layers · width
layers 36↗
hidden dim 4,096 (FFN intermediate 11,008)↗
·
layers 48 (39 SWA + 9 GA)↗
hidden dim 4096↗
layers 48 (1 dense + 47 MoE); 9 full-attention + 39 SWA↗
hidden dim 4096↗
changed
layers 70 (1 dense + 69 MoE); 10 full-attention + 60 SWA↗
hidden dim 6144; 128 attention heads, 8 KV heads (GQA)↗
layers Pro 70 (60 SWA / 10 GA); Flash 48 (39 SWA / 9 GA)↗
hidden dim Pro 6144; Flash 4096↗
Attention
attention type GQA (dense full attention)↗
attention detail 32 attention heads, 8 key-value groups↗
·changed
attention type hybrid sliding-window:global 5:1, window 128, learnable attention-sink bias (gpt-oss style)↗
attention detail GQA in both: SWA 64 Q / 8 KV heads, GA 64 Q / 4 KV heads; head dim QK 192 / V 128; sink bias in softmax denominator; ~6x KV-cache reduction↗
attention type hybrid sliding-window:global 5:1, window 128, sink bias (inherited from V2-Flash)↗
attention detail 64 heads; card lists KV heads '8 (GA) / 4 (SWA)' (V2-Flash report and V2.6 report give the reverse: SWA 8, GA 4); head dim 192/128↗
attention type hybrid sliding-window:global 6:1, window 128, sink bias↗
attention type hybrid sliding-window:global (window 128; Pro 6:1, Flash ~5:1); first block GA + dense FFN↗
attention detail Pro: SWA 128Q/8KV, GA 128Q/8KV; Flash: SWA 64Q/8KV, GA 64Q/4KV; head dim QK 192 / V 128; window 128↗
Experts··changed
moe experts 256 routed experts per MoE layer (expert intermediate dim 2048)↗
moe active experts 8↗
moe shared experts 0↗
moe experts 256 routed, 8 per token, MoE intermediate 2048; dense layer-0 FFN 16384↗
changed
moe experts 384 routed, 8 per token, intermediate 2048; dense layer-0 FFN 16384↗
moe active experts 8↗
moe experts Pro 384; Flash 256 (8 active each)↗
moe active experts 8↗
moe shared experts 0↗
Routing··changed
dense layers 1 (first block: GA + dense FFN, intermediate 16384)↗
moe routing Expert-bias load balancing (update factor 0.001 in Stages 1-2, 1e-5 in Stage 3) + sequence aux loss 1e-5; FP32 router↗
··
dense layers 1 (first block GA + dense FFN)↗
Multi-token prediction
Single MTP layer as auxiliary objective in pretraining; loss weight 0.3 for first 10.3T tokens then 0.1↗
·changed
Single lightweight MTP head (dense FFN + SWA, 0.33B) in pretraining, loss weight 0.3 (Stage 1) / 0.1 (Stages 2-3); replicated to K heads in post-training; 3 layers relea…↗
3 MTP layers, 329M parameters, dense FFNs↗
3 lightweight MTP layers (dense FFN)↗
changed
SWA + dense-FFN MTP used as a pretraining objective; serving/RL drafter replaced by a 5-layer DFlash block-diffusion drafter (predicts 7 tokens, SWA window 1024)↗
Positions · norm · residual
normalization pre-RMSNorm; SwiGLU activation↗
position encoding RoPE, base 10,000 (stages 1-2) raised to 640,000 in stage 3↗
position encoding ViT 2D RoPE; LLM MRoPE↗
position encoding Partial RoPE on first 64 QK dims; base 640,000 (GA) / 10,000 (SWA); GA base 5,000,000 in Stage 3↗
···
Multimodal design·
Adapter style: native-resolution Qwen2.5-ViT encoder + randomly initialized MLP projector + MiMo-7B-Base LLM↗
·
Native omnimodal: in-house 729M ViT (28 layers: 24 SWA + 4 full, row/column windows) and 261M audio encoder (from MiMo-Audio-Tokenizer), joined via lightweight MLP proje…↗
·changed
Native omni with lightweight projectors: 681M MiMo-ViT (28 layers, 24 sink-augmented SWA alternating row/column + 4 GA; patch 2x16x16) pretrained from scratch on >4T ima…↗
Other architecture··
arch attention ablation 32B dense ablations: W=128 with sink matched/beat all-GA on general, long-context and reasoning; W=512 degraded on long context; no-sink degraded↗
arch init random init, std 0.006↗
·
Text-only language model (no vision/audio encoders, unlike V2.5)↗
MiMo-ViT pretrained from scratch with plain cross-entropy (no contrastive loss), LLM kept trainable↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. V2-Flash7B dense GQA -> 309B-A15B MoE (256 experts, 8 active, no shared) with 5:1 hybrid sliding-window (128) : global attention and learnable attention-sink bias ↗Why: Cut the quadratic cost and KV cache of full attention for long-context reasoning/agents while keeping quality (~6x KV-cache reduction)
  2. V2-FlashPretraining at native 32K (vs 8K) in FP8 mixed precision on 27T tokens, with data shifted toward long-range dependencies (repo-level code, PRs, issues, commits) ↗Why: Efficient large-scale training; strengthen long-context relationships and multi-step reasoning
  3. V2-FlashMTP redesigned as a lightweight dense-FFN + SWA block (0.33B), positioned as a native draft model to speed RL rollouts ↗Why: Rollout is the RL bottleneck; MTP enables small-batch on-policy RL and reduces long-tail straggler idleness
  4. V2.5-ProScaled to 1.02T-A42B (70 layers, 384 experts, hidden 6144) and raised SWA:GA ratio to 6:1 (~7x KV-cache saving); 1M context ↗
  5. V2.63-layer MTP drafter replaced by a 5-layer DFlash block-diffusion drafter (7 tokens/pass), fine-tuned on RL rollout logs for RL ↗Why: Higher accepted length during RL rollouts (+31.3% vs MTP-3)
  6. V2.6Vision encoder: borrowed Qwen2.5-ViT with fixed window attention -> in-house 681M MiMo-ViT with sink-augmented SWA alternating row/column, trained from scratch ↗Why: Mitigate visual fragmentation and cut high-resolution compute while matching global-attention ViTs
Gemma6 releases
ArchitectureGemma-3Mar 12, 2025Gemma-3nJun 26, 2025Gemma-3-270MAug 14, 2025Gemma-4Apr 2, 2026Gemma-4-assistantMay 5, 2026Gemma-4-12BJun 3, 2026
Total params
total params 1B: vision enc / embedding / non-embedding = 0 302M 698M↗
total params 4B: vision enc / embedding / non-embedding = 417M 675M 3,209M↗
total params 12B: vision enc / embedding / non-embedding = 417M 1,012M 10,759M↗
total params 27B: vision enc / embedding / non-embedding = 417M 1,416M 25,600M↗
changed
E2B: 5B raw; E4B: 8B raw↗
changed
270M = 170M embedding + 100M transformer blocks↗
changed
total params E2B: 2.3B effective, 5.1B with per-layer embeddings (Table 1: embedder 400M + 2,340M PLE, einsums 1,870M, +305M audio, +150M vision)↗
total params E4B: 4.5B effective, 8B with per-layer embeddings (Table 1: embedder 670M + 2,820M PLE, einsums 3,940M, +305M audio, +150M vision)↗
total params 26B-A4B MoE: 25.2B total (card); report text says 26B total; Table 1: embedder 740M + einsums 24,500M, +550M vision↗
total params 31B dense: 30.7B (Table 1: embedder 1,410M + einsums 29,290M, +550M vision)↗
Drafter sizes: E2B 76M, E4B 77M, 12B 400M, 26B-A4B 430M, 31B 500M↗
11.95B (card); Table 1: embedder 1,000M + einsums 10,890M, no encoders, drafter 400M↗
Active params
Dense: all parameters active (27B dense)↗
Effective ~2B (E2B) / ~4B (E4B): only core transformer weights sit in accelerator memory; PLE weights run on CPU↗
·changed
26B-A4B: 3.8B active (Table 1: 2,800M active einsums); E2B/E4B/31B dense↗
·
Dense (all active)↗
Layers · widthnot disclosed··
layers E2B 35, E4B 42, 26B-A4B 30, 31B 60↗
·
layers 48↗
Attentionchanged
attention type GQA with hybrid sliding-window:global layers (5 local : 1 global, first layer local)↗
attention detail Local sliding window 1024 tokens; 5:1 local:global (Gemma 2: 1:1, window 4096); only global layers see long context↗
attention detail Local + global attention (ratio not stated); KV cache sharing: middle layer's local and global K/V reused by all top layers (2x faster prefill than Gemma 3 4B)↗
·changed
attention type Hybrid sliding-window:global, 5:1 (4:1 for E2B), final layer always global; GQA not mentioned↗
attention detail Sliding window 512 tokens (E2B, E4B) / 1024 tokens (26B-A4B, 31B)↗
attention detail Global layers reuse keys as values (K=V) in all sizes except E2B and E4B↗
attention detail Cross-layer KV-cache sharing: 20 of 35 layers (E2B), 18 of 42 layers (E4B)↗
·
attention detail Sliding window 1024 tokens; 5:1 local:global; K=V global layers and p-RoPE as in other Gemma 4 sizes↗
Experts···changed
moe experts 128 routed experts (26B-A4B)↗
moe active experts 8 active per token↗
moe shared experts 1 shared expert↗
··
Routing···not disclosed··
Multi-token prediction···
Separate autoregressive MTP drafter head (4-layer transformer) trained with each model for speculative decoding only; weights shipped 2026-05-05 as '-assistant'↗
'-assistant' checkpoints are MTP drafters for speculative decoding, one per target (E2B, E4B, 12B, 26B-A4B, 31B)↗
·
Positions · norm · residualchanged
position encoding RoPE; base frequency 1M on global layers (raised from 10k), 10k on local layers↗
normalization Pre-norm and post-norm RMSNorm, plus QK-norm↗
residual design Uses LAuReL and AltUp (details not given in sources)↗
·changed
position encoding p-RoPE (p=0.25) on global layers, standard RoPE on local; base frequency 1M global / 10k local; cuts global KV cache 37.5%↗
normalization Pre-norm and post-norm RMSNorm plus QKNorm↗
··
Vocab · tokenizerchanged
vocab size 262k entries↗
tokenizer Gemini 2.0 tokenizer: SentencePiece, split digits, preserved whitespace, byte-level encodings↗
·
vocab size 256k tokens (as written in blog)↗
vocab size 262k entries↗
tokenizer Same SentencePiece tokenizer as Gemini (split digits, preserved whitespace, byte-level)↗
··
Multimodal designchanged
Adapter-style: 400M SigLIP ViT at 896x896, frozen and shared by 4B/12B/27B; image condensed to 256 soft tokens (4x4 avg pool); 1B is text-only↗
changed
Vision: MobileNet-V5-300M encoder (256/512/768 px, 256 tokens/image, Multi-Scale Fusion VLM adapter); audio: USM-based encoder↗
·changed
Frozen ViT vision encoders: 150M (E2B/E4B; d768, 16 layers) and 550M (26B-A4B/31B; d1152, 27 layers), patch 16, pooled to soft tokens (k=3 in the Figure 2 example), vari…↗
·changed
Encoder-free (early fusion): no vision or audio encoder; lightweight projections into the LLM embedding space; all modalities share the decoder weights↗
Other architecture
Pan & Scan: adaptive non-overlapping crops at inference only, for non-square / high-res images↗
arch matformer MatFormer nested transformer: E2B sub-model optimized jointly inside E4B; Mix-n-Match slices FFN hidden dim (8192-16384) and skips layers↗
arch per layer embeddings Per-Layer Embeddings (PLE): per-layer embedding tables loaded/computed on CPU↗
arch audio encoder USM-based audio encoder, one token per 160 ms (~6.25 tokens/s); 680M parameters (per Gemma 4 report); streaming-capable, 30 s clips at launch↗
·
arch audio encoder E2B/E4B: frozen 305M USM-based encoder (2 conv downsampling + 12 Conformer layers), 40 ms chunks, Mel filterbank, continuous outputs (no VQ); 55% smaller than Gemma 3n's…↗
arch frozen encoders Vision and audio encoder weights frozen during pre-training↗
arch drafter 4-layer Transformer (3 local + 1 global attention), separate embedder, fed target's last-layer activations + token embeddings, cross-attends to target KV cache (no draft…↗
arch clustered logits E2B/E4B drafters: top-k over token clusters replaces the full-vocabulary projection (d x 262,000 -> d x 4096) with similar acceptance↗
arch decoder Same decoder structure as Gemma 4 31B↗
arch vision embedder 48x48x3 RGB patches -> single matmul (35M params) + 2D coordinate positional embeddings + LayerNorm (replaces 550M ViT)↗
arch audio projection Raw 16 kHz audio cut into 40 ms chunks (640-dim vectors) projected directly; 305M conformer encoder dropped↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Gemma-3Local:global attention 1:1 -> 5:1 and sliding window 4096 -> 1024 ↗Why: Cut KV-cache memory that explodes at long context; ablations show minimal perplexity impact
  2. Gemma-3Logit soft-capping replaced by QK-norm ↗
  3. Gemma-3Added vision: frozen 400M SigLIP encoder, 256 soft tokens per image, images mixed into pre-training ↗Why: New multimodal capability
  4. Gemma-3Switched to the Gemini 2.0 tokenizer (262k vocab) ↗Why: More balanced for non-English languages
  5. Gemma-3More multilingual data (monolingual + parallel) and a slightly larger token budget (27B: 14T) ↗Why: Improve language coverage; extra tokens also account for images
  6. Gemma-3nMatFormer nested model (E2B inside E4B) with Mix-n-Match sizes ↗Why: Compute flexibility / elastic inference on device
  7. Gemma-3nPer-Layer Embeddings offloaded to CPU; total 5B/8B with ~2B/4B in accelerator memory ↗Why: Memory efficiency without losing quality
  8. Gemma-3nVision encoder SigLIP-400M -> MobileNet-V5-300M (multi-resolution, distilled) ↗Why: 13x faster with quantization on Pixel Edge TPU, 46% fewer params, 4x smaller memory, higher accuracy
  9. Gemma-3nAdded audio input via a USM-based encoder ↗Why: On-device speech recognition and translation
  10. Gemma-3nKV cache sharing from the middle layer to all top layers ↗Why: 2x faster prefill than Gemma 3 4B for long streaming inputs
  11. Gemma-3-270MSmaller size (270M) with 63% of parameters in embeddings, trained on 6T tokens (vs 2T for 1B) ↗Why: Base for task-specific fine-tuning; large vocab handles rare tokens
  12. Gemma-4First Gemma MoE: 26B-A4B with 128 experts, 8 active + 1 shared, 3.8B active ↗Why: Latency: runs almost as fast as a 4B model
  13. Gemma-4Global layers: p-RoPE (p=0.25) and keys reused as values; KV-cache sharing across layers in E2B/E4B; E2B uses 4:1 instead of 5:1 ↗Why: Cut the global KV cache by up to 37.5% for long context
  14. Gemma-4Fixed-resolution 400M SigLIP + Pan & Scan replaced by new 150M / 550M ViTs with variable aspect ratio and token budgets 70-1120 ↗
  15. Gemma-4Hardware TPUv4/v5e/v5p -> TPUv6e (TPUv4 for 12B) with Slice-Granularity Elasticity ↗Why: Cut interruption delays from minutes to seconds
  16. Gemma-4Knowledge cutoff August 2024 -> January 2025 ↗
  17. Gemma-4Edge audio encoder 680M -> 305M (55% fewer params; 390MB -> 87MB on disk after QAT); PLE kept; context 32K -> 128K ↗Why: Smaller on-device footprint while improving ASR/AST quality
  18. Gemma-4-12BEncoder-free unified architecture: drops the 550M ViT and 305M USM conformer, projects raw patches and audio frames into the LLM ↗Why: Remove separate encoders, cut latency and memory fragmentation
  19. Gemma-4-12BAudio input on a mid-size model for the first time (only E2B/E4B before) ↗
Microsoft AI4 releases
ArchitectureMAI-DS-R1Apr 16, 2025MAI-1-previewAug 28, 2025MAI-Thinking-1Jun 2, 2026MAI-Base-2Oct 15, 2026
Total params
671B (inherited from DeepSeek-R1; no pre-training by Microsoft)↗
not disclosedchanged
962B (Table 1); described as ~1T in text↗
changed
2.8T↗
Active params·not disclosedchanged
34.7B (described as 35B in text)↗
changed
80B↗
Layers · width··changed
layers 78↗
hidden dim 6656 (ladder rule D = 256/3 x L)↗
changed
layers 102↗
hidden dim 8704↗
Attention·not disclosed
attention type Hybrid sliding-window:global 5:1 (Gemma 3 style) with GQA↗
attention detail Local layers: 512-token sliding window, RoPE base 10,000; global layers: no position encoding↗
attention detail GQA with 8 KV heads, head dim 128, 80 query heads (Table 1 KV/Q = 8/80); RMSNorm on queries and keys↗
changed
attention type Hybrid local:global, global attention every 6 layers (5:1 ratio implied)↗
attention detail Global layers 2 KV / 96 Q heads; local layers 16 KV / 96 Q heads (Base-1: 8/80 in both); window size not given↗
Experts··changed
moe experts 512 routed experts↗
moe active experts 8 (top-8)↗
moe shared experts 0↗
changed
moe experts 512 routed↗
moe active experts 7 routed + 1 shared↗
moe shared experts 1 (not passed through the latent down/up projection)↗
Routing··changed
moe routing Softmax gating, top-8 of 512; GShard-style load-balancing loss with global-batch aggregation (across DP workers and micro-batches); fully dropless MoE↗
dense layers Alternating dense FFN and MoE layers (first FFN layer dense); dense FFN 13312; SwiGLU everywhere↗
changed
dense layers None: MoE in every layer (Base-1 alternated dense FFN and MoE)↗
Positions · norm · residual··
position encoding RoPE (base 10,000) on local layers only; NoPE on global layers↗
normalization RMSNorm at both input and output of each sublayer, before the residual add (Gemma style); QK RMSNorm↗
·
Vocab · tokenizer··
tokenizer OpenAI o200k_base (chosen over better in-house tokenizers for tooling compatibility)↗
vocab size 200,019↗
not disclosed
Multimodal design··
Text only↗
changed
Native VLM, encoder-free (no separate vision encoder)↗
Other architecture
Unchanged DeepSeek-R1 architecture (MoE transformer)↗
In-house mixture-of-experts (MoE); no size or layout given↗
arch embeddings Tied input/output embeddings; no biases anywhere↗
arch latentmoe LatentMoE: shared down-projection before all-to-all dispatch (2x compression, latent dim 3072), experts expand 3x (expert FFN 10240); routing on the uncompressed represe…↗
arch sparsity choice Interleaved high-sparsity MoE + dense FFN chosen over MoE-every-layer: similar EG in FLOPs (0.94-1.03) but worse wall-clock EG (0.73-0.82) for MoE-every-layer↗
arch expert count 8/512 chosen; ladders with 256, 512 and 1024 experts (top-8) showed consistent gains with sparsity↗
arch ladder Scaling ladder: architecture fixed by layer count L (multiple of 6): D = 256/3 x L, query heads = L rounded up to multiple of 16, dense FFN 2D; L12 (365M/3.9B) to L78 (3…↗
arch latentmoe MoE down-projection (latent) dim 4096; expert FFN dim 8704↗
arch embeddings Untied input/output embeddings (Base-1: tied)↗
arch ladder Same ladder family: L alone sets the architecture; hidden = 256/3 x L; query heads = L rounded to a multiple of 16; ladder L18-L42 forecast the final loss↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. MAI-Thinking-1Main pre-training moved to 8,192 GB200 GPUs on one cluster (MAI-1-preview: ~15,000 H100s for pre- and post-training) ↗
  2. MAI-Thinking-1Capacity-capped MoE routing (capacity factor 2) replaced by dropless MoE routing (v3) ↗Why: lets them use a better load-balancing policy and removes capacity padding
  3. MAI-Thinking-1Experts 192 -> 512, top-4 -> top-8 routing, LatentMoE added; job scaled 4,096 -> 8,192 GPUs (v4) ↗Why: more experts add capacity; LatentMoE contains the all-to-all cost of more experts
  4. MAI-Thinking-1Scaled from 23B active / ~600B total (66 layers) to 35B / 1T (78 layers) for the final MAI-Base-1 (v5) ↗
  5. MAI-Base-2Scaled from 35B active / 1T total (78 layers, hidden 6656) to 80B / 2.8T (102 layers, hidden 8704); 30T -> 50T tokens ↗Why: after Base-1 the path was to scale up; efficiency savings were put into a larger model
  6. MAI-Base-2Alternating dense-FFN/MoE layout replaced by MoE in every layer; routing 8/512 with no shared expert -> 1 shared + 7/512 routed ↗Why: MoE-every-layer always had better FLOPs efficiency; fixing MoE kernels (MFU 24% -> 35%) made it the faster option too. Shared-expert reason not stated
  7. MAI-Base-2Optimizer AdamW -> Muon for non-embedding 2D matrices (AdamW for the rest) ↗Why: Muon gave more stable training and large efficiency gains over AdamW at scale
  8. MAI-Base-2FP8 recipe: tensor-wise delayed-scaling E4M3/E5M2 -> MXFP8 E4M3 ↗
  9. MAI-Base-2Added activation-gradient clipping on top of global weight-gradient clipping ↗Why: global clipping lets a few outlier examples shrink the whole batch's gradient; activation clipping is targeted, and its gain grows with scale (+28% EG at L42)
  10. MAI-Base-2Text-only -> native encoder-free VLM; vision data 18% of the 50T mix (4.5T unique tokens) ↗
  11. MAI-Base-2Data: ~36% more unique tokens, much more web content, knowledge cutoff March 2026, embedding-based diversity sampling; code share 55% -> 45% ↗Why: these data changes 'substantially improved model performance' in their experiments
  12. MAI-Base-2Hyperparameters (LR, weight decay, dropout) now set by fitted scaling laws; ladders use 'source scaling' to mimic multi-epoch repetition ↗Why: small-scale ladders without matched repetition favour under-regularized choices that overfit at scale
  13. MAI-Base-2Embeddings tied -> untied; attention KV heads 8 (all layers) -> 2 on global and 16 on local layers, query heads 80 -> 96 ↗
  14. MAI-Base-2Compute 8,192 -> 16k GB200 GPUs (38 days); MFU ~20% -> 21%, goodput 90.0% -> 89% ↗
Thinking Machines2 releases
ArchitectureInklingJul 15, 2026Inkling-SmallJul 30, 2026
Total params
975B↗
changed
276B↗
Active params
41B↗
changed
12B↗
Layers · width
layers 66 decoder layers↗
changed
layers 42 decoder layers↗
Attentionchanged
attention type hybrid sliding-window:global, 5:1↗
attention detail 8 KV heads; sliding-window size and head counts otherwise not disclosed↗
attention detail Final layer uses global attention (per Hugging Face's write-up)↗
attention type Hybrid local/global; ratio not stated for Inkling-Small↗
Experts
moe experts 256 routed experts per MoE layer↗
moe active experts 6 routed experts per token↗
moe shared experts 2 shared experts↗
changed
moe experts 256 routed experts↗
moe active experts 6 routed experts per token↗
moe shared experts 2 shared experts↗
Routing
moe routing Sigmoid router with auxiliary-loss-free load-balancing bias; routed and shared expert scores normalized jointly↗
·
Multi-token prediction
MTP layers shipped as speculative-decoding drafters (per Hugging Face's write-up)↗
·
Positions · norm · residualchanged
position encoding Relative positional embedding (Shaw et al. 2018 / Music Transformer style), not RoPE↗
·
Vocab · tokenizernot disclosed·
Multimodal design
multimodal design Native, encoder-free: audio as dMel spectrograms, images as 40x40-px patches via a 4-layer hMLP, light embedding layer, processed jointly with text↗
multimodal design Multimodal components trained from scratch on general-domain data↗
Same native encoder-free design as Inkling: dMel audio, 40x40-px patches via 4-layer hMLP↗
Other architecture
arch moe basis MoE design largely follows DeepSeek-V3↗
arch short conv Short convolutions after K and V projections, and on attention/MLP residual-branch outputs before they rejoin the residual stream↗
arch audio tokenization Audio cut into 100 ms chunks, mapped to discrete mel bins, embedded and summed (per HF write-up)↗
arch video Video handled through the image patch encoder with a temporal dimension; video performance not evaluated↗
Same architecture as Inkling (per Hugging Face's write-up)↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. InklingRelative positional embedding instead of RoPE ↗Why: Lab found it performs better and extrapolates better to longer sequences
  2. InklingShort convolutions after K/V projections and on residual-branch outputs; 5:1 sliding-window:global attention ↗Why: Departures 'chosen for efficiency and long-context performance'
  3. InklingMuon (matrices) + Adam (other params), with weight decay tied to the square of the LR ↗Why: Kept the overall size of model weights stable across training horizons
  4. Inkling-SmallSmaller MoE: 276B-A12B, 42 layers (Inkling 975B-A41B, 66 layers); same 256 routed / 6 active / 2 shared experts ↗Why: A different performance/latency trade-off; lower cost and latency
  5. Inkling-SmallChanged pre-training data mix and ML recipe (specifics not disclosed) ↗Why: Small started training later, which let the lab improve the training process
Qwen23 releases
ArchitectureQVQ-72B-PreviewDec 25, 2024Qwen2.5-VLJan 26, 2025Qwen2.5-1MJan 27, 2025QwQ-32BMar 6, 2025Qwen2.5-VL-32BMar 24, 2025Qwen2.5-OmniMar 27, 2025Qwen3Apr 29, 2025Qwen3-2507Jul 21, 2025Qwen3-CoderJul 22, 2025Qwen3-NextSep 11, 2025Qwen3-OmniSep 22, 2025Qwen3-VLSep 23, 2025Qwen3-Coder-NextFeb 3, 2026WebWorldFeb 16, 2026Qwen3.5Feb 16, 2026Qwen3.5-MediumFeb 24, 2026Qwen3.5-SmallMar 2, 2026Qwen3.6-35B-A3BApr 15, 2026Qwen3.6-27BApr 22, 2026Qwen-AgentWorldJun 22, 2026Qwen3.8Aug 12, 2026Qwen3.8-27BAug 14, 2026Qwen3.8-Flash-NextAug 26, 2026
Total params·
3B, 7B, 72B (LLM initialized from Qwen2.5)↗
7B and 14B dense (Qwen2.5-7B/14B-Instruct-1M); MoE Qwen2.5-Turbo is API-only↗
32.5B dense (31.0B non-embedding); 64 layers, 40 Q / 8 KV heads; base Qwen2.5-32B↗
··
235B (Qwen3-235B-A22B); family spans 0.6B-235B↗
235B-A22B, 30B-A3B and 4B; architectures unchanged from Qwen3↗
480B (30B-A3B sibling: 30.5B)↗
80B (79B non-embedding)↗
Thinker 30B-A3B MoE + Talker 3B-A0.3B MoE; AuT 650M, vision 540M, MTP 80M, Code2Wav 200M↗
235B (flagship 235B-A22B); also 30B-A3B and dense 2B/4B/8B/32B↗
80B total (79B non-embedding)↗
8B, 14B and 32B dense (Qwen3 sizes)↗
397B↗
122B (largest); 35B; dense 27B↗
9B (largest); 4B; 2B; 0.8B, all dense↗
35B↗
27B dense↗
35B (35B-A3B, released) and 397B (397B-A17B)↗
changed
2.4T↗
27B dense↗
125B main model + 51B n-gram embedding tables (host memory) + 4B MTP↗
Active params······
22B (30B-A3B: 3B)↗
22B (235B-A22B); 94 layers, 128 experts, 8 active↗
35B (30B-A3B sibling: 3.3B)↗
changed
~3B (blog: 3.7% of parameters active)↗
·
22B (flagship)↗
3B activated per token↗
·
17B↗
10B (122B-A10B); 3B (35B-A3B); 27B dense↗
Dense: all parameters active (9B largest)↗
3B↗
27B (dense)↗
3B (35B model); 17B (397B model)↗
95B↗
27B (dense)↗
6B per token (n-gram tables are lookups, outside the matmul budget)↗
Layers · width·
layers 72B LLM: 80 layers, hidden 8192, 8 KV heads; 7B: 28 layers, 3,584; 3B: 36 layers, 2048. ViT: 32 layers, hidden 1280↗
layers 7B: 28 layers, 28 Q / 4 KV heads; 14B: 48 layers, 40 Q / 8 KV heads↗
···
layers 94 (235B-A22B); 48 (30B-A3B); dense 28-64↗
hidden dim 4096 (235B-A22B); head dim 128; expert FFN 1536↗
·
layers 62↗
hidden dim 6144 (expert FFN 2560)↗
layers 48: 12 x (3 Gated DeltaNet + 1 gated attention), each followed by an MoE layer↗
hidden dim 2048↗
··
layers 48↗
hidden dim 2048↗
·
layers 60 (15 × [3 Gated DeltaNet + 1 gated attention], each followed by MoE)↗
hidden dim 4096↗
layers 48 (122B); 40 (35B-A3B); 64 (27B)↗
hidden dim 3072 (122B); 2048 (35B-A3B); 5120 (27B)↗
layers 32 (9B, 4B); 24 (2B, 0.8B)↗
hidden dim 4096 (9B); 2560 (4B); 2048 (2B); 1024 (0.8B)↗
·
layers 64↗
hidden dim 5120 (FFN 17,408)↗
·
layers 92 (23 × [3 GDN + 1 gated attention])↗
hidden dim 8192↗
layers 64↗
hidden dim 5120 (FFN 17,408)↗
layers 48↗
hidden dim 2560↗
Attention·
attention detail ViT: only 4 full-attention layers ({7,15,23,31}); others windowed attention, max window 112x112 (8x8 patches)↗
attention type GQA, unchanged Qwen2.5 architecture (SwiGLU, RoPE, QKV bias, pre-norm RMSNorm)↗
···changed
attention type GQA (235B-A22B: 64 Q / 4 KV heads)↗
attention detail QK-Norm added and Qwen2's QKV bias removed↗
·
attention type GQA, 96 Q / 8 KV heads (QK-Norm per config)↗
changed
attention type Hybrid: Gated DeltaNet linear attention in 75% of layers, gated full attention in 25% (3:1)↗
attention detail Full-attention layers: 16 Q / 2 KV heads, head dim 256 (up from 128), output gate, RoPE on 64 of 256 dims↗
··changed
attention type Hybrid (Qwen3-Next): Gated DeltaNet linear attention + gated attention, 3:1 layout (12 × [3 GDN + 1 attention])↗
attention detail Gated attention 16 Q / 2 KV heads, head dim 256, RoPE dim 64; Gated DeltaNet 32 V / 16 QK heads, head dim 128↗
·changed
attention type Hybrid from Qwen3-Next: Gated DeltaNet (linear) + gated attention, one full-attention layer in every four↗
attention detail Gated attention: 32 Q / 2 KV heads, head dim 256, RoPE dim 64; Gated DeltaNet: 64 V / 16 QK heads, head dim 128↗
attention type Same hybrid as Qwen3.5-397B: 3 Gated DeltaNet + 1 gated attention per block↗
attention detail 122B: 32 Q / 2 KV heads (head dim 256), GDN 64 V / 16 QK heads; 27B: 24 Q / 4 KV, GDN 48 V / 16 QK↗
attention type Same 3 GDN : 1 gated attention hybrid with dense FFN↗
attention type Unchanged Qwen3.5 hybrid: 10 × (3 Gated DeltaNet + 1 gated attention), MoE FFN↗
attention type Unchanged Qwen3.5-27B hybrid: 16 × (3 Gated DeltaNet + 1 gated attention)↗
attention type Inherited Qwen3.5 hybrid: 3 Gated DeltaNet layers per gated-attention layer, 40 layers, 256 experts (8 routed + 1 shared)↗
attention type Qwen3.5 hybrid scaled up: Gated DeltaNet (linear) + gated attention, 3:1↗
attention detail Gated attention 64 Q / 4 KV heads, head dim 256, RoPE dim 64; GDN 128 V / 16 QK heads, head dim 128↗
attention type Qwen3.5 hybrid: 16 × (3 Gated DeltaNet + 1 gated attention)↗
changed
attention type Hybrid: 3 Gated DeltaNet layers per 1 global-attention layer; the global layers become Qwen Sparse Attention (QSA) in continued pretraining↗
attention detail QSA: MQA indexer (4 query heads, 1 key head, dim 128) scores keys average-pooled into 4-token micro-blocks; budget 2048 tokens / 512 blocks; core attention 24 Q / 2 KV heads↗
Experts······changed
moe experts 128 fine-grained routed experts (both MoE models)↗
moe active experts 8↗
moe shared experts None (Qwen2.5-MoE had shared experts)↗
·
moe experts 160 routed experts↗
moe active experts 8↗
moe shared experts None (shared expert size 0 in config)↗
changed
moe experts 512 experts (expert FFN 512)↗
moe active experts 10 routed + 1 shared↗
moe shared experts 1↗
··
moe experts 512 experts, expert intermediate dim 512↗
moe active experts 10 routed↗
moe shared experts 1 shared expert↗
·changed
moe experts 512 experts, expert intermediate dim 1024↗
moe active experts 10 routed + 1 shared↗
moe shared experts 1 shared expert↗
moe experts 256 experts (expert dim 1024 for 122B, 512 for 35B-A3B)↗
moe active experts 8 routed + 1 shared↗
·
moe experts 256 experts, expert dim 512↗
moe active experts 8 routed + 1 shared↗
··
moe experts 512 experts, expert dim 2048↗
moe active experts 10 routed + 1 shared↗
·
moe experts 512 experts, expert dim 640↗
moe active experts 10 routed + 1 shared↗
Routing······changed
moe routing Global-batch load-balancing loss; fine-grained expert segmentation as in Qwen2.5-MoE↗
dense layers None: all 94 layers are MoE (empty mlp_only_layers, decoder_sparse_step 1)↗
··
moe routing Global load balancing; router parameters normalized at initialization so experts are picked without bias early on↗
····
moe routing Auxiliary load-balancing loss coefficient 0.001 (config)↗
·······
moe routing Global load balancing; router kept on AdamW (Muon destabilized it early); normalized router init↗
Multi-token prediction······not disclosed··changed
Native MTP, trained multi-step to match inference; raises speculative-decoding acceptance and overall quality↗
····
Multi-token prediction trained with multiple steps; 1 MTP layer in config↗
Multi-step MTP, as in Qwen3.5-397B↗
Multi-step MTP↗
···
Multi-step MTP↗
·
1 MTP layer trained with multiple steps; its attention also QSA, with top-k indices reused across draft steps↗
Positions · norm · residual·changed
position encoding MRoPE with temporal IDs aligned to absolute time (dynamic-FPS video)↗
···
position encoding TMRoPE: M-RoPE with absolute time (1 temporal ID = 40 ms); audio and video interleaved in 2-second chunks↗
position encoding RoPE; base raised 10,000 -> 1,000,000 with ABF in the long-context stage↗
normalization Pre-norm RMSNorm, plus QK-Norm in attention↗
·
position encoding RoPE, theta 10,000,000 (config)↗
changed
position encoding Partial RoPE on the first 25% of dimensions (theta 10,000,000 in config)↗
normalization Zero-centered RMSNorm with weight decay on norm weights (Qwen3's QK-Norm weights grew abnormally large)↗
position encoding TM-RoPE: interleaved temporal/height/width with 24/20/20 rotary angles; 80 ms per temporal ID↗
changed
position encoding Interleaved MRoPE (t, h, w spread across low and high frequencies); explicit text timestamps for video↗
··
position encoding Partial RoPE (factor 0.25, 64 of 256 head dims) in attention layers, theta 1e7, interleaved MRoPE for vision↗
normalization Zero-centred RMSNorm with weight decay on norm weights, attention output gate, normalized router init (inferred: the Flash-Next blog says these Qwen3-Next/Qwen3.5-line designs are "retained") inferred↗
·······changed
position encoding RoPE kept in full-attention/QSA layers (partial, 64 dims); NoPE rejected because it caused endless generation after post-training↗
normalization Zero-centred RMSNorm (from Qwen3-Next); GR group-RMSNorm read replaces block pre-norm↗
residual design Gated Residual: residual stream widened to 4 branches; elementwise data-dependent sigmoid read gate, per-branch scalar write, no branch-mixing matrix; bottleneck rank 320; replaces pre-norm↗
Vocab · tokenizer·
vocab size 151,646↗
···
vocab size 151,643 regular tokens (Qwen byte-level BPE)↗
vocab size 151,669↗
tokenizer Qwen's byte-level BPE (BBPE) tokenizer↗
··
vocab size 151,936 (config)↗
vocab size 151,643 regular tokens (Qwen byte-level BPE)↗
·
vocab size 151,936 (Qwen3 tokenizer)↗
·changed
vocab size ~250K vocabulary (248,320 padded), up from ~150K↗
vocab size 248,320 (padded)↗
····
vocab size 248,320 (padded)↗
·
vocab size 248,320 (padded; ~250K base tokenizer)↗
Multimodal design·changed
Redesigned ViT (2D-RoPE, window attention, RMSNorm, SwiGLU) trained from scratch + 2-layer MLP merger (4 patches -> 1 token) + Qwen2.5 LLM↗
···
Thinker (LLM from Qwen2.5) + Talker (dual-track autoregressive speech decoder fed Thinker hidden states); block-wise audio/vision encoders; sliding-window DiT codec-to-wave↗
····changed
Thinker-Talker, both MoE; Talker conditions only on audio/visual features (not Thinker text states), predicts codebook 0 then an MTP module predicts residual codebooks; ConvNet Code2Wav↗
changed
SigLIP-2 encoder + 2-layer MLP merger (2x2 -> 1 token) + Qwen3 LLM; DeepStack adds tokens from 3 ViT levels to the first 3 LLM layers' hidden states↗
··changed
Native vision-language model: early text-vision fusion in pretraining, no separate VL model↗
·
Native VLMs; smaller vision encoders (0.8B: 12 layers, width 768; 2B/4B: 24 layers, width 1024; 9B: 27 layers, width 1152)↗
···
Open checkpoint is text-only and always thinks (the hosted Qwen3.8-Max adds vision input and non-thinking)↗
Native vision-language model (images and hour-scale video)↗
Multimodal MoE with a vision encoder (27 layers, width 1152 in config)↗
Other architecture·········changed
arch gated deltanet Gated DeltaNet layers: 32 V heads / 16 QK heads, head dim 128; chosen over sliding-window attention and Mamba2 for in-context learning↗
··········
architecture basis "Built on the architectural foundation of Qwen3.5", scaled to 2.4T↗
··

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Qwen2.5-VLViT redesigned (window attention with 4 full layers, RMSNorm, SwiGLU) and trained from scratch ↗Why: Cut ViT compute at native resolution and align ViT design with the LLM
  2. Qwen2.5-VLMRoPE temporal IDs aligned to absolute time instead of frame count ↗Why: Qwen2-VL's frame-count IDs ignored event pace and absolute timing
  3. Qwen3QKV bias removed and QK-Norm added ↗Why: Stable training
  4. Qwen3MoE drops shared experts (128 experts, 8 active) ↗
  5. Qwen3Global-batch load-balancing loss adopted ↗Why: Encourage expert specialization
  6. Qwen3-NextHybrid attention: Gated DeltaNet in 75% of layers, gated full attention in 25% ↗Why: Linear attention is fast but weak at recall; full attention is slow; the 3:1 mix beat both
  7. Qwen3-Next128 experts / 8 routed -> 512 experts / 10 routed + 1 shared ↗Why: More total expert parameters at fixed activation kept lowering training loss
  8. Qwen3-NextActivation ratio cut to about 3.7% (3B of 80B) ↗
  9. Qwen3-NextNative multi-token prediction added, trained multi-step ↗Why: High speculative-decoding acceptance and better overall performance
  10. Qwen3-NextZero-centered RMSNorm with weight decay on norm weights; RoPE on only the first 25% of dimensions ↗Why: Some Qwen3 QK-Norm weights grew abnormally large; partial RoPE extrapolates better
  11. Qwen3-NextAttention output gate added; attention head dim 128 -> 256 ↗Why: Reduce low-rank issues in attention
  12. Qwen3-OmniThinker and Talker become MoE; Whisper replaced by the in-house AuT encoder (20M hours, from scratch) ↗Why: High concurrency, fast inference, stronger audio representations
  13. Qwen3-OmniTalker predicts multi-codebook frames with an MTP module; Code2Wav ConvNet replaces block-wise DiT ↗Why: Streaming from the first codec frame; 234 ms first-packet latency
  14. Qwen3-VLDeepStack: multi-level ViT features routed into early LLM layers; SigLIP-2 encoder replaces the in-house ViT ↗Why: Tighter vision-language alignment without extra context length
  15. Qwen3-VLInterleaved MRoPE replaces chunked t/h/w frequency allocation ↗Why: Chunking gave an imbalanced spectrum that hurt long-video understanding
  16. Qwen3-VLExplicit text timestamp tokens replace absolute-time MRoPE for video ↗Why: Absolute-time IDs got large and sparse for long videos and needed costly multi-FPS data
  17. Qwen3-Coder-NextCoder line moves from Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B to the Qwen3-Next hybrid base (Gated DeltaNet + gated attention, 80B-A3B) ↗Why: Agentic coding ability at much lower inference cost
  18. Qwen3.5Flagship adopts the Qwen3-Next hybrid: Gated DeltaNet + gated attention (3:1), plus higher-sparsity MoE and MTP ↗Why: Decoding throughput 8.6x/19.0x Qwen3-Max at 32K/256K with comparable quality
  19. Qwen3.5Higher-sparsity MoE than Qwen3: 512 experts with 10 routed + 1 shared (17B of 397B active) ↗Why: Efficiency at flagship quality
  20. Qwen3.5Vision is trained into the base from the start (early fusion) rather than in a separate Qwen3-VL line ↗Why: Outperforms Qwen3-VL at similar scales while matching Qwen3 on text
  21. Qwen3.5Vocabulary grows from ~150K to ~250K tokens ↗Why: 10-60% better encoding/decoding efficiency across most languages
  22. Qwen3.8The Qwen3.5 architecture is scaled to 2.4T total / 95B active (vs 397B-A17B) ↗
  23. Qwen3.8-Flash-NextFull-attention layers of the GDN hybrid replaced by Qwen Sparse Attention (micro-block indexer, 2048-token budget) ↗Why: Cut long-context cost: 7.6x prefill / 4.9x decode at 1M
  24. Qwen3.8-Flash-NextSingle pre-norm residual replaced by a 4-branch Gated Residual with elementwise read gate ↗Why: More capacity in the residual path and a large training-stability margin
  25. Qwen3.8-Flash-NextAdds a single n-gram embedding layer (51B params) at layer 2, held in host memory ↗Why: Scale capacity with negligible per-token compute
MiniMax10 releases
ArchitectureText-01Jan 15, 2025VL-01Jan 15, 2025SynLogicMay 26, 2025M1Jun 16, 2025M2Oct 27, 2025M2.1Dec 23, 2025M2.5Feb 12, 2026M2.7Mar 18, 2026M3Jun 1, 2026M3.1-FlashOct 19, 2026
Total params
456B↗
··
456B (Text-01 architecture)↗
changed
229.9B (the card rounds to 230 billion)↗
···changed
~428B↗
~428B↗
Active params
45.9B per token (chosen by a scaling-law fit conditioned on expert count)↗
··
45.9B per token↗
changed
9.8B per token (the card rounds to 10 billion)↗
···
~23B↗
23B↗
Layers · width
layers 80↗
hidden dim 6144↗
···
layers 62↗
hidden dim 3,072↗
···
layers 60↗
hidden dim 6144↗
·
Attention
attention type Hybrid: lightning attention (I/O-aware linear attention, TransNormer) in 7 of every 8 layers, softmax attention in the 8th↗
attention detail 64 heads x head dim 128 in every attention module; softmax layers use GQA with group size 8↗
··
attention type Lightning-attention hybrid inherited from Text-01: one softmax block after every 7 lightning blocks↗
changed
attention type Full softmax attention in all 62 layers, GQA with 48 query and 8 KV heads↗
attention detail Head dim 128, per-layer QK-norm, rotary on 64 of 128 dims (config)↗
···changed
attention type MiniMax Sparse Attention (MSA): blockwise top-k sparse softmax attention on GQA; first 3 of 60 layers keep full attention↗
attention detail 64 query / 4 KV heads, head dim 128; index branch (one index query head per GQA group, 4 in all, dim 128; max-pooled block scores) picks 16 blocks of 128 tokens (2,048) per group incl. the local block↗
changed
attention type MSA in all 60 layers: M3's three full-attention layers replaced with sparse attention↗
Experts
moe experts 32 experts per layer, expert FFN hidden dim 9216↗
moe active experts 2 (top-2)↗
···changed
moe experts 256 fine-grained experts↗
moe active experts 8↗
moe shared experts None (shared_intermediate_size 0 in config)↗
···
moe experts 128 routed experts + 1 shared expert↗
moe active experts 4 routed (+1 shared)↗
moe shared experts 1↗
·
Routing
moe routing Softmax top-2 with GShard auxiliary loss (coefficient 0.01) plus a global router that syncs per-expert token counts across EP groups; token-drop with expert capacity↗
··changed
moe routing MoE auxiliary-loss coefficient lowered and micro-batch enlarged during continued pre-training↗
changed
moe routing Sigmoid gating with learnable per-expert bias; auxiliary load-balancing loss greatly reduced (config coefficient 0.001)↗
···
moe routing Sigmoid scoring with routing bias; routed scaling factor 2.0↗
dense layers First 3 layers dense FFN (hidden 12,288), per moe_layer_freq↗
·
Multi-token prediction····changed
One DeepSeek-V3-style MTP module in pre-training (loss weight 0.3, annealed to 0.1 in decay); expanded to 3 modules during decay by copying main-model weights; used as speculative-decoding draft↗
···
Config lists 7 MTP modules; the M3.1-Flash card calls M3's approach EAGLE-like MTP↗
changed
DSpark speculative-decoding draft head replaces M3's EAGLE-like MTP↗
Positions · norm · residual
position encoding RoPE on half of each head's dims; base 10,000 in the architecture spec, raised to 5M (128K stage) and 10M (512K and 1M stages); card and post-training use 10M↗
normalization Post-LayerNorm (DeepNorm) with RMSNorm; PostNorm beat PreNorm in a 60B-total / 9.3B-active, 48-layer ablation on 500B tokens↗
residual design DeepNorm-scaled residuals, alpha = (2N)^0.25, beta = (8N)^-0.25 with N layers↗
···
position encoding RoPE in all layers (config: rope_theta 5,000,000, rotary_dim 64)↗
normalization RMSNorm (eps 1e-6) plus QK-norm (config)↗
···
position encoding RoPE, theta 5,000,000, on half the head dims (rotary_dim 64)↗
normalization Gemma-style RMSNorm, per-head QK-norm↗
position encoding RoPE theta 10,000,000 (M3: 5,000,000)↗
Vocab · tokenizer
vocab size 200K (card: 200,064)↗
tokenizer Byte-level BPE with a pre-tokenizer↗
···
vocab size 200,064↗
···
vocab size 200,064↗
·
Multimodal design·changed
ViT-MLP-LLM: 303M ViT-L/14 trained from scratch + randomly initialized 2-layer MLP projector + Text-01↗
······changed
Native multimodal: text, image and video mixed from the first training step↗
·

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. VL-01Adds a 303M ViT-L/14 trained from scratch and a 2-layer MLP projector to Text-01, with dynamic resolution up to 2016x2016 ↗Why: Long-context capacity lets the model use raw high-dimensional image features without pooling
  2. M1Lower MoE auxiliary-loss coefficient with a larger training micro-batch ↗Why: Reduce the auxiliary loss's harm to overall model performance
  3. M2Back to full softmax attention (GQA 48/8) in all 62 layers, dropping the lightning-attention hybrid ↗Why: Hybrid models matched full attention on standard benchmarks but showed multi-hop reasoning deficits at scale; efficient-attention infra immature
  4. M2229.9B total (from 456B) ↗
  5. M29.8B active per token (from 45.9B) ↗Why: About 10B activations keep agent plan-act-verify loops responsive and cheap
  6. M2256 fine-grained experts, top-8 (from 32 experts, top-2) ↗Why: More routing combinations and less per-device variance; ablation gains on MATH and HumanEval
  7. M2Sigmoid gating with learnable per-expert bias (from softmax top-2 with GShard aux loss and global router) ↗Why: Removes softmax's zero-sum constraint for smoother routing; bias balances load with far less auxiliary loss
  8. M2Adds an MTP module in pre-training, expanded to 3 modules by weight copying for speculative decoding ↗Why: Richer training signal (largest gains on reasoning) and multi-step speculative decoding
  9. M3MiniMax Sparse Attention (blockwise top-k on GQA) replaces full attention in 57 of 60 layers ↗Why: Make context a scalable dimension by avoiding full attention's quadratic cost; 1/20 per-token compute vs M2 at 1M
  10. M3Native multimodal from step 0 (text, image, video); M2 was text-only ↗Why: Lets the semantic spaces of modalities merge more naturally and deeply
  11. M3~428B total / ~23B active (from 229.9B / 9.8B) ↗
  12. M3.1-FlashSparse attention in all 60 layers: M3's first three full-attention layers replaced ↗Why: Inference efficiency through more aggressive sparsity
  13. M3.1-FlashDSpark draft head replaces M3's EAGLE-like MTP for speculative decoding ↗Why: Inference efficiency
StepFun6 releases
ArchitectureORZFeb 18, 2025Step-3Jul 25, 2025PaCoRe-8BDec 9, 2025Step-3.5-FlashFeb 2, 2026Step-3.7-FlashMay 29, 2026Step-5-PreviewOct 15, 2026
Total params·
321B VLM (316B LLM + 5B vision encoder)↗
·changed
196B backbone (196.81B with the 0.81B MTP heads per card; 198B with MTP-3 per Table 6)↗
198B (196B language backbone + 1.8B vision encoder)↗
changed
600B↗
Active params·
38B per token↗
·
~11B per token (13B including MTP-3; embeddings excluded)↗
~11B per token↗
27B↗
Layers · width·
layers 61 layers (5 dense + 56 MoE)↗
hidden dim 7168 (dense FFN 18,432; expert FFN 5,120 per config)↗
·
layers 45 layers: 3 dense + 42 MoE↗
hidden dim 4,096 (dense FFN 11,264; expert FFN 1,280)↗
·changed
layers 92 transformer blocks ('narrow but deep')↗
hidden dim 4,096 (dense FFN 13,824; expert FFN 1,536)↗
Attention·
attention type MFA (Multi-Matrix Factorization Attention): low-rank factorized query-key circuit↗
attention detail 64 query heads sharing one K and one V head, head dim 256; query down-projected 7168->2048, normalized, up-projected; arithmetic intensity 128 with 8-bit KV↗
·changed
attention type Hybrid 3:1 sliding-window : full attention (S3F1), GQA with 8 KV heads, head-wise gated↗
attention detail SWA window 512; query heads 64 (full) / 96 (SWA); 8 KV heads; head dim 128; leading full layer then 11 SSSF blocks; QK-norm↗
·changed
attention type Hybrid 3:1 Gated sliding-window : full attention, full layers are Sparse GQA (DSA-inspired)↗
attention detail SWA window 512; 64 query heads, 4 KV groups, head dim 192; Sparse GQA indexer over 8-token blocks selects top 4,096 tokens (512 blocks) per KV group↗
Experts·
moe experts 48 routed experts↗
moe active experts 3 routed experts per token↗
moe shared experts 1 shared expert (DeepSeekMoE-style)↗
·changed
moe experts 288 routed experts per MoE layer + 1 shared↗
moe active experts Top-8↗
moe shared experts 1 shared expert (always active), with explicit scaling of shared vs routed contribution↗
·
moe experts 352 routed experts↗
moe active experts Top-8↗
moe shared experts 1 shared expert implied (share_expert_dim 1536) inferred↗
Routing·
dense layers 5 dense FFN layers: the first four and the last↗
·
moe routing Sigmoid router (config), loss-free bias balancing (bias rate 0.001 for 14.6T, decayed to 0 in annealing) + EP-group balance loss (coef 0.001)↗
dense layers First 3 layers dense↗
·
moe routing Router bias enabled, normalized expert weights, scaling factor 3.0, FP32 gate↗
dense layers 4 dense layers: MoE on layers 3-90 of 0-91, so layers 0-2 and 91 are dense calc↗
Multi-token prediction·
None in the release; decode results are reported without MTP and the paper warns MTP adds FFN cost under AFD inferred↗
·changed
MTP-3: three heads (SWA + dense FFN, 0.81B); only MTP-1 trained in main training (loss weight 0.3, then 0.1), MTP-2/3 cloned and tuned late↗
3 MTP layers, used for 3-token speculative decoding↗
changed
3 MTP layers; the MTP-3 head is trained after SFT and gives ~30% end-to-end rollout speedup↗
Positions · norm · residual·
position encoding RoPE, theta 500,000↗
·
position encoding RoPE theta 10k in 4K pretraining; full-attention theta raised to 1M (32K) and 5M (128K) while SWA stays 10k; partial RoPE on full layers (64 of 128 dims)↗
normalization Zero-centered RMSNorm throughout; QK normalization (fused with RoPE)↗
·
position encoding RoPE theta 10,000 on SWA layers and 10,000,000 on full-attention layers; partial rotary (1/3) on full layers↗
normalization Zero-centered RMSNorm with the scale kept in FP32 (BF16 near -1 flickered channels on and off)↗
residual design FP32 hidden states (residual stream) and gradients to tame massive activations in the deep stack↗
Vocab · tokenizer·
vocab size 128,815↗
tokenizer DeepSeek-V3 tokenizer↗
·
vocab size 128,896↗
·
vocab size 128,896 (same as Step 3.5 Flash)↗
Multimodal design·
5B vision encoder (config: 63-layer ViT, width 1792, 728px input, patch 14) feeding the LLM through stride-2 downsamplers↗
··changed
Perception Encoder ViT (config: width 1536, 47 layers, 728px, patch 14) with stride-2 projector on the Step 3.5 text backbone↗
changed
Native text, image and video input; Perception Encoder ViT (config width 1536, 47 layers, 728px) with stride-2 projector↗
Other architecture···
arch headwise gate Head-wise sigmoid output gate used instead of sink tokens (a data-dependent sink); +1.97 avg in a 100B-A10B ablation↗
arch same backbone Text config matches Step 3.5 Flash: 45 layers, 4,096 hidden, 288 experts top-8, 3:1 SWA/full GQA-8, vocab 128,896 calc↗
arch depth rationale Depth chosen for latent multi-hop reasoning during long tool-heavy prefills, instead of looped/recurrent designs↗
arch sparse gqa Indexer keys compressed into 8-token blocks (8x cheaper indexing/top-k); union of adjacent tokens' selections for GPU efficiency; Gated SWA picked over linear attention↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Step-3.5-FlashDown to 196B total / 11B active (Step-3: 321B / 38B), kept under 200B ↗Why: Fit high-performance inference in the 128GB memory of high-end workstations
  2. Step-3.5-FlashStep-3's MFA replaced by GQA-8 full attention interleaved 1:3 with 512-token sliding-window layers, with 96 SWA query heads and head-wise gates ↗Why: Speed long-context prefill while keeping parallel verification for speculative decoding; SWA chosen over linear attention
  3. Step-3.5-FlashFine-grained MoE: 288 routed experts top-8 + 1 shared (Step-3: 48 experts top-3 + 1 shared) ↗Why: Lower average FFN compute at the same capacity
  4. Step-3.5-FlashAdded three MTP heads (SWA + dense FFN) used for speculative decoding; Step-3 shipped without MTP ↗Why: Cut autoregressive latency in multi-turn agent use
  5. Step-3.7-FlashAdds a 1.8B vision encoder to the Step 3.5 Flash backbone for native image and video input ↗Why: Agents can read images and video without a separate vision model or MCP
  6. Step-5-Preview600B total / 27B active (Step 3.5 Flash: 196B / 11B) ↗
  7. Step-5-Preview92 transformer blocks at hidden 4,096 ('narrow but deep'); Step 3.5 Flash had 45 ↗Why: Depth for latent multi-hop reasoning over long tool-call prefills at lower cost than trillion-scale models
  8. Step-5-PreviewKeeps Step 3.5's 3:1 layout of gated SWA and full layers; full-attention layers become Sparse GQA (block-8 indexer, top-4,096 tokens) ↗Why: Full attention was the training and inference bottleneck at 1M tokens
  9. Step-5-PreviewFlagship takes text, image and video input (Step 3.5 Flash was text-only) ↗
  10. Step-5-PreviewMTP-3 head trained after SFT (Step 3.5: MTP-1 in main training, MTP-2/3 cloned late) ↗Why: Speed RL rollouts (~30% end-to-end)
Ling29 releases
ArchitectureLing-plusMar 7, 2025Ling-Coder-liteMar 22, 2025Ring-lite-distill-previewMar 29, 2025Ring-lite-linear-previewApr 24, 2025Ling-lite-1.5May 10, 2025Ring-liteJun 17, 2025Ling-lite-1.5-2506Jul 23, 2025Ring-lite-2507Aug 5, 2025Ling-lite-1.5-2507Aug 8, 2025Ling-mini-2.0Sep 8, 2025Ring-mini-2.0Sep 8, 2025Ling-flash-2.0Sep 17, 2025Ring-flash-2.0Sep 19, 2025Ring-linear-2.0Sep 24, 2025Ling-1TOct 9, 2025Ring-1TOct 14, 2025Ring-mini-sparse-2.0-expOct 14, 2025Ring-flash-linear-2.0-128kOct 21, 2025Ring-2.5-1TFeb 10, 2026Ling-2.5-1TFeb 14, 2026Ling-2.6-flashApr 28, 2026Ling-2.6-1TApr 29, 2026Ring-2.6-1TMay 14, 2026Ling-3.0-flashAug 2, 2026Ling-3.0-tinyAug 10, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-FinSep 3, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-VLSep 4, 2026Ling-3.1-flashOct 13, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-SanteOct 19, 2026
Total params
290B (Ling-plus); 16.8B (Ling-lite)↗
16.8B total, 2.75B active (Ling-lite architecture)↗
·
17.1B total, 3.0B active↗
·
16.8B total, 2.75B active (Ling-lite-1.5 base)↗
···
16.26B (card headline 16B)↗
16.8B total, 1.4B active (Ling-mini-2.0 base)↗
103B (report); card rounds to 100B↗
100B total, 6.1B active (4.8B non-embedding); Ling-flash-2.0-base↗
Mini 16.4B / Flash 104.2B total; 957M / 6.1B non-embedding active (1.6B / 7.4B with embeddings)↗
1T (Table 1: 1000B)↗
1T↗
··
1T↗
1T↗
104B total, 7.4B active↗
~1T↗
~1T (shared Ling-2.6-1T-base)↗
124B↗
7.9B total, 1.3B active↗
·
124B total, 5.5B active↗
changed
560B↗
·
Active params
28.8B (Ling-plus); 2.75B (Ling-lite)↗
········
1.43B (789M non-embedding)↗
·
6.1B (4.8B non-embedding)↗
··
51B (card: ≈50B)↗
≈50B↗
··
63B (up from 51B in Ling 2.0)↗
changed
63B↗
·
~63B↗
~63B↗
5.1B (non-embedding)↗
1.3B↗
··
25B↗
·
Layers · width
layers 88 (Ling-plus; Ling-lite has 28)↗
hidden dim 5,376 (Ling-plus)↗
········
layers 20 layers, hidden 2,048, 16 heads, first layer dense↗
·
layers 32 layers, hidden 4,096, 32 heads, first layer dense↗
··
layers 80↗
hidden dim 8,192 (dense FFN 18,432; expert FFN 2,048; head dim 128)↗
······
layers 80 layers, hidden 8,192, 64 heads (head dim 128)↗
·
layers 42 (35 KDA + 7 gated MLA)↗
hidden dim 2,560 (32 heads; dense FFN 6,144; expert FFN 768)↗
layers 24 (18 KDA + 6 gated MLA)↗
hidden dim 1,536 (16 heads; dense FFN 4,608; expert FFN 512)↗
··
layers 72↗
hidden dim 4,096 (64 heads; dense FFN 10,240; expert FFN 1,280)↗
·
Attention
attention type GQA per config: 56 query heads, 8 KV heads, head dim 128 (report does not describe attention)↗
··changed
attention type Hybrid linear attention (softmax layers kept in groups; config layer_group_size 7), near-linear compute and near-constant memory↗
·····
attention type GQA, 16 query / 4 KV heads, QK-Norm, partial RoPE (config)↗
·
attention type GQA, 32 query / 4 KV heads, QK-Norm, partial RoPE (config)↗
·changed
attention type Hybrid: Lightning (fixed-decay linear) attention + GQA; one GQA layer per group of 8 (flash, M=7) or 5 (mini, M=4)↗
attention detail Linear layers: QK-Norm, RoPE on half the dims, power-law head-wise decay, grouped RMSNorm, sigmoid output gate↗
attention type GQA (64 query / 8 KV heads per config; the report text says 8, 16 or 32 KV heads across sizes, configs show 4/4/8)↗
attention detail QKNorm, verified to stabilise low-precision (FP8) training↗
attention type Ling 2.0 architecture (GQA + QK-Norm + partial RoPE), trained from Ling-1T-base↗
changed
attention type MoBA (Mixture of Block Attention) block-sparse attention; KV block selection shared by all heads in a GQA group; 8,192 KV tokens per query at 64K↗
attention detail Block size 1,024, top-8 blocks (config)↗
·
attention type Hybrid 1:7 MLA + Lightning linear attention (Ling 2.5 architecture)↗
attention detail Some Ling-2.0 GQA layers converted to Lightning linear attention; the rest approximately converted to MLA, adapting QK Norm and partial RoPE↗
changed
attention type Hybrid 1:7 MLA + Lightning linear attention, upgraded from Ling 2.0 GQA by incremental training (card expands MLA as 'Multi-head Linear Attention')↗
attention type 1:7 MLA + Lightning linear hybrid, retrofitted from Ling 2.0 GQA (32 layers, 256 experts, 1 dense layer per report Table 1)↗
attention type Hybrid Lightning Attention + MLA at 7:1 (layer group size 8), retrofitted from GQA; chosen by equal-FLOPs scaling runs over M = 2, 4, 8, 16↗
attention detail MLA (KV LoRA 512, Q LoRA 1536) via TransMLA; QK Norm absorbed into projections by calibration; partial RoPE kept via decoupled PCA rotation; Lightning layers keep QK Norm and partial RoPE↗
attention type Hybrid Lightning Attention + MLA at 7:1 (shared 2.6 base)↗
changed
attention type Native hybrid from the start of pre-training: Kimi Delta Attention (KDA) + gated MLA, 5:1↗
attention detail KDA with fine-grained diagonal gating; head-wise gated MLA (config: KV LoRA 512, partial RoPE 0.5, θ 6M, QK-Norm)↗
attention type KDA + MLA at 3:1 (3 KDA layers then 1 MLA layer per 4-layer block)↗
··
attention type Hybrid KDA + gated MLA at 7:1 (63 KDA + 9 gated MLA)↗
attention detail Gated MLA (head-wise gate, KV LoRA 512, Q LoRA 1,536, 64 rotary dims, θ 6M, QK-Norm) every 8th layer; KDA in the rest (config)↗
·
Experts
moe experts 64 fine-grained routed experts per MoE layer↗
moe active experts 4 routed experts per token (Ling-plus; Ling-lite activates 6)↗
moe shared experts Shared expert that sees every token without routing (1 in Ling-plus config, 2 in Ling-lite)↗
moe experts 64 routed + 2 shared experts (expert dim 1,408), 6 routed active; 28 layers, d 2,048; NormHead kept↗
·······changed
moe experts 256 routed + 1 shared, 8 active (1/32 activation)↗
···
moe experts 1/32 activation-ratio MoE (256 experts, 8 active + 1 shared), aux-loss-free sigmoid routing, MTP layers; first block dense↗
moe experts 256 routed experts, 8 active + 1 shared (~3.5% activation; '1/32')↗
moe active experts 8 routed↗
moe shared experts 1↗
······
moe experts 256 routed + 1 shared, 8 active; expert FFN 2,048↗
·changed
moe experts 512 routed + 1 shared, 8 routed active (1/64)↗
moe experts 128 routed + 1 shared, 8 routed active↗
··
moe experts 512 routed + 1 shared, 8 active↗
·
Routing
moe routing Softmax top-k, dropless; load-balance loss 0.015 and router z-loss 1e-4↗
dense layers 0: every layer is MoE↗
·············
moe routing DeepSeek-V3-style aux-loss-free bias balancing with zero-centred bias updates (rate 1e-3, then 1e-4), sigmoid scoring, gate scaling 2.5, dropless, group routing↗
dense layers First 4 layers dense (1 for mini and flash)↗
······
moe routing Aux-loss-free with expert bias, FP32 sigmoid router, 8 groups with top-4 group selection, routed output scaled 2.5; bias rate 1e-3 then 1e-4 in mid-training↗
dense layers First 4 blocks dense (FFN 18,432)↗
·
moe routing Aux-loss-free (noaux_tc) sigmoid routing with expert bias, 8 groups / top-4 groups, scale 2.5, FP32 router (config)↗
dense layers 2↗
···
moe routing Aux-loss-free (noaux_tc) sigmoid routing with expert bias, 8 groups / top-4 groups, scale 2.5, FP32 router (config)↗
dense layers 4↗
·
Multi-token prediction··············
1 MTP layer (depth 1) at every scale, loss weight 0.1; fine-grained PP partitioning of the MTP block↗
······changed
MTP loss weight 0.1 in pre-training; two extra MTP layers continued-trained in post-training for speculative decoding↗
·
Trained with MTP (1 next-n layer in config); used for speculative decoding↗
···
1 MTP (NEXTN) layer in config; used for speculative decoding↗
·
Positions · norm · residual
position encoding RoPE; base θ raised from 10K to 600K for the 16K long-context stage↗
normalization NormHead: L2-normalised LM-head weights to stabilise the output norm (RMSNorm elsewhere per config)↗
·············
position encoding Partial RoPE on the first 64 head dims (θ 600K per config)↗
normalization Pre-norm RMSNorm, SwiGLU, QKNorm↗
······
position encoding Partial RoPE (rotary dim 64), θ = 6,000,000; max 262,144 tokens↗
····
position encoding VideoRoPE encoding spatial position and temporal order↗
··
Vocab · tokenizer
vocab size 126,464↗
·············
vocab size 156K BBPE (config 157,184), extended from Ling 1.5's 128K with multilingual tokens↗
······
vocab size 157,184↗
·
vocab size 157,184↗
···
vocab size 157,184↗
·
Multimodal design··························changed
ViT encoder (arbitrary resolution) + two-layer MLP projector into the Ling-3.0-flash 42-layer KDA/gated-MLA backbone; VideoRoPE for space and time↗
··

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Ring-lite-linear-previewSoftmax attention of Ling-lite-0220 converted to hybrid linear attention ↗Why: Near-linear compute and near-constant memory for long reasoning
  2. Ling-mini-2.0MoE goes from 64 experts (6 active, 2 shared) to 256 experts with 8 active + 1 shared (1/32 activation) ↗Why: Ling Scaling Laws: higher sparsity raises efficiency leverage; 8 active and 1 shared found optimal
  3. Ling-mini-2.0Aux-loss-free balancing with sigmoid scoring and gate scaling replaces Ling 1.x load-balance + z-loss ↗Why: Encourage expert specialisation and balance; gate scaling stabilises gate RMS
  4. Ling-mini-2.0Added one MTP layer (loss weight 0.1) ↗Why: Consistently improved code and math across scales
  5. Ling-mini-2.0Vocabulary expanded from 128K (Ling 1.5) to 156K BBPE ↗Why: Targeted multilingual tokens
  6. Ring-linear-2.0Hybrid Lightning linear attention + GQA (ratios 1:7 flash, 1:4 mini) retrofitted onto Ling 2.0 bases ↗Why: Cut long-context I/O and compute; hybrid matched or beat softmax in scaling-law fits
  7. Ring-mini-sparse-2.0-expFull softmax attention replaced by MoBA block-sparse attention with GQA-shared block selection ↗Why: Reduce KV-cache retrieval by 87.5% at 64K and speed decoding up to 3x
  8. Ling-2.5-1TLing 2.0 GQA upgraded by incremental training to 1:7 MLA + Lightning linear attention ↗Why: Throughput for long-horizon reasoning and KV-cache compression
  9. Ling-2.5-1TActive parameters rise from 51B to 63B after the attention change ↗
  10. Ling-2.6-1TTwo extra MTP layers continued-trained in post-training for multi-step speculative decoding ↗Why: A single next-token MTP layer loses acceptance length when drafting several tokens
  11. Ling-3.0-flashNative hybrid KDA + gated MLA (5:1) trained from scratch replaces the retrofitted Lightning + MLA (7:1) design ↗Why: Better use of capacity and compute; KDA improves memory update and retention in long sequences
  12. Ling-3.0-flashSparsity raised from 1/32 (256 experts) to 1/64 (512 routed experts, 8 active + 1 shared) ↗Why: Lower expert activation ratio
  13. Ling-3.0-flash-VLFirst native multimodal Ling: ViT + MLP projector and VideoRoPE on the Ling-3.0-flash backbone ↗Why: Bring vision into understanding, reasoning, acting and verification
  14. Ling-3.1-flashScaled to 560B total / 25B active with a 7:1 KDA:MLA ratio and 1M context (Ling-3.0-flash: 124B / 5.1B, 5:1) ↗Why: Long-horizon real-world tasks
Nemotron23 releases
ArchitectureLlama-NemotronMar 18, 2025Nemotron-HMar 21, 2025OpenCodeReasoning-NemotronApr 2, 2025OpenMath-NemotronApr 23, 2025LN-Nano-4B-v1.1May 20, 2025AceReason-NemotronMay 22, 2025LN-Nano-VLJun 3, 2025Nemotron-H-ReasoningJun 6, 2025LN-Super-v1.5Jul 25, 2025Nano-2Aug 18, 2025Nano-2-VLOct 28, 2025Nemotron-3-NanoDec 15, 2025Nemotron-CascadeDec 15, 2025Nemotron-TerminalFeb 24, 2026Nemotron-3-SuperMar 11, 2026Nemotron-3-Nano-4BMar 17, 2026Cascade-2Mar 19, 2026Nemotron-3-Nano-OmniApr 28, 2026Nemotron-3-UltraJun 4, 2026Nemotron-3.5-LightningAug 11, 2026Labs-Competitive-CodingSep 2, 2026Bolt-74BOct 15, 2026Nemotron-3.5-SuperOct 15, 2026
Total params
253B (LN-Ultra); 49B (LN-Super); 8B (LN-Nano)↗
56B and 8B pre-trained from scratch; 47B compressed from 56B↗
·······
12.31B (Nemotron-Nano-12B-v2-Base); released reasoning model pruned to 9B (8.89B per report Table 10)↗
12.6B↗
31.6B total (card rounds to 30B)↗
··
120.6B total (card rounds to 120B; the Puzzle paper's count, incl. embeddings, LM head and norms, is 0.1B higher)↗
3.97B (compressed from Nemotron Nano 9B v2)↗
·
31B total, ~3B active (Nemotron 3 Nano 30B-A3B LLM plus encoders)↗
changed
550B↗
30B↗
·
74B total (compressed from the 120B-A12B Super VL parent)↗
120B↗
Active params
253B for LN-Ultra (dense: all parameters active; likewise Super 49B, Nano 8B)↗
········
12.31B, = total (dense hybrid, no MoE) calc↗
·changed
3.2B active (3.6B incl. embeddings); card states 3.5B↗
··
12.7B active (12.1B excluding embeddings); card rounds to 12B↗
···
55B per token↗
3B (≈10% of 30B)↗
·
9B active (parent 12B)↗
12B (10% of 120B)↗
Layers · width
layers LN-Ultra config: hidden 16384, 128 heads, 162 block slots; counting block_configs, 81 are empty no-ops, 64 are GQA (n_heads_in_group 16, i.e. 8 KV heads) + FFN, 17 are FFN-only calc↗
layers 56B: 118 layers (10 attention, 54 Mamba-2, 54 FFN); 8B: 52 layers (4 attention, rest split evenly: 24 Mamba-2, 24 FFN)↗
hidden dim 8192 (56B) / 4096 (8B); FFN 32768 / 21504; Mamba-2 state dim 256 / 128, head dim 64, 8 groups↗
·······
layers 62 (6 self-attention, 28 FFN, 28 Mamba-2); the 9B keeps 56 layers with 4 attention↗
hidden dim 5120, FFN 20480 (9B: 4480 / 15680); Mamba-2 8 groups, state dim 128↗
·
layers 52 layers: 23 Mamba-2, 23 MoE, 6 GQA attention (config pattern places attention at layers 6, 13, 20, 27, 34, 43)↗
hidden dim 2688↗
··
layers 88 layers, periodic Mamba-2/MoE interleave with a few attention layers (config pattern: 40 Mamba-2, 40 LatentMoE, 8 attention)↗
hidden dim 4096 (MoE latent size 1024; routed expert hidden dim 2688)↗
···
layers 108 (config.json: 48 Mamba-2, 48 LatentMoE, 12 attention) plus 2 shared-weight MTP layers↗
hidden dim 8192↗
layers 52 blocks: 23 Mamba-2, 23 MoE, 6 attention (counted from layers_block_type); MTP layer = attention + MoE calc↗
hidden dim 2688 (expert FFN 1856, shared expert 3712)↗
·
layers 40 Mamba-2 / 40 MoE / 8 attention layers, hidden width 4096, latent MoE width 1024 (all kept from the parent)↗
layers 88 blocks: 40 Mamba-2, 40 MoE, 8 attention (counted from layers_block_type); 1 shared MTP layer (attention + MoE) calc↗
hidden dim 4096 (expert FFN 2688, shared expert 5376)↗
Attention
attention type Llama 3 GQA, but Puzzle NAS removes attention entirely from some blocks (heterogeneous, non-repeating layers)↗
changed
attention type Hybrid Mamba-2/Transformer: ~8% self-attention layers (GQA, 8 KV heads; 64 Q heads 56B, 32 Q heads 8B) evenly dispersed; rest alternating Mamba-2 and FFN↗
attention detail GQA with 8 KV heads; 8 Mamba-2 groups; squared-ReLU FFN; first layer Mamba-2, last layer FFN, attention always followed by FFN↗
·······
attention type Hybrid Mamba-2/FFN with ~8% GQA self-attention layers (40 Q / 8 KV heads), evenly dispersed↗
·
attention type Hybrid: mostly Mamba-2 layers with 6 GQA attention layers (of 52); FFNs are MoE↗
attention detail GQA: 32 query heads, 2 KV heads, head dim 128; Mamba-2: state dim 128, 8 groups, 64 heads of dim 64↗
··
attention type Hybrid: mostly Mamba-2 layers plus 8 GQA attention layers (32 query heads, 2 KV heads, head dim 128)↗
attention detail Attention layers act as sparse global anchors; Mamba-2 blocks use state dim 128, 8 groups, 128 heads of dim 64↗
···
attention type Hybrid: Mamba-2 does most token mixing, plus 12 GQA attention layers (64 Q / 2 KV heads, head dim 128)↗
attention type Hybrid: interleaved Mamba-2 and MoE layers with a few attention layers (config: 6 of 52, GQA 32 query / 2 KV heads)↗
··
attention type Hybrid: interleaved Mamba-2, MoE and a few attention layers (config: 8 of 88, GQA 32 query / 2 KV heads)↗
Experts···········changed
moe experts 128 routed fine-grained experts per MoE layer, expert dim 1856, squared-ReLU↗
moe active experts 6 of 128 routed experts per token↗
moe shared experts 2 per report Table 1; card and config list 1 shared expert of width 3712 (= 2 × 1856)↗
··changed
moe experts 512 routed experts per LatentMoE layer (expert hidden dim 2688, computed in the 1024-dim latent space)↗
moe active experts Top-22 routed experts per token↗
moe shared experts 1 shared expert per MoE layer (intermediate size 5376; config n_shared_experts = 1), computed in the full hidden dimension↗
···
moe experts LatentMoE: 512 routed experts per layer (hidden 5120) + 1 shared expert (10240); tokens projected to a 2048-d latent for routing and expert compute↗
moe active experts Top-22 of 512 routed experts, plus the shared expert↗
moe experts 128 routed experts + 1 shared expert per MoE layer (plain MoE; latent size null)↗
moe active experts 6 routed (+1 shared) per token↗
·changed
moe experts Routed experts per layer in {240,304,368,432,496} (parent 512); MoE width in {1536,2048,2304,2560} (parent 2688); top-9 (parent 22); shared width 5376↗
moe experts LatentMoE: 512 routed experts + 1 shared per MoE layer, latent size 1024↗
moe active experts 22 routed (+1 shared) per token↗
Routing···········
moe routing Learnt MLP router with sigmoid gating; DeepSeek aux-loss-free balancing (bias update rate 1e-3) plus standard balancing loss, coef 1e-4↗
··
moe routing Sigmoid router with expert bias; aux-loss-free load balancing (update rate 1e-3) plus a standard load-balancing loss (coef 1e-4)↗
········
Multi-token prediction···········
None in Nano; MTP layers only in Nemotron 3 Super and Ultra↗
··changed
2 MTP layers with shared weights (one head reusable recursively for drafting); MTP loss scale 0.3; SPEED-Bench mean acceptance length 3.45 at draft length 7↗
···
2 MTP heads sharing weights (each 1 attention + 1 MoE layer); MTP loss scale 0.1 (0.05 per head); kept in SFT, used for speculative decoding↗
changed
One MTP layer pruned from Nemotron 3 Super Base's head (latent MoE fused; hidden 4096→2688, experts 512→128); 100B-token warm-up, backbone frozen↗
··changed
Single recursively shared MTP head (from the first of Nemotron 3 Super Base's two heads); 100B-token warm-up with frozen backbone and hidden-state mixing↗
Positions · norm · residual·
position encoding None (no position embeddings)↗
normalization RMSNorm; untied embedding/output weights; no dropout, no bias; residual skip around every Mamba-2, attention and FFN layer↗
·······
position encoding None; RMSNorm, squared-ReLU FFN, no bias, no dropout, untied embeddings (as Nemotron-H)↗
·
position encoding No positional embeddings (no RoPE); Mamba layers supply implicit position↗
normalization RMSNorm; untied embedding and output projection; no dropout or linear-layer bias↗
··
position encoding None (no positional embeddings); no dropout, no bias in linear layers↗
normalization RMSNorm; untied input embedding and output weights↗
········
Vocab · tokenizer·
vocab size 131,072↗
·······
vocab size 131,072↗
·
vocab size 131,072↗
··
vocab size 131,072↗
···
vocab size 131,072↗
vocab size 131,072↗
··
vocab size 131,072↗
Multimodal design······changed
C-RADIOv2-H vision encoder + Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct LLM; up to 12 tiles of 512x512 per image; single-image inference↗
···changed
c-RADIOv2-VLM-H encoder + MLP projector + Nemotron-Nano-12B-V2 LLM; 512x512 tiles, patch 16 -> 1024 tokens, pixel shuffle 2x -> 256 per tile; up to 12 tiles + thumbnail; 1 tile per video frame↗
······changed
Encoder-projector-decoder: C-RADIOv4-H vision and Parakeet-TDT-0.6B-v2 audio encoders, MLP projectors into the Nemotron 3 Nano LLM; audio/video tokens interleaved in time↗
·
None: text-only model (Super is the VLM)↗
·
Parent's C-RADIO v4-H vision encoder re-attached via an MLP projector; only the text tower was compressed↗
changed
C-RADIO vision encoder + vision-language connector on the hybrid LM; LM base is text-only, vision learned in SFT; text, image, video in↗
Other architecture··············
arch latentmoe LatentMoE: routed experts and all-to-all run in a 1024-dim latent space (hidden 4096); savings spent on more experts (512) and higher top-K (22); gate and shared expert stay full-width↗
········

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Llama-NemotronFFN Fusion added on top of Puzzle NAS for LN-Ultra: consecutive FFNs fused into fewer, wider parallel layers ↗Why: Reduce sequential depth and improve inference latency, especially on multi-GPU
  2. Nemotron-HMost self-attention layers replaced by Mamba-2 (about 8% attention left), a hybrid instead of the pure Transformer of earlier Nemotrons ↗Why: Mamba-2 layers need constant compute and memory per generated token, which matters for inference-time scaling
  3. LN-Nano-4B-v1.14B model from the Minitron-pruned Llama 3.1 base, versus 8B Llama 3.1 for the previous Nano 8B v1 ↗Why: Compact enough for edge deployment on Jetson and RTX GPUs
  4. LN-Nano-VLFirst Nemotron VLM: C-RADIO v2 vision encoder added to Llama-3.1 8B, customized with NeMo Retriever Parse document data ↗Why: Document understanding and OCR
  5. Nemotron-H-ReasoningReasoning models built on hybrid Mamba-Transformer bases instead of Llama-based Transformers (Llama-Nemotron) ↗Why: Long reasoning outputs make throughput the bottleneck; ~4x throughput of Llama-Nemotron Super 49B V1.0
  6. Nano-2-VLLLM backbone changed to the hybrid Mamba-Transformer Nemotron Nano V2 (previous: Llama-3.1-Nemotron-Nano-VL-8B) ↗Why: 35% higher throughput on long multi-page documents
  7. Nano-2-VLEfficient Video Sampling added to prune temporally redundant video tokens ↗Why: 2x or more video throughput with minimal accuracy impact
  8. Nemotron-3-NanoDense FFN layers of Nemotron-H / Nemotron 2 Nano replaced with sparse fine-grained MoE (128 routed experts, 6 active, plus shared expert) ↗Why: Better accuracy at a fraction of the active parameter count
  9. Nemotron-3-NanoActivates less than half the parameters per forward pass of Nemotron 2 Nano (3.2B of 31.6B) while scoring higher ↗
  10. Nemotron-3-SuperStandard MoE layers replaced by LatentMoE: experts run in a 1024-dim latent space, with 512 experts and top-22 routing ↗Why: Better accuracy per FLOP and per parameter at about the same inference cost
  11. Nemotron-3-SuperAdds two shared-weight MTP layers (Nano 3 has none) ↗Why: Native speculative decoding without a draft model, plus better quality
  12. Nemotron-3-Nano-OmniLLM backbone switched from the dense Nemotron Nano V2 12B hybrid (Nano V2 VL) to the Nemotron 3 Nano 30B-A3B MoE hybrid ↗Why: More efficient long multimodal sequences and higher inference throughput
  13. Nemotron-3-Nano-OmniNative audio input added through a Parakeet-TDT-0.6B-v2 encoder ↗
  14. Nemotron-3-Nano-OmniImage tiling replaced by dynamic-resolution processing ↗Why: Better preserves native aspect ratios
  15. Nemotron-3-Nano-OmniConv3D temporal compression fuses pairs of video frames, halving video tokens ↗
  16. Nemotron-3-UltraSame hybrid Mamba-Attention LatentMoE architecture as Super, scaled to 550B total / 55B active (108 layers, 512 experts, top-22) ↗
  17. Nemotron-3.5-LightningAdds an MTP head to Nemotron 3 Nano Base, pruned from Nemotron 3 Super Base's MTP head; otherwise Nano 3 settings ↗
  18. Bolt-74BRouted experts per MoE layer cut from 512 to 240-496 and MoE width from 2688 to 1536-2560, set per layer by the Star Elastic router ↗Why: Fit a <24GB deployment budget at 128K context while keeping the hidden size the parent's vision head needs
  19. Bolt-74BExperts selected per token reduced from 22 (Super VL parent) to 9 ↗
  20. Nemotron-3.5-SuperNemotron 3 Super Base's two non-shared MTP heads replaced by one recursively shared head, warmed up with hidden-state mixing ↗Why: Recursive drafting with one head; mixing reduces the train-inference conditioning mismatch at deeper draft steps
  21. Nemotron-3.5-SuperText-only Nemotron 3 Super becomes a vision-language model: C-RADIO encoder + connector, vision learned in SFT ↗
Mistral17 releases
ArchitectureSmall-3Jan 30, 2025Small-3.1Mar 17, 2025Devstral-Small-1.0May 21, 2025Magistral-Small-1.0Jun 10, 2025Small-3.2Jun 20, 2025Devstral-Small-1.1Jul 10, 2025VoxtralJul 15, 2025Magistral-Small-1.1Jul 24, 2025Magistral-Small-1.2Sep 17, 2025Large-3Dec 2, 2025Ministral-3Dec 2, 2025Devstral-2Dec 9, 2025Small-4Mar 16, 2026LeanstralMar 16, 2026Medium-3.5Apr 28, 2026Leanstral-1.5Jul 2, 2026Large-4Oct 6, 2026
Total params
24B (dense)↗
24B (Small 3 text decoder plus vision encoder)↗
24B dense↗
24B↗
·
24B; architecture unchanged from Devstral Small 1.0↗
Small 24.3B (audio encoder 640M + adapter 52M + text embeddings 670M + decoder 22.9B); Mini 4.7B↗
··
675B total (language model 673B + 2.5B vision encoder)↗
14B, 8B, 3B (dense)↗
Devstral 2: 123B dense; Devstral Small 2: 24B↗
119B↗
119B (blog also calls it 120B-A6B)↗
128B dense↗
119B total↗
changed
~1T (docs model card: 1.05T)↗
Active params
24B (dense: params.json has no MoE block, so all parameters are active) calc↗
········
41B active (39B in the language model)↗
Dense: all parameters active↗
123B (dense)↗
6B per token (8B incl. embedding and output layers); card and docs say 6.5B↗
6.5B per card (blog: 6B)↗
128B (dense)↗
6B (card: 6.5B)↗
52B↗
Layers · width
layers 40 layers (params.json); the blog stresses far fewer layers than competing models to cut time per forward pass↗
hidden dim 5120 (FFN 32768, head_dim 128)↗
·
layers 40 layers↗
······
layers 61 layers↗
hidden dim 7168 (dense FFN 16384; expert FFN 4096)↗
layers 14B: 40, 8B: 34, 3B: 26 layers↗
hidden dim 14B: 5120 (FFN 16384); 8B: 4096 (FFN 14336); 3B: 3072 (FFN 9216)↗
layers 88 layers (123B)↗
hidden dim 12288 (FFN 28672)↗
layers 36 layers↗
hidden dim 4096 (expert FFN 2048)↗
·
layers 88 layers↗
hidden dim 12288 (FFN 28672)↗
··
Attention
attention type GQA: 32 query heads, 8 KV heads (head_dim 128); full attention, no sliding window↗
·
attention type GQA↗
······
attention type Latent (MLA-type) attention: 128 heads, q_lora_rank 1536, kv_lora_rank 512, 128 nope + 64 rope dims per query/key head, v_head 128↗
attention type GQA: 32 query heads, 8 KV heads↗
attention type GQA: 96 query heads, 8 KV heads↗
attention type Latent (MLA-type) attention: 32 heads, q_lora_rank 1024, kv_lora_rank 256, 64 nope + 64 rope dims, v_head 128↗
·
attention type GQA: 96 query heads, 8 KV heads (no latent attention, no MoE)↗
··
Experts·········changed
moe experts 128 routed experts (expert FFN 4096)↗
moe active experts 4 routed experts per token↗
moe shared experts 1↗
··changed
moe experts 128 experts↗
moe active experts 4 per token↗
moe shared experts 1↗
····
Routing·········
moe routing 'Granular' MoE: top-4 of 128 plus 1 shared expert, one expert group (no group-limited routing), routed_scale 1.0; gating function and load balancing not stated↗
dense layers First 3 layers dense↗
··
moe routing Top-4 of 128 routed experts plus 1 shared expert in every layer, one expert group (no group-limited routing), routed_scale 1.0; gating function and load balancing not stated↗
dense layers 0 (every layer is MoE)↗
····
Positions · norm · residual
position encoding RoPE, theta 1e8↗
normalization RMSNorm (eps 1e-5)↗
position encoding RoPE theta raised to 1e9 (Small 3: 1e8), max positions 131,072↗
·······
position encoding RoPE (theta 10,000 on 64 rope dims) with Llama-4-style attention scaling (beta 0.1) from 8,192 positions; YaRN for extension↗
position encoding RoPE; YaRN plus position-based softmax temperature scaling in attention for long context↗
normalization RMSNorm; SwiGLU activation↗
changed
position encoding RoPE theta 1e6 with YaRN factor 64 over 4,096 original positions (262,144 max)↗
position encoding RoPE (theta 10,000) with YaRN factor 128 over 8,192 and Llama-4 scaling (beta 0.1); params allow 1,048,576 positions, 256k supported↗
·
position encoding RoPE theta 1e6 with YaRN factor 64 over 4,096 original positions (262,144 max); no Llama-4 scaling↗
··
Vocab · tokenizer
vocab size 131,072 ('131k')↗
tokenizer Tekken↗
········
vocab size 131,072↗
vocab size 131K; the 3B ties input and output embeddings↗
vocab size 131,072↗
vocab size 131,072↗
·
vocab size 131,072↗
··
Multimodal design·changed
Pixtral-type vision encoder (24 layers, hidden 1024, patch 14, images up to 1540 px) with a patch-merge projector (2x2 spatial merge) into the Small 3 decoder↗
changed
Text-only: the Small 3.1 vision encoder was removed before fine-tuning↗
···
Whisper large-v3-based audio encoder over independent 30 s chunks (50 Hz) -> MLP adapter downsampling 4x to 12.5 Hz -> language decoder↗
·changed
Vision encoder added; reasoning extends to images↗
2.5B vision encoder (params.json: 48 layers, hidden 1664, patch 14, patch-merge projector) feeding the MoE language model↗
410M ViT copied from Mistral Small 3.1 Base and kept frozen; a new projection trained for each model↗
changed
Devstral 2 is text-only; Devstral Small 2 accepts image input↗
Native text + image input; params.json vision encoder 24 layers, hidden 1024 (same dims as Small 3.1's)↗
·changed
Vision encoder trained from scratch for variable image sizes and aspect ratios (params.json: 48 layers, hidden 1664)↗
·
Natively multimodal; 1.6B vision encoder↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Small-3.1Adds image understanding to the Small 3 text model via a Pixtral-type vision encoder ↗
  2. Devstral-Small-1.0Vision encoder removed: a text-only coding agent fine-tuned from Small 3.1 ↗Why: Devstral is a coding agent
  3. Magistral-Small-1.1Adds [THINK] and [/THINK] special tokens to delimit the reasoning chunk ↗Why: Easier parsing of the reasoning trace; no confusion when '[THINK]' appears as plain text
  4. Magistral-Small-1.2Adds a vision encoder (base moves to Small 3.2), so reasoning covers images ↗
  5. Large-3Return to mixture-of-experts: 675B-A41B granular MoE after the dense Large 2 ↗
  6. Devstral-2Devstral Small 2 adopts Ministral 3's architecture: Llama-4 rope scaling and Scalable-Softmax attention temperature ↗
  7. Devstral-2Devstral Small 2 adds image input (Devstral Small 1.x was text-only) ↗Why: Power multimodal agents
  8. Small-4Mistral Small moves from a 24B dense model to a 119B MoE with 128 experts, 4 active ↗Why: Efficient scaling and specialization; 40% lower latency and 3x throughput vs Small 3
  9. Medium-3.5Vision encoder trained from scratch ↗Why: Handle variable image sizes and aspect ratios
  10. Large-4~1T total / 52B active, Mistral's largest model (Large 3: 675B / 41B) ↗

1.2 Optimizer, precision and stability

The clearest trend in this section is Muon. Kimi showed in February 2025 that Muon scales (Moonlight), then added QK-Clip in K2 to stop attention logits from blowing up. Seven of the other 12 labs followed within 20 months, usually keeping AdamW for embeddings, norms and the output head; NVIDIA and Ant stayed with AdamW. Precision moved the same way: FP8 matrix multiplies became standard, MAI-Base-2 moved to MXFP8, and NVIDIA pretrained Nemotron 3 Super and Ultra mostly in 4-bit NVFP4. Optimizer, learning-rate and precision details are the facts labs most often leave out. Gemma and Mistral have never stated their optimizer.

DeepSeek17 releases
Training setupV3Dec 26, 2024R1Jan 20, 2025V3.1Aug 21, 2025V4Apr 24, 2026V4.1-FlashSep 10, 2026
Optimizer
optimizer AdamW↗
optimizer detail beta1=0.9, beta2=0.95, weight decay 0.1; AdamW first/second moments stored in BF16, master weights and gradients in FP32↗
not disclosed·changed
optimizer Muon (with hybrid Newton-Schulz) for most modules; AdamW for embedding, prediction head, mHC static biases/gating factors and RMSNorm weights↗
optimizer detail AdamW beta1 0.9, beta2 0.95, eps 1e-20, wd 0.1; Muon momentum 0.95, wd 0.1, update RMS rescaled to 0.18 to reuse AdamW LR; Nesterov trick↗
optimizer detail Hybrid Newton-Schulz: 10 iterations, 8 with (3.4445, -4.7750, 2.0315) then 2 with (2, -1.5, 0.5)↗
optimizer detail Muon gradients for MoE synchronized in BF16 with stochastic rounding (all-to-all then FP32 local sum); hybrid ZeRO bucket assignment for Muon↗
changed
optimizer Muon for linear weight matrices (head-wise Muon for Query and Key), AdamW for RMSNorm weights and other non-matrix params, Sinkhorn-balanced momentum update for embeddin…↗
optimizer detail AdamW beta1 0.9, beta2 0.95, eps 1e-20, wd 0.1; Muon (Nesterov) momentum 0.95, wd 0.1, update RMS rescaled to 0.18; Sinkhorn update K=11, tau=1e-3, same momentum and 0.1…↗
optimizer detail Head-wise Muon (Query/Key weights split per head before the Muon update) outperforms vanilla Muon↗
optimizer detail Sinkhorn-balanced momentum update replaces Adam for Engram tables, token embedding and prediction head to save optimizer-state memory; needs only a momentum buffer and e…↗
LR · batch
peak lr 2.2e-4↗
lr schedule Linear warmup 0 -> 2.2e-4 over 2K steps; constant 2.2e-4 until 10T tokens; cosine decay to 2.2e-5 over 4.3T tokens; final 500B tokens: constant 2.2e-5 for 333B then cons…↗
batch size Ramped 3072 -> 15360 over first 469B tokens, then 15360 (sequences of 4K, unit not stated explicitly)↗
··
lr schedule Linear warmup 2000 steps, constant for most of training, cosine decay near the end to 10% of peak↗
peak lr Flash: 2.7e-4 (end 2.7e-5)↗
peak lr Pro: 2.0e-4 (end 2.0e-5)↗
batch size Flash: batch-size ramp from small to 75.5M tokens, held for most of training↗
batch size Pro: batch-size ramp, maximum 94.4M tokens↗
lr schedule Linear warmup 2000 steps; constant 2.6e-4 to 28T tokens; cosine decay to 2.6e-5 over 28T-40T; constant 2.6e-5 from 40T to 45T↗
peak lr 2.6e-4↗
batch size 100.6M tokens, fixed throughout training↗
Precisionchanged
FP8 mixed precision (E4M3 for all GEMM inputs; fine-grained 1x128 tile activation / 128x128 block weight scaling; FP32 accumulation promotion every 128 elements); embedd…↗
not disclosed
UE8M0 FP8 scale data format on both weights and activations (for microscaling compatibility)↗
Not stated for pre-training; FP8 implied (QAT 'reuses the existing FP8 training framework', Base checkpoints ship as 'FP8 Mixed'). Post-training adds FP4 (MXFP4) QAT for… inferred↗
not disclosed
Stability
Gradient clipping norm 1.0; no irrecoverable loss spikes or rollbacks in the whole run; FP8 vs BF16 relative loss error below 0.25% in ablations; block-wise quantization…↗
··changed
Anticipatory Routing (routing indices from parameters delta-t steps old; auto-triggered with short rollback on loss spikes, ~20% overhead while active) and SwiGLU clampi…↗
No instability over 45T tokens; SwiGLU clamping at 10; small sequence-level balance loss kept to avoid extreme per-sequence imbalance↗
Compute · hardware
compute Pre-training 2,664K H800 GPU hours (180K GPU hours per trillion tokens; <2 months on 2048 H800); full training 2,788K GPU hours = $5.576M at $2/GPU-hour↗
hardware 2048 NVIDIA H800 GPUs (8/node, NVLink+NVSwitch intra-node, InfiniBand inter-node); HAI-LLM framework; 16-way PP (DualPipe), 64-way EP over 8 nodes, ZeRO-1 DP, no tensor…↗
compute 119K H800 GPU hours for context extension ($0.238M)↗
compute Post-training compute: R1-Zero 101K H800 GPU-hours, SFT data creation 5K, R1 41K; total 147K GPU-hours (~$294K at $2/GPU-h)↗
hardware 512 H800 (64x8) for RL: R1-Zero ~198 h, R1 ~80 h (~4 days); A100s for preliminary 30B-scale experiments↗
·not disclosed·
Kimi11 releases
Training setupMoonlightFeb 24, 2025Kimi-VLApr 10, 2025K2Jul 11, 2025Kimi-LinearOct 30, 2025K2.5Jan 27, 2026K3Jul 16, 2026
Optimizerchanged
optimizer Muon (with weight decay and update-RMS matching) for matrix params; AdamW for non-matrix params (RMSNorm, LM head, embeddings)↗
optimizer detail Decoupled AdamW-style weight decay added to Muon: W <- W - lr*(O + lambda*W); weight decay 0.1 in all stages↗
optimizer detail Per-matrix update scaling: update = 0.2 * O * sqrt(max(A,B)) so Muon update RMS ~0.2 matches AdamW; Muon reuses AdamW-tuned LR and weight decay↗
optimizer detail Newton-Schulz orthogonalization: 5 iterations, quintic coefficients (a,b,c) = (3.4445, -4.7750, 2.0315); Nesterov-style momentum 0.95↗
optimizer detail Distributed Muon (ZeRO-1 style): DP-gather partitioned grads into full matrix, run Newton-Schulz (bf16) on full matrix, keep local shard; comm 1-1.25x of distributed Ada…↗
optimizer Enhanced Muon (weight decay + update-scale adjustment, distributed ZeRO-1) for all params incl. vision encoder and projector↗
changed
optimizer MuonClip (Muon + weight decay + Adam-RMS matching + QK-Clip)↗
optimizer detail Muon: momentum, Newton-Schulz orthogonalisation, update scaled by sqrt(max(n,m))*0.2 to match Adam RMS, decoupled weight decay 0.1↗
changed
optimizer MuonClip↗
optimizer MuonClip (inherited K2 base; RL stage also uses MuonClip)↗
changed
optimizer Per-Head Muon (matrix params) + the weight-clipping mechanism from Kimi K2↗
optimizer detail Newton-Schulz orthogonalization applied per attention head on Q/K/V momentum blocks; weight decay 0.1; distributed P2P-based Muon orthogonalization↗
LR · batchchanged
peak lr 4.2e-4 (2k-step linear warmup)↗
lr schedule Linear warmup (2k steps, 0-33B tokens) -> cosine decay 4.2e-4 to 4.2e-5 (33B-5.2T) -> cooldown: re-warm to 1e-4 in 100 steps, linear decay to 0 over 500B tokens (5.2T-5.…↗
batch size 2048 examples (8K) until 200B tokens, then 4096↗
·changed
lr schedule WSD: 500-step warm-up, constant 2e-4 for first 10T tokens, cosine decay 2e-4 -> 2e-5 over 5.5T tokens; then annealing 2e-5 -> 7e-6↗
peak lr 2e-4↗
batch size 67M tokens (constant through pre-training and annealing)↗
changed
lr schedule WSD (warmup-stable-decay)↗
peak lr 1.1e-3↗
batch size 32M tokens↗
·changed
lr schedule Cosine decay with 1% linear warmup; weight decay 0.1↗
Precision··
BF16 parameters with FP32 gradient accumulation; FP8 (E4M3, 1x128 tiles) used only to store insensitive activations, not for compute↗
·not disclosednot disclosed
Stability
stability No loss or grad-norm spikes over the run↗
stability Max attention logit rose above 100 in some layers early in training (AdamW controlled it better); ratio of logits >100 stayed ~1e-4 and max logit decreased later↗
stability Weight decay applied to RMSNorm gamma↗
·changed
stability QK-Clip: per-head, after each step rescale W_q/W_k when max attention logit S_max^h > tau=100; gamma=tau/S_max^h; MLA q_C,k_C scaled by sqrt(gamma), q_R by gamma, shared…↗
stability QK-Clip only transiently active: 12.7% of heads triggered it in the first 70k steps; after 70k steps all heads fell below 100 and it never fired again; zero loss spikes…↗
·
QK-Clip (part of MuonClip, inherited from K2)↗
changed
SiTU-GLU + RMSNorm in LatentMoE against activation explosion; Quantile Balancing; lower-bounded KDA decay; FP32 attention output; Per-Head Muon; K2 weight clipping; from…↗
Compute · hardware··
hardware NVIDIA H800 cluster; 8 GPUs/node, 2 TB RAM/node, NVLink/NVSwitch intra-node, 8x400 Gbps RoCE inter-node↗
·changed
hardware NVIDIA H800 clusters, 8x400 Gbps RoCE; 16-way PP (virtual stages) + 16-way EP + ZeRO-1 DP; node count any multiple of 32↗
not disclosed
GLM14 releases
Training setupGLM-4.5Jul 28, 2025GLM-5Feb 12, 2026
Optimizerchanged
optimizer Muon for all params except embeddings, biases, RMSNorm weights↗
optimizer detail Newton-Schulz steps 5, momentum 0.95, update RMS scaled to 0.2; weight decay 0.1, no dropout↗
changed
optimizer Muon (GLM-4.5 recipe) with 'Muon Split': per-head orthogonalization of MLA up-projections↗
LR · batchchanged
lr schedule Cosine decay (chosen over WSD: WSD underfit on SimpleQA/MMLU); warmup 0 -> 2.5e-4, decay to 2.5e-5 by end of mid-training↗
peak lr 2.5e-4↗
batch size Batch-size warmup 16M -> 64M tokens over first 500B tokens, then constant↗
lr schedule Cosine: warmup 0 -> 2e-4, decay to 4e-5 at end of pre-training; mid-training linear 4e-5 -> 1e-5; DSA warmup 5e-3 -> 2e-4; DSA sparse adaptation constant 1e-5↗
peak lr 2e-4↗
batch size Batch-size warmup as in GLM-4.5 (exact values not restated)↗
Precision
RL: BF16 training, FP8 rollouts via online block-wise FP8 quantization at each policy update↗
not disclosed
Stability
QK-Norm for attention-logit range↗
Muon Split keeps attention-logit scale stable without any clipping (no QK-clip)↗
Compute · hardwarenot disclosednot disclosed
MiMo8 releases
Training setupMiMo-7BApr 30, 2025V2-FlashDec 16, 2025V2.5Apr 22, 2026V2.5-ProApr 22, 2026V2.6Sep 22, 2026
Optimizer
optimizer AdamW (beta1 0.9, beta2 0.95, weight decay 0.1)↗
optimizer AdamW (beta1 0.9, beta2 0.95, weight decay 0.1)↗
not disclosednot disclosed
optimizer AdamW↗
LR · batch
peak lr 1.07e-4↗
lr schedule WSD-like: warmup 84B tokens; constant 1.07e-4 for 10.2T; cosine to 3e-5 over 7.5T (end of Stage 1); 3e-5 held through Stage 2 (4T) and first 1.5T of Stage 3; cosine to 1…↗
batch size warmup to 2,560 over first 168B tokens (Stages 1-2); 640 in Stage 3 (units not stated, presumably sequences)↗
peak lr 3.2e-4↗
lr schedule Stage 1: warmup 50B, constant 3.2e-4 for 12T, cosine to 1e-4 over 10T; Stage 2: cosine 1e-4 -> 3e-5 over 4T; Stage 3: cosine 3e-5 -> 1e-5↗
batch size warmup to 2,048 over first 500B tokens; 256 in Stage 3 (units not stated)↗
···
Precisionnot disclosedchanged
FP8 mixed precision (DeepSeek-V3-like); BF16 for attention output projection, embedding, output head; FP32 router↗
FP8 mixed precision↗
FP8 mixed precision↗
not disclosed
Stability
gradient clipping at max norm 1.0↗
grad clip 1.0; BF16 attention out-proj/embedding/head, FP32 router; first block dense↗
···
Compute · hardwarenot disclosednot disclosed··not disclosed
Gemma6 releases
Training setupGemma-3Mar 12, 2025Gemma-3nJun 26, 2025Gemma-4Apr 2, 2026Gemma-4-12BJun 3, 2026
Optimizernot disclosed·not disclosed·
LR · batchnot disclosed···
Precisionnot disclosed·not disclosed·
Stability
QK-norm replaces Gemma 2's logit soft-capping↗
···
Compute · hardware
hardware TPUv5e (1B, 4B), TPUv4 (12B), TPUv5p (27B); JAX + Pathways, GSPMD, MegaScale XLA↗
compute Chips per run: 1B 512, 4B 2048, 12B 6144, 27B 6144 (27B sharding data 24 / seq 8 / replica 32); FLOPs and hours not disclosed↗
hardware TPUv4p, TPUv5p, TPUv5e; JAX + ML Pathways↗
changed
hardware TPUv6e for E2B, E4B, 26B-A4B, 31B (TPUv4 for 12B); Slice-Granularity Elasticity for larger models↗
compute Chips: E2B 4,096; E4B 6,144; 26B-A4B 6,144; 31B 10,240 (TPUv6e); FLOPs and hours not disclosed↗
hardware TPUv4↗
compute 12,288 TPUv4 chips (data 16 / seq 16 / replica 48); FLOPs and hours not disclosed↗
Microsoft AI4 releases
Training setupMAI-1-previewAug 28, 2025MAI-Thinking-1Jun 2, 2026MAI-Base-2Oct 15, 2026
Optimizernot disclosed
optimizer AdamW↗
optimizer detail beta1 0.95, beta2 0.925, eps 1e-8; weight decay 0.1 (attention 0.01, embeddings 0.005); global grad-norm clip 1.0↗
changed
optimizer Muon for non-embedding 2D parameters; AdamW for the rest↗
optimizer detail Momentum (FP32, ZeRO-sharded) cast to BF16 and resharded by all-to-all so each GPU orthogonalizes whole matrices with a symmetry-aware Newton-Schulz kernel; router weigh…↗
LR · batch·
lr schedule Linear warmup ~12B tokens, cosine decay 2e-4 -> 2e-5 (final/peak 0.1x)↗
peak lr 2e-4↗
batch size 134M tokens (all phases)↗
not disclosed
Precisionnot disclosed
FP8 GEMMs (E4M3 forward, E5M2 data-gradient, tensor-wise delayed scaling, 1024-step amax history); BF16 default and for weight-gradient; FP32 for residual stream, logits…↗
changed
MXFP8 E4M3 (Base-1: tensor-wise delayed-scaling FP8 E4M3/E5M2)↗
Stability·
stability Attention output initialised to zero (output RMSNorm gains = 0) to avoid early collapsed representations and MoE routing imbalance↗
stability Dropout 0.15 on each layer's output before the residual add (regulariser alongside weight decay)↗
stability Early loss spikes recovered on their own; no skipped batches or manual interventions; spikes tied to expert imbalance on code data under dropless routing↗
changed
stability Activation-gradient clipping at selected points, on top of global weight-gradient clipping; EG grows with scale (+28% EG_FLOPs at L42)↗
stability Loss curve smooth over the whole run; gradient norm much tighter than Base-1 (credited to Muon + activation-gradient clipping)↗
Compute · hardware
hardware ~15,000 NVIDIA H100 GPUs (pre-training and post-training)↗
changed
compute 8,192 GB200 GPUs for pre-training (30T tokens); goodput 90.0%; total overhead 51 h; MFU ~20%↗
hardware GB200 NVL72 racks (64 GPUs per rack used), single cluster at one site (Phoenix, AZ); EP=64 inside NVLink domain, TP=1, DP across racks over InfiniBand; ZeRO-2↗
changed
compute 16k GB200 GPUs for 38 days (Aug-Sep 2026); average MFU 21%; goodput 89%↗
hardware NVIDIA GB200 (16k GPUs)↗
Thinking Machines2 releases
Training setupInklingJul 15, 2026Inkling-SmallJul 30, 2026
Optimizerchanged
optimizer Hybrid: Muon for large matrix weights, Adam for other parameters↗
optimizer detail Weight decay strength coupled to the square of the learning rate↗
not disclosed
LR · batchchanged
lr schedule Hyperparameter schedules 'inspired by' TML's modular-manifolds research; shape, warmup and peak LR not given↗
·
Precisionnot disclosednot disclosed
Compute · hardware
hardware NVIDIA GB300 NVL72↗
hardware NVIDIA GB300 NVL72↗
Qwen23 releases
Training setupQVQ-72B-PreviewDec 25, 2024Qwen2.5-VLJan 26, 2025Qwen2.5-1MJan 27, 2025QwQ-32BMar 6, 2025Qwen2.5-VL-32BMar 24, 2025Qwen2.5-OmniMar 27, 2025Qwen3Apr 29, 2025Qwen3-2507Jul 21, 2025Qwen3-CoderJul 22, 2025Qwen3-NextSep 11, 2025Qwen3-OmniSep 22, 2025Qwen3-VLSep 23, 2025Qwen3-Coder-NextFeb 3, 2026WebWorldFeb 16, 2026Qwen3.5Feb 16, 2026Qwen3.5-MediumFeb 24, 2026Qwen3.5-SmallMar 2, 2026Qwen3.6-35B-A3BApr 15, 2026Qwen3.6-27BApr 22, 2026Qwen-AgentWorldJun 22, 2026Qwen3.8Aug 12, 2026Qwen3.8-27BAug 14, 2026Qwen3.8-Flash-NextAug 26, 2026
Optimizer······not disclosed·not disclosednot disclosed····
optimizer AdamW (stated in the later Qwen3.8-Next architecture report, which uses the Qwen3.5 structure with AdamW as its stability baseline)↗
·····not disclosed·changed
optimizer Muon for 2-D linear maps (attention, GDN, expert FFNs, n-gram K/V); AdamW for embeddings, output head, router, GR low-rank and output gates; Adam without weight decay for n-gram tables↗
optimizer detail Nesterov momentum 0.95; update scaled 0.2·sqrt(max(A,B)); Polar Express Newton-Schulz with 8 steps; fused qkv / fc1 / GDN projections split before orthogonalization; Canzona sharding↗
LR · batch······
lr schedule Per-model LR schedule and batch size predicted by in-house scaling laws across the three stages; LR decay accelerated in S2; values not given↗
···············changed
peak lr Production value not stated; refitted scaling law moves LR up (test run: 156B-A7B, 419B tokens, predicted optimum 1.76e-3 at batch 8.4M)↗
lr schedule No batch-size warmup: training starts at the target batch (a ramp cost 18.8% more steps for no gain); an LR warmup is used, the decay schedule is not described↗
batch size Production value not stated; refitted law doubles the batch vs the Qwen3.5 recipe in tests (25.2M vs 12.6M tokens for a 10.8B-A0.89B model over 4T tokens)↗
Precision······not disclosed··not disclosed····changed
Native FP8 pipeline (activations, MoE routing, GEMMs) with BF16 kept in sensitive layers; ~50% activation-memory saving, >10% speedup↗
·····not disclosed·not disclosed
Stability······
QK-Norm introduced (QKV bias dropped) for stable training↗
··changed
Output gating (no attention sink or massive activations), zero-centered weight-decayed norms, router init normalization↗
············changed
No loss spikes or gradient-norm anomalies in the full run, without qk-clip or SwiGLU-clip; GR gate credited (stress and batch tests clip gradients at 0.5)↗
Compute · hardware······
compute Pre-training compute not given; per-trillion-token training cost of 235B-A22B said to be much lower than Qwen2.5-72B↗
··changed
compute <80% of Qwen3-30B-A3B's GPU hours; 9.3% of Qwen3-32B's compute; Base beats Qwen3-32B-Base↗
·
hardware Alibaba Cloud PAI-Lingjun; Megatron-LM with TP, PP, CP, EP and ZeRO-1 DP; up to 10,000 GPUs↗
··········
compute About 1/9 of Qwen3.7-Plus training FLOPs/cost↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Qwen3-NextOutput gating and router-parameter normalization at init added for stability ↗Why: Remove attention sinks and massive activations; unbiased early expert selection
  2. Qwen3-NextBase beats Qwen3-32B-Base with under 10% of its training GPU hours ↗
  3. Qwen3.5Native FP8 training pipeline (activations, MoE routing, GEMMs) with BF16 kept in sensitive layers ↗Why: ~50% less activation memory and >10% speedup
  4. Qwen3.8-Flash-NextMuon becomes the main optimizer (Qwen3.5 used AdamW); AdamW kept for embeddings, head, router and GR low-rank weights ↗Why: Better stability and convergence; enables larger LR and batch
  5. Qwen3.8-Flash-NextHyperparameter scaling law refitted: larger learning rate and batch than the Qwen3.5 recipe, and no batch-size warmup ↗Why: Throughput and convergence; warmup cost 18.8% more steps for no gain
  6. Qwen3.8-Flash-NextGated Residual gate gives a stability margin over the Qwen3.5 architecture; full run had no loss spikes without qk-clip ↗Why: Gate supplies rescaling that otherwise shows up as activation outliers
MiniMax10 releases
Training setupText-01Jan 15, 2025VL-01Jan 15, 2025SynLogicMay 26, 2025M1Jun 16, 2025M2Oct 27, 2025M2.1Dec 23, 2025M2.5Feb 12, 2026M2.7Mar 18, 2026M3Jun 1, 2026M3.1-FlashOct 19, 2026
Optimizer
optimizer AdamW (beta1 0.9, beta2 0.95, weight decay 0.1); Xavier initialization↗
··
optimizer AdamW (Text-01's optimizer); RL uses beta1 0.9, beta2 0.95, eps 1e-15 because gradients span 1e-18 to 1e-5↗
not disclosed···not disclosed·
LR · batch
peak lr 2e-4 after a 500-iteration linear warm-up↗
lr schedule Warm-up 500 iters; constant 2e-4 for 7.2T tokens; cut to 1.3e-4 for a further 3.2T after gradient-norm anomalies; fast decay over 1T tokens, exponential to 3e-5↗
batch size 16M tokens, doubled to 32M at 69B, 64M at 790B and 128M at 4.7T tokens (power-law fit of loss vs critical batch size)↗
·········
Precisionnot disclosed··changed
Overall precision not stated; LM output head raised to FP32 in RL to fix a train/inference probability mismatch (correlation ~0.9x -> 0.99x)↗
not disclosed···not disclosed·
Stability
Anomalous gradient norms late in the constant phase, attributed to too high a LR, so LR cut to 1.3e-4; global router to cut token drops; DeepNorm↗
·········
Compute · hardware
hardware Dynamically changing cluster of 1,500 to 2,500 H800 GPUs↗
···not disclosed·····

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. M1LM output head computed in FP32 during RL ↗Why: Train/inference kernel precision mismatch blocked reward growth
StepFun6 releases
Training setupORZFeb 18, 2025Step-3Jul 25, 2025PaCoRe-8BDec 9, 2025Step-3.5-FlashFeb 2, 2026Step-3.7-FlashMay 29, 2026Step-5-PreviewOct 15, 2026
Optimizer·not disclosed·
optimizer Muon throughout pre-training (weight decay 0.1, grad clip 1.0); also used for mid-training, SFT and RL↗
optimizer detail Polar Express orthogonalization with a fixed 6 steps; that iteration cast to float16 after rare bfloat16 outliers caused loss spikes; Muon ZeRO-1 resharding↗
·not disclosed
LR · batch···
peak lr 2.5e-4↗
lr schedule 2k-step warmup to 2.5e-4, cosine to 5e-5 over Stage 1 (14.6T); Stage 2: second cosine 5e-5 -> 2e-5 over 2T at 4K, constant 2e-5 for 1T at 32K↗
batch size Ramped 4,096 -> 16,384 sequences over the first 400B tokens (at 4K), then 16,384; 2k sequences in the 32K annealing portion↗
··
Precision·not disclosed·
Mixed precision (formats not itemized); only Muon's Polar Express iteration is forced to float16↗
·changed
FP8 mixed precision, with FP32 hidden states/gradients and FP32 RMSNorm scales↗
Stability·
'Dead expert' failure mode: some routed experts' output weight norms vanished in training while tokens were still routed to them (not router collapse); cause open↗
·changed
A single transient loss spike in the whole run; fixes for Muon precision, expert collapse (monitor expert norms) and localized activation blow-up (activation clipping in experts)↗
·changed
Fine-grained gradient clamp on the largest gradient vectors (0.00004% of values per layer) against mid-training gradient spikes; FP32 hidden states and norm scales↗
Compute · hardware···
hardware 4,096 NVIDIA H800 GPUs (8 per node, 8x200 Gbps RoCE)↗
··

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Step-3.5-FlashAfter Step-3's 'dead experts', monitors per-expert activation and parameter norms and prefers global-batch or loss-free balancing over micro-batch LBL ↗Why: Router dispatch statistics did not reveal expert collapse
  2. Step-5-PreviewFP8 mixed-precision training with FP32 hidden states/gradients and FP32 RMSNorm scales ↗Why: In the deep stack, massive activations blew up in BF16 and BF16 norm scales near -1 oscillated
  3. Step-5-PreviewFine-grained gradient clamp on the top 0.00004% of gradient values per layer ↗Why: Gradient spikes arising in intermediate layers and amplified across layers slowed convergence
Ling29 releases
Training setupLing-plusMar 7, 2025Ling-Coder-liteMar 22, 2025Ring-lite-distill-previewMar 29, 2025Ring-lite-linear-previewApr 24, 2025Ling-lite-1.5May 10, 2025Ring-liteJun 17, 2025Ling-lite-1.5-2506Jul 23, 2025Ring-lite-2507Aug 5, 2025Ling-lite-1.5-2507Aug 8, 2025Ling-mini-2.0Sep 8, 2025Ring-mini-2.0Sep 8, 2025Ling-flash-2.0Sep 17, 2025Ring-flash-2.0Sep 19, 2025Ring-linear-2.0Sep 24, 2025Ling-1TOct 9, 2025Ring-1TOct 14, 2025Ring-mini-sparse-2.0-expOct 14, 2025Ring-flash-linear-2.0-128kOct 21, 2025Ring-2.5-1TFeb 10, 2026Ling-2.5-1TFeb 14, 2026Ling-2.6-flashApr 28, 2026Ling-2.6-1TApr 29, 2026Ring-2.6-1TMay 14, 2026Ling-3.0-flashAug 2, 2026Ling-3.0-tinyAug 10, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-FinSep 3, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-VLSep 4, 2026Ling-3.1-flashOct 13, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-SanteOct 19, 2026
Optimizer
optimizer AdamW↗
optimizer detail β1 0.9, β2 0.95, ε 1e-8, weight decay 0.1; gradient clipping 1.0↗
·············
optimizer AdamW↗
optimizer detail β1 0.9, β2 0.95, weight decay 0.1, grad clip 1.0; init std 0.006↗
optimizer AdamW (RL: β1 0.9, β2 0.999, weight decay 0.01, MoE router bias frozen); base pre-trained with AdamW↗
··not disclosednot disclosed·
optimizer AdamW, inferred from 'all other hyper-parameters remain consistent with Ling-2.0'; LR and batch re-derived from Ling scaling laws for the hybrid architecture inferred↗
optimizer AdamW for the shared base (inherited Ling-2.0 hyper-parameters); RL optimizer not stated inferred↗
not disclosed···not disclosed·
LR · batch
peak lr 2.4e-4↗
lr schedule WSD: 2K-step linear warm-up, constant, halved once ~60% of tokens are processed; final anneal by inverse-sqrt decay 1.2e-4 -> 1.2e-8↗
batch size Batch-size warm-up from 2,560 to 8,960 sequences of 4K tokens↗
········changed
peak lr 3.36e-4 (Ling-mini-2.0); 2.61e-4 (flash); 1.86e-4 (1T)↗
batch size 4,400 sequences (8,352 flash; 18,144 1T)↗
····
peak lr 1.86e-4 (set by Ling scaling laws)↗
lr schedule WSM (warmup-stable-merge): 2,000-step linear warm-up, constant LR to the end; 'annealing' by checkpoint merging, not LR decay↗
batch size 18,144 sequences peak; ramp from 3,024 over the first ~500B tokens↗
······
lr schedule WSM: linear warm-up to peak, constant to the end, annealing by checkpoint merging↗
·
lr schedule Warmup-Stable-Merge: weighted checkpoint merging instead of LR decay↗
lr schedule Same recipe as Ling-3.0-flash-base (WSM merging)↗
····
Precisionnot disclosed········changed
FP8 mixed precision throughout; >1T-token comparison shows loss curves matching BF16; FP8 recipe open-sourced↗
···
FP8 mixed precision with the in-house linghe fused-kernel library (+50% vs Megatron blockwise FP8)↗
FP8 end to end (blockwise: activations/grads [1,128], weights [128,128], E4M3 with FP32 scales); ≤0.25% loss gap vs BF16 over 900B tokens; +15% MFU↗
Base: FP8 (all Ling 2.0 models); RL precision not stated in the Ring-1T report inferred↗
··not disclosednot disclosed·
FP8 from pre-training through SFT with FP32 master weights; RL: routed experts blockwise FP8, attention and shared experts BF16, LM head FP32↗
FP8 base training through SFT; RL with ASystem integrated FP8 training/inference (module-aware: routed experts FP8, attention BF16, LM head FP32)↗
not disclosed···not disclosed·
Stability
Skip-loss-spike and sample-retry (skip the update, re-inject the data, cut LR if the spike persists); NormHead; router z-loss; routing warm-up↗
·············
QKNorm against FP8 outlier diffusion; FP8 Training Safeguard System tracking underflow and distortion per operation in real time↗
······
64-bit indexing for expert token counts in long-context MoE; phase-specific GPU memory policies; Triton-fused varlen correction kernel (~68% speed-up at 256K)↗
·······
Compute · hardware
compute ≈6.35M RMB per 1T tokens on high-end device D vs ≈5.08M RMB on lower-spec hardware (~20% saving)↗
hardware Five heterogeneous accelerator configurations (devices A-E, 120-989 peak TFLOPS, only D and E support FP8); DLRover, EDiT async training, XPUTimer profiler↗
·············
compute ≈6.3e24 FLOPs (6 x 51B active x 20.75T tokens incl. mid-training; computed). Card cites design for 1e25-1e26 FLOPs calc↗
hardware Optimisation baseline: modified Megatron 0.11 with FP8 and MTP on 2,016 Hopper GPUs (TP1, EP8, PP21, VPP2, 4K)↗
··············

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Ling-mini-2.0Full FP8 pre-training with blockwise scaling ↗Why: Lower cost; near-lossless vs BF16
  2. Ling-mini-2.0WSM scheduler: LR decay replaced by checkpoint merging ↗Why: No need to fix decay start or budget in advance; +1-2 points over WSD
Nemotron23 releases
Training setupLlama-NemotronMar 18, 2025Nemotron-HMar 21, 2025OpenCodeReasoning-NemotronApr 2, 2025OpenMath-NemotronApr 23, 2025LN-Nano-4B-v1.1May 20, 2025AceReason-NemotronMay 22, 2025LN-Nano-VLJun 3, 2025Nemotron-H-ReasoningJun 6, 2025LN-Super-v1.5Jul 25, 2025Nano-2Aug 18, 2025Nano-2-VLOct 28, 2025Nemotron-3-NanoDec 15, 2025Nemotron-CascadeDec 15, 2025Nemotron-TerminalFeb 24, 2026Nemotron-3-SuperMar 11, 2026Nemotron-3-Nano-4BMar 17, 2026Cascade-2Mar 19, 2026Nemotron-3-Nano-OmniApr 28, 2026Nemotron-3-UltraJun 4, 2026Nemotron-3.5-LightningAug 11, 2026Labs-Competitive-CodingSep 2, 2026Bolt-74BOct 15, 2026Nemotron-3.5-SuperOct 15, 2026
Optimizer
optimizer Adam (stated for SFT of all models); optimizer for KD/CPT not named; base pretraining was Meta's↗
optimizer Adam (β1 0.9, β2 0.95), weight decay 0.1; optimizer state distributed over data-parallel replicas↗
·······
optimizer Adam (β1 0.9, β2 0.95), weight decay 0.1; FP32 master weights and optimizer state↗
optimizer AdamW (β1 0.9, β2 0.999), cosine annealing with 10% linear warmup; Table 1: LR 2e-4 / 2e-5, batch 1024 / 128, WD 0.01 / 0.05 (stage split ambiguous in table)↗
optimizer AdamW, weight decay 0.1, β1 0.9, β2 0.95↗
··
optimizer AdamW (weight decay 0.1, beta1 0.9, beta2 0.95)↗
···
optimizer AdamW (inferred: Ultra keeps Nemotron 3 Super's training recipe and hyperparameters apart from listed LR/horizon/MTP changes; Super used AdamW, wd 0.1, β1 0.9, β2 0.95) inferred↗
optimizer AdamW (inferred: the 1T-token distillation keeps all other Nano 3 Base settings, and Nano 3 Base used AdamW, wd 0.1, β1 0.9, β2 0.95) inferred↗
··
optimizer AdamW (inferred: same distillation recipe as Lightning 3.5, which keeps Nano 3 Base's AdamW settings); SFT stated as Adam, β1 0.9, β2 0.95, wd 0.1 (p.16) inferred↗
LR · batch·
peak lr 4e-4 (56B, warmup 25B tokens); 8e-4 (8B, warmup 8.3B tokens)↗
lr schedule Warmup then cosine decay to 1% of peak↗
batch size 768 sequences x 8192 = 6,291,456 tokens; no batch-size ramp-up↗
·······
peak lr 4.5e-4 (stable LR); minimum 4.5e-6↗
lr schedule WSD: warmup (8B tokens per card), stable at 4.5e-4, decay to 4.5e-6 over the final 3.6T tokens↗
batch size 736 x 8192 = 6,029,312 tokens, no ramp-up (report text says 768, but its 6,029,312-token figure equals 736 x 8192)↗
·
peak lr 1e-3 peak (minimum 1e-5); warmup over 8.4B tokens (card says 8B)↗
lr schedule WSD: warmup 8.4B tokens, constant 1e-3 for 80% (20T tokens), decay to 1e-5 over the last 20% (5T tokens)↗
batch size 3072 sequences × 8192 tokens ≈ 25M tokens per batch↗
··
peak lr 4.5e-4 (decayed to 4.5e-6)↗
lr schedule WSD over 25T tokens: 200B-token warmup, stable plateau, minus-sqrt decay over the final 5T tokens to 4.5e-6↗
batch size 3,072 sequences x 8,192 tokens (about 25.17M tokens per batch)↗
···changed
peak lr 2.5e-4, reached after a 200B-token warmup↗
lr schedule WSD over a 20T-token horizon: 200B-token warmup, stable phase, minus-sqrt decay over the final 5T tokens to 2.5e-6↗
batch size Main-run batch not restated (Super's hyperparameters kept); LC phase trained 25,165,824 tokens per iteration↗
····
Precision
BF16 training with FP32 optimizer states and FP8 generation (stated for LN-Ultra RL); KD/CPT precision not stated↗
changed
FP8 for the 56B (first fully FP8-pretrained Nemotron): per-tensor current scaling, E4M3 weights/activations, E5M2 gradients; first 4 and last 4 layers in BF16↗
·······changed
FP8 whole run, DeepSeek recipe: E4M3 all tensors, 128x128 weight / 1x128 activation blocks; weights stored E4M3; first/last 4 linear layers BF16; FP32 master weights + optimizer state↗
FP8 in all stages (recipe similar to Nano 2); first/last LLM layers and vision-encoder transformer blocks in BF16↗
BF16 (stated in the Nemotron 3 Super report; the Nano report is silent); NVFP4 was only tested on Nano-sized ablations↗
··changed
NVFP4 weights/activations/gradients for most linear layers over all 25T tokens; BF16 for last 15% of network, latent proj., MTP, attention proj., embeddings; MXFP8 Mamba out-proj↗
···
NVFP4 (Super's recipe): E2M1, 2D block-quantized weights, RHT on wgrad inputs, stochastic rounding; last 16 layers and key projections in higher precision; <0.4% loss gap vs BF16 branches↗
NVFP4 per the card; the report gives no precision for the 1T-token distillation, and the Nano 3 Base it starts from was pretrained in BF16 (Super 3 report)↗
··
NVFP4 for the inherited Nemotron 3 Super Base (25T tokens); precision of the 3.5 distillation, CPT and mid-training not stated inferred↗
Stability·········
No training instabilities observed with this FP8 numerics↗
····
Zero-valued weight gradients reached 7% of parameters by end of pretraining, traced to NVFP4 underflow; MXFP8 switch at 19T improved loss but not downstream accuracy↗
···
Divergence at ~8T traced to BF16 local gradient accumulation for the shared output layer (MTP wgrad lost); fixed by rollback to FP32 gradient reduction↗
····
Compute · hardware·
hardware 6144 NVIDIA H100 GPUs for the 56B; Megatron-LM + Transformer Engine, TP8 with sequence parallelism, 768-way data parallelism↗
············
hardware GB200 GPUs named for the long-context phase (64-way context, 2-way tensor, 64-way expert parallelism); main-run hardware and GPU hours not stated↗
···
hardware NVIDIA GB200 (stated for the LC phase: CP32 × TP8 × EP128 × PP2, and for the RL cluster); GPU count not disclosed↗
····

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Nemotron-HFirst Nemotron model fully pre-trained in FP8 (per-tensor current scaling, first and last 4 GEMMs in BF16) ↗Why: FP8 matched or beat BF16 downstream accuracy at the same token horizon, making training cheaper
  2. Nano-2FP8 switched to DeepSeek's block-wise E4M3 recipe for the whole run; weights kept in E4M3 so parameter all-gathers run in FP8 ↗Why: Lets the distributed optimizer's all-gather operate in FP8
  3. Nemotron-3-SuperPretrained in NVFP4 for the full 25T tokens; Nano 3 was trained in BF16 ↗Why: Compute efficiency; shows stable, accurate low-precision pretraining at scale
  4. Nemotron-3-UltraSuper's recipe with adjustments: WSD over 20T tokens, 200B-token warmup to 2.5e-4, minus-sqrt decay over the final 5T to 2.5e-6; MTP loss scale 0.1 ↗
Mistral17 releases
Training setupSmall-3Jan 30, 2025Small-3.1Mar 17, 2025Devstral-Small-1.0May 21, 2025Magistral-Small-1.0Jun 10, 2025Small-3.2Jun 20, 2025Devstral-Small-1.1Jul 10, 2025VoxtralJul 15, 2025Magistral-Small-1.1Jul 24, 2025Magistral-Small-1.2Sep 17, 2025Large-3Dec 2, 2025Ministral-3Dec 2, 2025Devstral-2Dec 9, 2025Small-4Mar 16, 2026LeanstralMar 16, 2026Medium-3.5Apr 28, 2026Leanstral-1.5Jul 2, 2026Large-4Oct 6, 2026
Optimizernot disclosed········not disclosed··not disclosed·not disclosed·not disclosed
Precisionnot disclosed········not disclosed··not disclosed·not disclosed·not disclosed
Compute · hardwarenot disclosed········
hardware 3000 NVIDIA H200 GPUs (Hopper)↗
hardware NVIDIA Hopper GPUs (count not given)↗
·····changed
hardware 3,800 NVIDIA Grace Blackwell GPUs in Mistral's own European datacenters; trained from scratch↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Large-4Trained from scratch on 3,800 NVIDIA Grace Blackwell GPUs in Mistral's own European datacenters (Large 3: 3000 H200s) ↗Why: Sovereignty: training and serving on infrastructure Mistral operates under European law

1.3 Data

Token counts are the easiest data fact to compare and the most often disclosed. Data mixes are described in prose, rarely in numbers. The common moves are rephrasing (synthetic rewrites of knowledge and math text, from Kimi K2 onward), filtering with quality classifiers, more code and reasoning data late in training, and, from 2026, large shares of image, audio and video tokens. Gemma is the only lab here that pretrains its main models from scratch by distillation from a larger teacher; NVIDIA's Nemotron 3.5 models instead continue an existing base on 1T tokens of a larger base's logits.

2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct0102030405060Pretraining tokens (trillions)V3V4V4.1-FlashK2K2.5GLM-4-0414GLM-4.5GLM-5GLM-5.3-FlashV2-FlashV2.5-ProV2.5V2.6Gemma-3MAI-Thinking-1MAI-Base-2InklingQwen3Qwen3-NextText-01M2Step-3Step-3.5-FlashLing-plusLing-1TNemotron-3-NanoNemotron-3-SuperNemotron-3-Ultra
DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaMicrosoft AIThinking MachinesQwenMiniMaxStepFunLingNemotronMistral
Pretraining tokens as stated, using the largest model where a release has several sizes (MiMo V2.6: Pro, 30T; V2.6-Flash used 48T). These are the labs' own totals, so some include stages my split counts as midtraining (DeepSeek V4.1-Flash's last 17T, MiMo V2.6's omni stage). Hollow dots are non-flagship releases. Kimi K3, Gemma 4, GLM-5.1 to GLM-5.3, Qwen3.5 and 3.8, MiniMax M3, Step 5 and Mistral's models do not state token counts (GLM-5.3-Flash states 30T). Ling 3.0's 30T is read from its released checkpoint name.
DeepSeek17 releases
DataV3Dec 26, 2024R1Jan 20, 2025V3.2-ExpSep 29, 2025V3.2Dec 1, 2025V4Apr 24, 2026V4.1-FlashSep 10, 2026
Pretrain tokenschanged
14.8T tokens↗
14.8T (DeepSeek-V3-Base, inherited)↗
·not disclosedchanged
pretrain tokens Flash: 32T↗
pretrain tokens Pro: 33T↗
changed
45T tokens (multimodal corpus)↗
Mixchanged
Higher ratio of math and programming than V2; multilingual coverage expanded beyond English and Chinese (which remain the majority); exact shares not disclosed↗
·
Same distribution as V3.1-Terminus's 128K long-context extension data (both stages)↗
Aligned with V3.1-Terminus's 128K long-context extension data↗
changed
Math, code, web pages, long documents and other high-quality categories (>32T tokens); shares not given↗
changed
Union of text-only and multimodal corpora at a 7:1 text-only:multimodal token ratio (text-only duplicates replaced by multimodal versions); more recent code from new rep…↗
Synthetic data
DeepSeek-V3-Base pretraining used plain web pages and e-books, no intentional synthetic data (crawled pages contain some OpenAI-model-generated answers); also mentions a…↗
····changed
No large-scale synthesis for multimodal data (raw web data cleaned and used natively); text side explores model-in-the-loop data iteration as groundwork for future synth…↗
Filtering
Processing pipeline refined to minimize redundancy while keeping diversity; document packing without cross-sample attention masking↗
···changed
Web data filtered to remove batched auto-generated and templated content (to avoid model collapse); otherwise V3 pre-processing↗
changed
Removes model-generated content with limited information gain (outputs of weaker models, low-quality machine translation) as 'implicit duplication'; scaling ladder over…↗
Decontamination
10-gram match filtering against eval questions and solutions; ~6M math pretraining texts removed↗
Post-training math SFT data and RL prompts only from pre-2023 competitions, plus the same 10-gram filtering as pretraining↗
··not disclosed·
Multilingual
Expanded beyond English and Chinese; English and Chinese are the majority↗
···
Larger multilingual corpus than V3 for long-tail cultural knowledge↗
·
Knowledge cutoff
July 2024 (DeepSeek-V3 base)↗
···not disclosed·
Multimodal data·····changed
multimodal data Image-text pairs (alt text, relevance threshold, semantic dedup), interleaved image-text from webpages and PDFs (SmolVLM quality scoring), domain sets for grounding/poin…↗
multimodal data Computer-use trajectories and image-code pairs included in pretraining for multimodal agentic understanding↗
Pretrain context
4K↗
···
Starts at 4K, then extended to 16K, 64K and 1M within pre-training (both sizes)↗
64K (sparse attention trained from scratch at 64K, no dense-attention warmup)↗
Other data···
pre limitations Lab says fewer total training FLOPs leave world knowledge behind frontier closed models; plans to scale pretraining compute↗
pre sparse attention schedule Flash: dense attention for first 1T tokens; sparse attention introduced at 64K sequence length after a short lightning-indexer warmup and kept for the rest of training.…↗
pre infra Bitwise batch-invariant and deterministic kernels across pre-training, post-training and inference; TileLang kernels; MegaMoE fused EP kernel (1.50-1.73x general, up to…↗
pre infra mHC wall-time overhead 6.7% of an overlapped 1F1B pipeline stage↗
pre long documents Emphasis on long-document curation: scientific papers, technical reports, academic material↗
pre packing Documents from different sources packed to minimize truncation; sample-level attention masking (new vs V3); FIM and token-splitting kept↗
data packing Best-fit packing with padding rate <= 1e-4; ultra-long documents deterministically pre-split; sample-level attention masking↗
Kimi11 releases
DataMoonlightFeb 24, 2025Kimi-VLApr 10, 2025K2Jul 11, 2025Kimi-LinearOct 30, 2025K2.5Jan 27, 2026K3Jul 16, 2026
Pretrain tokens
5.7T total (5.2T main schedule + 0.5T cooldown)↗
·changed
15.5T tokens↗
changed
5.7T for the released model (1.4T for matched architecture comparisons)↗
15T text tokens (inherited Kimi K2 base); K2.5 then adds ~15T vision-text tokens of continued pretraining (see midtrain)↗
not disclosed
Mix
Five text domains: English, Chinese, Code, Mathematics & Reasoning, Knowledge; per-source validation and upsampling of high-value subsets↗
Joint pre-training starts text-only then raises multimodal share progressively, up to 40%; text sampled from the same distribution as the initial LM↗
changed
Four domains: Web Text, Code, Mathematics, Knowledge; shares not disclosed↗
changed
Sampled from the Kimi K2 pretraining corpus↗
Text: Web Text, Code, Mathematics, Knowledge (K2 pipelines), with code upweighted (repo-level code, issues/code reviews/commit histories, code docs from PDF/web); vision…↗
changed
Four text domains (Web Text, Code, Mathematics, Knowledge) + large-scale vision corpus; shares not given↗
Synthetic data··changed
synthetic data Knowledge rephrasing: style/perspective-diverse prompts (WRAP-inspired), chunk-wise autoregressive rewriting of long docs, fidelity verification; each corpus rephrased a…↗
synthetic data Rephrasing ablation (early K2 ckpt, SimpleQA): raw wiki 10 epochs 23.76; 1 rephrase x10 epochs 27.39; 10 rephrasings x1 epoch 28.94↗
synthetic data Math rephrasing: rewrite high-quality math documents into 'learning-note' style (SwallowMath method); translate non-English math material into English↗
·
Strict limits on synthetic captions; in-context-learning reformulation of raw STEM material into K-12..university problems↗
K2 rephrasing recipe for knowledge and math corpora (style/perspective-diverse prompts, chunk-wise generation, fidelity checks); scaled programmatic code+render multimod…↗
Filtering··
Pipelines follow Kimi K1.5; per-domain correctness and quality validation plus targeted data experiments; details not given↗
·
Filtering, deduplication, quality control; max epochs per data source controlled↗
Rule-based heuristics + classifier quality scoring + dedup; per-domain sampling rates from small-model ablations↗
Decontamination··not disclosed···
Multimodal data·
Six categories: caption, interleaving, OCR, knowledge, video, agent; synthetic caption share strictly limited to curb hallucination; agent trajectories from VM platform…↗
··
Seven categories: caption, interleaving, OCR, knowledge, perception, video, agent (GUI screenshots + action trajectories incl. human demos); plus STEM problem-solving co…↗
changed
Captions, interleaved image-text, OCR, perception, video, visual coding; coordinates in absolute and normalized [0,1] formats; scaled-up programmatic data pairing code w…↗
Pretrain context
8K↗
·changed
4,096 tokens↗
changed
4K↗
·
8K, extended to 64K later in pre-training↗
GLM14 releases
DataGLM-4-0414Apr 14, 2025GLM-4.5Jul 28, 2025GLM-4.5VAug 11, 2025GLM-4.6VDec 8, 2025GLM-5Feb 12, 2026GLM-5.3-FlashAug 26, 2026
Pretrain tokens
15T↗
22T pre-training (15T general + 7T code & reasoning); 23T including mid-training↗
··changed
27T pre-training; 28.5T total for the base incl. mid-training↗
changed
30T-token multimodal corpus↗
Mix·changed
Web (mostly EN/ZH), social media, books, papers, code repos; stage 1 mainly general web, stage 2 up-samples GitHub code and coding/math/science web pages↗
····
Synthetic data
Substantial reasoning-type synthetic data in pre-training↗
···
Math & science pre-training data filtered to avoid synthetic / AI-generated / template data↗
·
Filtering·
Nemotron-CC-style quality buckets (top bucket >3.2 epochs, lowest discarded); MinHash + SemDedup for templated pages; 3-tier code quality models; LLM-scored math/science…↗
Heuristic filters, CLIP-score >0.3, MetaCLIP-style concept-balanced resampling, factual recaptioning model; 'high-knowledge-density' image classifier for interleaved web…↗
·
GLM-4.5 pipeline + DCLM sentence-embedding classifier + World-Knowledge classifier (Wikipedia/LLM-labelled) to mine medium-low-quality web; refreshed code snapshots (+28…↗
·
Decontamination··
Manual + automated review of open-source instruction data against public benchmarks↗
···
Multilingual·
Crawled pages + FineWeb-2, educational-utility classifier up-samples high-quality multilingual docs↗
····
Multimodal data··
>10B image-text pairs pool (filtered, recaptioned), interleaved web + >100M digitized books, 220M OCR images, 40M natural-image grounding annotations, >140M GUI QA pairs…↗
Billion-scale multimodal perception and world-knowledge dataset introduced in pre-training↗
··
Pretrain context·
4,096 (random truncation, no best-fit packing)↗
····
Other data·
data fim Fill-in-the-Middle objective on all source code↗
····
MiMo8 releases
DataMiMo-7BApr 30, 2025MiMo-VL-7BMay 30, 2025V2-FlashDec 16, 2025V2.5Apr 22, 2026V2.5-ProApr 22, 2026V2.6Sep 22, 2026
Pretrain tokens
~25T (all three stages)↗
·changed
27T total (22T Stage 1 + 4T Stage 2 + 1T Stage 3)↗
~48T total across all stages (text/multimodal split not given)↗
27T↗
Flash 48T (26T text + 22T omni); Pro 30T (27T text + 3T omni)↗
Mix
Web, papers, books, code, synthetic data; Stage 1 downsamples ads/news/job postings and upsamples professional domains; Stage 2 math+code ~70%; Stage 3 adds ~10% synthet…↗
·changed
Web, books, papers, code, math, STEM; deliberate shift toward long-range-dependency data: long-form web docs, repo-level code, PRs, issues, commit histories↗
··
Text: web, books, papers, code, STEM; vision: captioning, grounding, OCR, GUI, conversation, video, visual-coding; audio: speech-text interleaving, ASR, audio captioning↗
Synthetic data
Reasoning-model-generated analyses of STEM content, solutions to math/code problems, creative writing; can be repeated for many epochs↗
·····
Filtering
Custom HTML extractor preserving math/code; improved PDF parsing; global URL + MinHash dedup; fine-tuned small LLMs as domain/quality taggers instead of heuristic filters↗
·
Pipeline largely follows MiMo-7B↗
···
Decontamination
SFT: drop queries with 16-gram overlap with benchmarks; RL math: global n-gram dedup + decontamination↗
phash image dedup against evaluation benchmarks↗
····
Knowledge cutoff··
December 2024↗
···
Multimodal data·
Re-captioned image captions (MetaCLIP-style bilingual balancing), interleaved web/book/paper data, OCR, grounding, video with timestamped captions, GUI grounding/action…↗
·
'High-quality multimodal data collected for large-scale pretraining' (no breakdown)↗
·
Audio in three task formats; audio tokenizer trained on 20M hours↗
Pretrain context
8,192 (Stages 1-2)↗
·
32,768 native↗
·
32K native↗
32K, extended to 256K partway through pretraining↗
Gemma6 releases
DataGemma-3Mar 12, 2025Gemma-3nJun 26, 2025Gemma-3-270MAug 14, 2025Gemma-4Apr 2, 2026Gemma-4-12BJun 3, 2026
Pretrain tokenschanged
27B: 14T, 12B: 12T, 4B: 4T, 1B: 2T (text + image tokens)↗
~11T tokens↗
changed
6T tokens↗
not disclosednot disclosed
Mixchanged
Web documents (140+ languages), code, mathematics, images; shares not disclosed↗
Web (140+ languages), code, math, images, audio; shares not disclosed↗
·
Web documents, code, images, audio (E2B/E4B/12B only), math (card); shares not disclosed↗
·
Filtering
Safety/PII filtering, recitation reduction, quality reweighing inspired by Sachdeva et al. (2024); CSAM filtering (card)↗
··
CSAM filtering, sensitive-data filtering, content quality and safety filtering↗
·
Decontamination
Evaluation sets decontaminated from the pre-training mixture↗
··
Benchmark decontamination plus unsafe-content and recitation filtering↗
·
Multilingual
More multilingual data than Gemma 2, monolingual + parallel; language imbalance handled with a UniMax-inspired sampling strategy; 140+ languages pre-trained, 35+ support…↗
140 languages for text, 35 for multimodal understanding↗
·
Pre-trained on 140+ languages; 35+ supported out of the box↗
·
Knowledge cutoff
August 2024↗
June 2024↗
August 2024 (card sentence covers all Gemma 3 sizes incl. 270M)↗
changed
January 2025↗
·
Multimodal datachanged
Images mixed into pre-training; part of the token increase over Gemma 2 is image tokens↗
···changed
Audio included in 12B pre-training data (as for E2B/E4B)↗
Pretrain context
32K sequences (then extended to 128K at the end of pre-training)↗
··not disclosed·
Distillation in pretraining
All sizes pre-trained with knowledge distillation: 256 logits sampled per token by teacher probability, cross-entropy on the renormalized teacher distribution over the s…↗
··not disclosed·
Other data·
pre vision encoder distillation MobileNet-V5 vision encoder trained with 'advanced distillation techniques' (LM distillation not stated)↗
·
pre recipe Pre-training described as similar to Gemma 3↗
·
Microsoft AI4 releases
DataMAI-DS-R1Apr 16, 2025MAI-Thinking-1Jun 2, 2026MAI-Base-2Oct 15, 2026
Pretrain tokens·
30T tokens (29.2T unique; 1.03 average epochs)↗
changed
50T tokens↗
Mix·
Code 54.6% (16.4T, 2.22 ep), STEM 15.8% (4.7T, 2.17 ep), Web text 14.9% (4.5T, 0.55 ep), Math 5.4% (1.6T, 5.28 ep), PDFs 4.7% (1.4T, 0.53 ep), Books+journals 3.1% (0.9T,…↗
changed
Code 45%, Vision-only 14%, Web 12%, PDFs 9%, STEM 9%, Books 5%, Math 4%, Other 2% (of 50T)↗
Synthetic data·
None: no LM-generated synthetic data in pre-training; AI-generated web content detected and removed; LLM extractors may only keep/drop source text↗
Organic data; no distillation from other models (use of other synthetic data not discussed)↗
Filtering·
data filtering Web: proprietary robots.txt-respecting crawl ~1.2T pages -> 794B after policy/adult/blocklist filters -> 423B after exact dedup; MinHash fuzzy dedup; quality model drops…↗
data filtering Dedup stack: exact hash, MinHash-LSH fuzzy (threshold 0.8), template skeleton dedup, semantic dedup with Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B, cross-dataset dedup by global drop-order↗
data filtering Web PDFs: ~10B crawled -> 620M filtered docs, OCR with Azure Document Intelligence -> 1.8T English + 1.85T multilingual tokens↗
data filtering STEM web pipeline (topic/edu-value/edu-level classifiers, LLM keep/remove per section): 680B English tokens (76B math) + 760B multilingual STEM (58B math); code web page…↗
data filtering Public GitHub code 7.4T tokens: files 1.26T, commits 4.5T, PRs 1.19T; exact/fuzzy/semantic dedup, quality bins; commit/PR pre-states loss-masked↗
Improved quality classification, topic binning, web parsing, dedup and decontamination since Base-1; embedding-based diversity sampling of novel data↗
Decontamination·
decontamination All huggingface.co and mirror domains removed; universal 20-gram fuzzy dedup at 80% similarity against evals; no open-source training datasets; PR data decontaminated ag…↗
decontamination RL data (STEM Mix, competitive coding) deduplicated against reported benchmarks and internal evals: SHA-256 exact, MinHash, embedding similarity↗
All held-out eval sets decontaminated against training data↗
Multilingual·
8.1T unique multilingual tokens available, only 0.5T (0.06 epochs) used; domain-specific multilingual data counted in other categories↗
·
Knowledge cutoff
Same as DeepSeek-R1 (inherited)↗
Web HTML Sep 2025; Web PDFs Dec 2025; public GitHub Jun 2025; books and journals Mar 2026↗
changed
March 2026 (web)↗
Multimodal data··changed
VLM corpus 4.5T unique tokens (image-text pairs, interleaved docs: captioning, charts, grounding, spatial, medical, computer use, sheet music); 18% of the 50T mix with r…↗
Pretrain context·
16,384 tokens↗
·
Other data·
data mix method Mix chosen by minimizing a weighted held-out NLL target (0.5 code, 0.175 STEM, 0.175 math, 0.1 general, 0.05 multilingual) via alternating local/global search over ~10 c…↗
data repetition cap Any dataset repeated at most 8 times↗
data finding Data-mix ranking is not scale-invariant: a STEM-heavy mix won at 5B active but lost to a code-heavy mix at 23B/20T↗
data unique tokens Unique corpus ~36% larger than MAI-Base-1's↗
Thinking Machines2 releases
DataInklingJul 15, 2026Inkling-SmallJul 30, 2026
Pretrain tokens
45T tokens (text, images, audio and video)↗
not disclosed
Mix
Text, images, audio, video; shares not disclosed↗
changed
Pre-training data mix changed vs Inkling; specifics not disclosed↗
Synthetic data
Synthetically generated or augmented data used; no detail on how or how much↗
·
Filtering
Cleaning, deduplication, junk/low-quality filtering, safety filtering (generic description)↗
Same generic description as Inkling: dedup, junk/low-quality and safety filtering↗
Decontaminationnot disclosed·
Multilingual
English primary, with general multilingual capability↗
·
Knowledge cutoffnot disclosed·
Multimodal data
Text, images, audio and video in the 45T-token pretraining corpus↗
·
Pretrain contextnot disclosed·
Other data
data sources Public web and public repositories, third-party acquired data, synthetic or augmented data↗
data sources Lab-wide: public data, partner data under access agreements, internally generated incl. synthetic↗
data collection start Lab began collecting and using datasets for model development in 2025↗
data ip pii Training data includes public-domain and possibly IP-protected content, and may contain personal information↗
Qwen23 releases
DataQVQ-72B-PreviewDec 25, 2024Qwen2.5-VLJan 26, 2025Qwen2.5-1MJan 27, 2025QwQ-32BMar 6, 2025Qwen2.5-VL-32BMar 24, 2025Qwen2.5-OmniMar 27, 2025Qwen3Apr 29, 2025Qwen3-2507Jul 21, 2025Qwen3-CoderJul 22, 2025Qwen3-NextSep 11, 2025Qwen3-OmniSep 22, 2025Qwen3-VLSep 23, 2025Qwen3-Coder-NextFeb 3, 2026WebWorldFeb 16, 2026Qwen3.5Feb 16, 2026Qwen3.5-MediumFeb 24, 2026Qwen3.5-SmallMar 2, 2026Qwen3.6-35B-A3BApr 15, 2026Qwen3.6-27BApr 22, 2026Qwen-AgentWorldJun 22, 2026Qwen3.8Aug 12, 2026Qwen3.8-27BAug 14, 2026Qwen3.8-Flash-NextAug 26, 2026
Pretrain tokens······changed
36T tokens (S1 >30T + S2 ~5T + S3 hundreds of billions); about twice Qwen2.5's 18T↗
·
7.5T tokens↗
changed
15T tokens↗
····
Exact count not disclosed; inferred order of magnitude "tens of trillions" from the FP8 pipeline description inferred↗
not disclosednot disclosed···not disclosed·changed
Not given in absolute terms: about 1/3 of the tokens of Qwen3.7-Plus-Base (397B-A17B)↗
Mix······changed
Mixture optimized per instance (not per source/domain) via ablations on small proxy models using fine-grained labels; code, STEM, reasoning, books, multilingual, synthetic↗
·
70% code; rest general and math↗
Uniformly sampled subset of the Qwen3 36T corpus (no new mix)↗
····changed
More visual-text tokens than Qwen3; enriched Chinese/English, multilingual, STEM and reasoning data (no proportions)↗
········
Synthetic data······changed
Trillions of synthetic tokens (textbooks, QA, instructions, code) generated by Qwen2.5, Qwen2.5-Math and Qwen2.5-Coder↗
·changed
Qwen2.5-Coder cleans and rewrites noisy data↗
··············
Filtering·
Interleaved data scored by an internal model on text quality, image-text relevance, complementarity and information-density balance↗
····
Multilingual annotation system labels >30T tokens by educational value, field, domain and safety; labels drive filtering and mixing↗
·······
"Stricter filtering" than Qwen3; no details↗
········
Decontamination······
Not described for pre-training; cold-start SFT drops responses suspected of being too similar to validation items↗
················
Multilingual······changed
119 languages and dialects (up from 29 in Qwen2.5)↗
···
Text in 119 languages; speech understanding in 19, speech generation in 10↗
OCR extended by 29 languages beyond Qwen2.5-VL's 10 (excluding zh/en)↗
··changed
201 languages and dialects (up from 119)↗
········
Knowledge cutoff······not disclosed·····
Corpus updated through 30 Sep 2025↗
··········
Multimodal data·changed
~4T tokens: captions, interleaved image-text, OCR, visual knowledge, academic QA, grounding (absolute coordinates, 10k+ categories), HTML document parsing, video, agent data↗
········
S2 ~2T tokens: text 0.57T, audio 0.77T, image 0.82T, video 0.05T, video-audio 0.05T↗
Recaptioned image-text (fine-tuned Qwen2.5-VL-32B), interleaved web and book data, 30M OCR samples, 3M Common Crawl PDFs + 4M internal docs, grounding, 3D, video, GUI/agent data↗
··
Trillions of multimodal tokens; expanded visual, STEM and video data↗
········
Pretrain context······
4,096 in S1 and S2; 32,768 in the long-context stage↗
················
Other data·····
encoders Vision encoder from Qwen2.5-VL (~675M ViT); audio encoder initialized from Whisper-large-v3↗
pdf ocr tokens Qwen2.5-VL OCRs PDF-like documents, Qwen2.5 refines the text: trillions of extra tokens↗
·
new base 480B-A35B shape (62 layers, 160 experts, hidden 6144) matches no earlier Qwen3 model, so a new base was pre-trained; the blog does not say from scratch inferred↗
attention output gate Output gating from Qwen's Gated Attention work, to reduce low-rank issues and remove attention sinks and massive activations↗
audio encoder aut AuT audio encoder (~0.6B) trained from scratch on 20M hours of supervised audio (80% zh/en pseudo-labeled ASR, 10% other-language ASR, 10% audio understanding), 12.5 Hz tokens↗
changed
vision encoder SigLIP2-SO-400M continued at dynamic resolution (SigLIP2-Large 300M for 2B/4B), 2D-RoPE + interpolated absolute embeddings↗
sqrt token loss Square-root-normalized per-token loss replaces per-sample loss to balance text and multimodal data↗
base model Not a new base: starts from Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Base (hybrid attention + MoE)↗
·
vision encoder Vision encoder: 27 layers, width 1152, patch 16, projected to 4096 (config)↗
training infra Heterogeneous parallelism decoupled across vision and language components; near-100% throughput vs text-only training on mixed data↗
cross generation parity Base model matches the >1T-parameter Qwen3-Max-Base↗
dense 27b 27B is dense: 16 × (3 GDN + 1 gated attention), FFN intermediate 17,408↗
tied embeddings 0.8B, 2B and 4B tie the LM output to the token embedding (9B does not)↗
····
base model A Qwen3.8-27B-Base checkpoint exists (benchmarked in the Flash-Next report, not released); whether trained from scratch or continued from Qwen3.5-27B is not stated↗
gdn output gate GDN output gate changed from SiLU to bounded sigmoid↗
ngram embedding One n-gram (bi/trigram) embedding layer at layer 2, multi-head hashing, 20M base slots, 51B params kept in host memory and prefetched↗
training framework Megatron-LM with Canzona (Muon sharding) and FlashQLA GDN kernels↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Qwen2.5-VLMultimodal pre-training corpus scaled from 1.2T to 4.1T tokens ↗
  2. Qwen318T -> 36T pre-training tokens ↗
  3. Qwen329 -> 119 languages and dialects ↗Why: Global accessibility and cross-lingual ability
  4. Qwen3Corpus expanded with Qwen2.5-VL OCR of PDFs and trillions of synthetic tokens from Qwen2.5-Math/Coder ↗Why: Efficiently expand the training data
  5. Qwen3Mixture optimized per instance using fine-grained labels, not per source or domain ↗
  6. Qwen3-CoderQwen2.5-Coder used to clean and rewrite noisy pre-training data ↗Why: Raise overall data quality
  7. Qwen3-Next15T tokens, a uniform subset of Qwen3's 36T corpus ↗
  8. Qwen3-VLGrounding moves from absolute pixel coordinates to normalized [0, 1000] coordinates ↗Why: Robustness to resolution and aspect ratio; simpler post-processing
  9. Qwen3-Coder-NextProgramming-language coverage expanded from 92 to 370; more PRs, repositories and code-review data ↗Why: Better reflect real development workflows
  10. Qwen3.5Language and dialect coverage expanded from 119 to 201 ↗Why: Broader global accessibility
  11. Qwen3.5More visual-text tokens than Qwen3, enriched zh/en, multilingual, STEM and reasoning data, stricter filtering ↗Why: Lets the 397B-A17B base match the >1T Qwen3-Max-Base
  12. Qwen3.8-Flash-NextBase trained on ~1/3 the tokens (~1/9 the FLOPs) of Qwen3.7-Plus-Base while matching it on most benchmarks ↗Why: Cost efficiency of the new architecture
MiniMax10 releases
DataText-01Jan 15, 2025VL-01Jan 15, 2025SynLogicMay 26, 2025M1Jun 16, 2025M2Oct 27, 2025M2.1Dec 23, 2025M2.5Feb 12, 2026M2.7Mar 18, 2026M3Jun 1, 2026M3.1-FlashOct 19, 2026
Pretrain tokens
≈11.4T, reading the phases as sequential (computed: 7.2T at LR 2e-4 + 3.2T at 1.3e-4 + 1T fast decay; no total stated), plus ~358B long-context calc↗
··
No new from-scratch run; the Text-01 base is continued for 7.5T tokens (see midtrain)↗
29.2T (19.9T constant phase + 9.3T decay phase)↗
···not disclosed·
Mix
Academic literature, books, web and code; sampling starts uniform and is re-weighted toward high-quality content while keeping category diversity; no percentages↗
···
Web, academic literature, books, code and structured QA; code, math and STEM significantly upsampled; no percentages↗
·····
Synthetic datanot disclosed·······
Interleaved data preferred over synthetic data because it scales more easily↗
·
Filtering
Rule-based cleaning and dedup; the previous-generation MoE (5B active / 60B total) scores documents on knowledge depth, practical helpfulness and category↗
···
Model-based reward scoring plus auxiliary quality classifiers; balanced sampling that upweights high quality while keeping category diversity↗
·····
Decontaminationnot disclosed·········
Multilingual
Multilingual content up-sampled when building the tokenizer, for compression; no language mix given↗
·········
Knowledge cutoffnot disclosed···not disclosed·····
Multimodal data·
694M unique image-caption pairs (180M with refined captions); 100M images with ~300-token human-refined descriptions; synthetic instruction QA data↗
······changed
Text pre-training pipeline rebuilt to produce large volumes of interleaved data↗
·
Pretrain context
8,192↗
···
8K in the constant phase↗
·····
Other data
data repetition Repetition-aware data experiments: low-quality data degrades after more than 2 epochs, high-quality data can be repeated up to 4 epochs↗
data experiments Data choices tested as statistical hypothesis tests on 1B-active / 8B-total MoEs trained on 40B tokens (20B web + 20B candidate data)↗
model sizing Total size capped at 500B so a 1M-token context fits one 8x80GB node at 8-bit↗
hybrid rationale Pure linear attention rejected because it cannot retrieve; at 1B scale hybrid-lightning beat hybrid-cosformer2, hybrid-hgrn2 and hybrid sliding-window variants↗
base model MiniMax-Text-01 is the LLM; continued training on 512B vision-language tokens↗
dynamic resolution Images resized on a grid from 336x336 to 2016x2016 plus a 336x336 thumbnail; patches encoded separately and concatenated without pooling↗
vit pretraining CoCa-style contrastive + captioning; 37B pairs at 224px then 1.2B at 336px; 80.55% zero-shot ImageNet-1K↗
base model Qwen2.5-32B-Base (SynLogic-7B: Qwen2.5-7B-Base); not a MiniMax base↗
base model Continued from MiniMax-Text-01↗
attention ablation Hybrid sliding-window attention tried through continued pre-training (hundreds of billions to trillions of tokens): RULER-128K CWE 90.0 -> 72.0; after SFT clearly worse on >32K agent tasks↗
moe ablation At 2B active / 17.8B total on 500B tokens, 128 experts top-8 beat 32 experts top-2 (MATH 24.1 vs 19.6, HumanEval 32.5 vs 29.7)↗
base model Same 229.9B-A9.8B architecture as M2 (config unchanged); no new pre-training described; the series report describes one base and a co-evolving post-training pipeline inferred↗
base model Same 229.9B-A9.8B architecture as M2 (config unchanged); no new pre-training described inferred↗
base model Same 229.9B-A9.8B architecture as M2 (config differs only in max positions); no new pre-training described inferred↗
vision encoder 32-layer ViT (hidden 1280, patch 14) with 3D RoPE; 2x2 spatial and 2x temporal patch merging; projected to 6144↗
msa validation MSA report (109B-A6B multimodal MoE, 3T tokens; not M3 itself): native MSA matches GQA; conversion route 2.6T full + 400B sparse with 40B indexer warm-up; 28.4x fewer attention FLOPs at 1M↗
attention efficiency Versus M2 at 1M context: 9x prefill, 15x decode, per-token compute 1/20↗
base model Builds on M3 and keeps its MoE architecture, with three changes↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. M3Text pre-training data pipeline rebuilt to produce large volumes of interleaved data ↗Why: Experiments showed interleaved data scales more easily than synthetic data
StepFun6 releases
DataORZFeb 18, 2025Step-3Jul 25, 2025PaCoRe-8BDec 9, 2025Step-3.5-FlashFeb 2, 2026Step-3.7-FlashMay 29, 2026Step-5-PreviewOct 15, 2026
Pretrain tokens·
20T+ text tokens in 10+ languages (3.7T high-quality tokens reserved for annealing) plus 4T image-text mixed tokens↗
·
~17.6T (14.6T Stage 1 + 3T annealing Stage 2); the introduction says 17.2T↗
·not disclosed
Mix···
StepCrawl web + books/PDFs, code (relaxed OpenCoder filters), GitHub PR/Issue/Commit, math/STEM, synthetic tool-use and reasoning; annealed toward code/PRs. No percentages given↗
··
Synthetic data···
Knowledge rephrasing and QA synthesis; 90B tokens of Agentless-template PR dialogues; 12B rewritten reasoning-oriented PR data (mid-training)↗
··
Filtering·
10+ NLP scorers (quality, toxicity, subject), 50+ fine-grained domains, MinHash near-dup removal, domain-aware down-sampling of the annealing set; 100B+ source documents↗
·
Six-scorer quality tiers (keep High to Medium); k-means rebalancing over 100k+ clusters; WebOrganizer-style crawl selection (~1B pages/day); code with up to 6 OpenCoder rule hits↗
··
Decontamination···
PR data deduplicated against SWE-Bench Verified/Multilingual; SFT exact (digit-masked) + n-gram matching; RL excludes 2024-2026 competitions↗
··
Multilingual·
Text pretraining in 10+ languages; multimodal data about half Chinese, half English, ~5% other languages↗
·
Chinese and English web emphasized (EN/ZH metadata, Chinese/English cluster rebalancing); no language counts↗
··
Multimodal data·
4T unique multimodal tokens: paired, interleaved and multi-task data (OCR, table, grounding, GUI, video, VQA, exam, reasoning; largely synthetic)↗
····
Pretrain context···
4K in Stage 1; 32K for the last 1T tokens of Stage 2↗
··
Other data·
moe hardware sparsity MoE sparsity sized to hardware: kept no sparser than 0.058 so FFN reaches high MFU on H800 under AFD↗
model details deferred The systems paper defers model-side details; the launch blog (2025-07-31) outlines data, multimodal training and post-training↗
multimodal training stages Stage 1: Eva-CLIP-based 5B encoder trained with a compact LLM on 3.5T tokens; stage 2: encoder frozen, connector + LLM trained on the full set (1.4T tokens)↗
·
activation clipping Element-wise clipping of MoE expert SwiGLU activations (config swiglu limits 7 / 16 in deep layers) chosen over offline weight clipping↗
training framework In-house Steptron on PyTorch + Megatron-LM: 8-way PP with VPP, 8-way EP, ZeRO-1 DP; open-sourced later as SteptronOss↗
meta tokens Metadata string (content type, language, domain, source) prepended to each sequence; its loss masked after ~3.8T tokens↗
··
Ling29 releases
DataLing-plusMar 7, 2025Ling-Coder-liteMar 22, 2025Ring-lite-distill-previewMar 29, 2025Ring-lite-linear-previewApr 24, 2025Ling-lite-1.5May 10, 2025Ring-liteJun 17, 2025Ling-lite-1.5-2506Jul 23, 2025Ring-lite-2507Aug 5, 2025Ling-lite-1.5-2507Aug 8, 2025Ling-mini-2.0Sep 8, 2025Ring-mini-2.0Sep 8, 2025Ling-flash-2.0Sep 17, 2025Ring-flash-2.0Sep 19, 2025Ring-linear-2.0Sep 24, 2025Ling-1TOct 9, 2025Ring-1TOct 14, 2025Ring-mini-sparse-2.0-expOct 14, 2025Ring-flash-linear-2.0-128kOct 21, 2025Ring-2.5-1TFeb 10, 2026Ling-2.5-1TFeb 14, 2026Ling-2.6-flashApr 28, 2026Ling-2.6-1TApr 29, 2026Ring-2.6-1TMay 14, 2026Ling-3.0-flashAug 2, 2026Ling-3.0-tinyAug 10, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-FinSep 3, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-VLSep 4, 2026Ling-3.1-flashOct 13, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-SanteOct 19, 2026
Pretrain tokens
9T tokens (≈1T Chinese, 5.5T English, 2.5T code)↗
········changed
20T+; intermediate checkpoints at 5T, 10T, 15T, 20T released↗
·
20T+↗
··
20T (two 10T sub-stages at 4K), plus 750B mid-training↗
20T+ (Ling-1T-base)↗
··
~29T cumulative (Ling 2.5 base: 20T + 9T continued); not stated in the Ring-2.5 card inferred↗
changed
29T cumulative (20T Ling 2.0 + 9T continued pre-training)↗
·
Ling-2.0-1T-base (20T) plus ~9.6T in the 2.6 retrofit (≈29.6T cumulative; computed)↗
Shared base: Ling-2.0-1T-base (20T) + ~9.6T migration, continued and mid-training↗
≈30T, inferred from the released pre-training checkpoint name 'Ling-3.0-flash-base-30T' (no token count stated in text) inferred↗
≈30T, inferred from the released checkpoint name 'Ling-3.0-tiny-base-30T' inferred↗
··not disclosed·
Mix
Web, books, papers, social media, encyclopedias, math and code; mix re-weighted during training toward high-quality data, dropping samples whose loss stops falling↗
·············
Reasoning (math + code) share raised from 32% to 46% across the two sub-stages (general 68% -> 54%); Ling Math and Ling Code corpora; multilingual 4%↗
······changed
Continued pre-training: ~46% reasoning, 50% general, 4% multilingual; new high-quality data introduced from the start ('aggressive' switch)↗
·
Common Crawl text, academic papers, filtered web, programming Q&A, licensed text, own 'Ant Spider' crawl; no user-interaction data; collected ~03/2024-10/2025↗
···
Public data (incl. Common Crawl), partner-licensed data, synthetic data and human-written text; own 'Ant Spider' crawl to ~07/2026; no user-interaction data↗
·
Synthetic data··············
Recall-and-rewrite of knowledge text (Wikipedia-style, QA conversion, summaries); synthetic math QA and a math concept graph↗
······
Web content rewritten as textbook-style material; Wikipedia converted to atomic propositions and triplets with QA synthesis; ~70B synthetic web-code tokens↗
·
Synthetic data generated with in-house Ling-2.6 series models (instruction following, reasoning, coding, writing, knowledge)↗
···
Synthetic data from in-house Ling-2.6 series models↗
·
Filtering
Type-specific cleaning; quality framework of 10 categories and 300+ metrics; fastText/BERT classifiers for coherence, knowledge density, education level; online sample-level dedup↗
·············
trafilatura extraction, LLM-generated cleaning rules with human review, FineWeb-Edu-style quality/education/knowledge-density classifiers; code lint checks over 660 languages↗
······
fastText feature pipeline on a wide-table infrastructure with hourly model iteration; rule + model detection of long-text defects↗
·······
Decontamination··············
More stringent decontamination in the second sub-stage; Ring-1T card adds string- and semantic-level filtering across pre-training, SFT and RL prompts↗
··············
Multilingual
Chinese and English (plus code)↗
·············
~2TB multilingual web and parallel data, ~30 languages, 4% of pre-training↗
······
21 languages prioritised (Arabic, Japanese, Hindi added); 1.1T tokens from Fineweb2 / Fineweb2-hq; 4% allocation↗
·····
Multilingual, strong English and Chinese coverage plus EU official and other languages↗
·
Knowledge cutoff·········
Approximately April 2025 (latest data collection, Ling-2.0 family)↗
····
Approximately April 2025 (latest data collection)↗
Approximately April 2025 (Ring-2.0 family)↗
··
Approximately September 2025↗
Approximately September 2025↗
·
Approximately October 2025↗
Approximately October 2025↗
Approximately October 2025↗
··
Approximately May 2026↗
Approximately July 2026↗
·
Multimodal data··························
Text >10T tokens, 1M-1B images, 10K-1M hours of video (training-content summary ranges)↗
··
Pretrain context
4K↗
·············
4K for the first 20T tokens↗
······
4K during migration and the 8T continued pre-training↗
·
8K (context schedule 8K -> 32K -> 256K)↗
·····
Other data
stochastic routing warmup Stochastic Routing Warmup: router logits interpolated with noise for the first W steps to avoid early expert overload and collapse↗
·············
ling scaling laws Ling Scaling Laws (1,000+ runs) set LR, batch and architecture; 'wind tunnel' of 500M-8B runs at ~1% of full cost; predicted ~7x efficiency leverage for the 1/32 design↗
··············

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Ling-Coder-liteContinued a 7T Ling-lite checkpoint on 3.2T tokens with code ≥60% and a Fill-In-Middle objective ↗Why: Build an efficient code model on the Ling-lite foundation; raw code share reduced over stages because too much hurt language understanding
  2. Ling-mini-2.0Pre-training grows from 9T (Ling 1.0) to 20T tokens, with reasoning share rising 32% -> 46% ↗Why: Establish inherent reasoning strength
  3. Ling-2.5-1TPre-training corpus grows from 20T to 29T tokens ↗
  4. Ling-2.6-1TContinued pre-training switches to new high-quality data from the start rather than first replaying 2T original tokens ↗Why: Faster recovery, fewer tokens, higher ceiling
Nemotron23 releases
DataLlama-NemotronMar 18, 2025Nemotron-HMar 21, 2025OpenCodeReasoning-NemotronApr 2, 2025OpenMath-NemotronApr 23, 2025LN-Nano-4B-v1.1May 20, 2025AceReason-NemotronMay 22, 2025LN-Nano-VLJun 3, 2025Nemotron-H-ReasoningJun 6, 2025LN-Super-v1.5Jul 25, 2025Nano-2Aug 18, 2025Nano-2-VLOct 28, 2025Nemotron-3-NanoDec 15, 2025Nemotron-CascadeDec 15, 2025Nemotron-TerminalFeb 24, 2026Nemotron-3-SuperMar 11, 2026Nemotron-3-Nano-4BMar 17, 2026Cascade-2Mar 19, 2026Nemotron-3-Nano-OmniApr 28, 2026Nemotron-3-UltraJun 4, 2026Nemotron-3.5-LightningAug 11, 2026Labs-Competitive-CodingSep 2, 2026Bolt-74BOct 15, 2026Nemotron-3.5-SuperOct 15, 2026
Pretrain tokensnot disclosed
20T (56B); 15T (8B)↗
·······
20T↗
·changed
25T tokens: Phase 1 23.5T + Phase 2 1.5T (plus 121B in the long-context phase)↗
··
25T tokens (Phase 1 20T + Phase 2 5T)↗
···
20T text tokens: ~15T phase 1 (diversity) + 5T phase 2 (quality)↗
Over 20T tokens (base inherited from Nemotron 3 Nano Base); 3.5 adds 1T distillation tokens (see midtrain)↗
··
About 26T tokens across pretraining and continued pretraining (incl. Nemotron 3 Super Base's run)↗
Mix·changed
4 phases: phase 1 web crawl 59%, code 20%, academic 8.8%, multilingual 5%, crawl++ 4%, math 2.9%; switch at 60% and 80% of training; phase 4 (last 380B tokens) 31.8% SFT-style↗
·······changed
3 phases, switch at 60% and 90%. Phase 1: crawl tiers 60.4% (4 tiers summed), code 20%, multilingual 5%; phase 3: stem-sft 32%, code 16%, syn-crawl-high 12.7%, math 11%, code-sft 10.9%↗
·
15 categories. Phase 1: syn-crawl-high 20.4%, code 14.0%, syn-crawl-med-high 11.7%, stem-sft 11.1%; Phase 2: stem-sft 22.3%, syn-crawl-high 20.4%, code 14.0%, math 12.5%↗
··
Nano 3 mixture, 16 categories. Phase 1: syn-crawl-high 22.4%, code 14.0%, syn-crawl-medium-(high) 11.3%, stem-sft 11.1%. Phase 2: syn-crawl-high 22.4%, finepdfs-high 14.3%, code 14.0%, stem-sft 11.8%↗
···
19 categories; web crawl incl. synthetic ~49% (phase 1) → ~38% (phase 2); code 14.0%, math 6.4%, multilingual 5.0% in both; finepdfs-high 10.7% in phase 2↗
····
Synthetic data·
>1.8T synthetic web tokens from Mistral NeMo 12B Instruct (5 prompts); OpenWebMath 14B -> 100B+ via Nemotron-4-340B; 230B SFT-style tokens (174B math, 35B code, 21B general)↗
·······changed
3.53T of 10.65T unique tokens synthetic: CC rephrasing (mostly Qwen3-30B-A3B), translated Diverse QA, MIND math dialogues (73B), STEM/code QA, SFT-style data↗
·changed
Rephrased Medium-High-Quality CC from 110 snapshots (2.1T new tokens); 9 languages translated to English; Qwen3-rewritten and Python→C++ code; 31.7B-token STEM RQA↗
··changed
New Nemotron-Pretraining-Specialized-v1.1: Python code concepts (15M problems), algorithmic code (0.2B tokens), economics MCQ, formal logic, MMLU-style MCQ (~3.5M samples, ~1.6B tokens)↗
···changed
syn-crawl-high 22.4% of both mixes; new since Super: benchmark-task-seeded MC/generative Q&A, Finewiki fact-seeking Qs, CoT moral scenarios, synthetic legal sets↗
···
Nemotron-Pretraining-Indic-v1: ≈2.83T generated tokens, mostly Nemotron-CC translated by Gemma-4-31B-it, judged 0-100, kept at ≥75 or rewritten↗
Filtering·changed
Nemotron-CC: ensemble of 3 model-based quality classifiers into 5 buckets; heuristic + perplexity filters on lower buckets; 6.3T English CC tokens (4.4T real + 1.9T rephrased)↗
·······
Nemotron-CC pipeline + 8 newer CC snapshots; Nemotron-CC-Math via lynx + Phi-4 cleanup + FineMath classifier (133B tokens, 52B top subset); code license filter, exact + MinHash dedup↗
·
Nemotron-CC classifiers; only Medium, Medium-High, High buckets (as Nano 2); later LLM filter cut ~10.6% of translated tokens in the released dataset↗
···········
Decontamination·········
Math corpus decontaminated with LLM Decontaminator↗
····
Stated only for the synthetic algorithmic code: exact-match removal plus Qwen3-Embedding-0.6 similarity >0.8 vs HumanEval, MBPP, CRUXEval, LiveCodeBench↗
···
Task-seeded synthetic Q&A generated only from benchmark training splits; no RULER-style data in the LC blend↗
····
Multilingual·
9 non-English languages (de, es, fr, it, pt, zh, ja, ko, ru): 5% of phase-1 mix, 3.7% in later phases↗
·······
15 languages (ar, zh, da, nl, fr, de, it, ja, ko, pl, pt, ru, es, sv, th) from 3 CC snapshots + Wikipedia + FineWeb-2 + Diverse QA translated with Qwen3-30B-A3B (weighted highest)↗
·
19 languages in pretraining (5.0% of both phase mixes); post-training in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Japanese↗
··
English plus 19 other languages and 43 programming languages in pretraining; post-training targets EN, FR, DE, IT, JA, ES, ZH↗
···
11 non-English languages, 5.0% of both phase mixes↗
···changed
Indic CPT across 22 Indian languages (12 priority, native + romanized; 10 lower-resource native); up to +9.82 pt on Indic benchmarks↗
Knowledge cutoff·
September 2024 (pretraining data)↗
·······changed
May 1, 2025 (12B-v2-Base card; report adds CC-NEWS through April 23, 2025); the 9B-v2 card says September 2024↗
·
Pre-training data cutoff June 25, 2025 (post-training data November 28, 2025)↗
··
Pre-training data June 2025, post-training data February 2026 (the Base card says pre-training cutoff December 2025)↗
···changed
Pre-training data Sept 2025 (code refresh to Sept 30, 2025); post-training data May 2026↗
Pre-training data Sept 2025; post-training data May 2026↗
···
Multimodal data······
NV-Pretraining and NV-CosmosNemotron-SFT: internal commercial-image sets, public captioning/VQA data, synthetic tabular data, safety and function-calling sets↗
··········
Card: 354.6M samples (~717.0B tokens) over text+audio, text+image, text+video and text+video+audio; report SFT stages total 466.9B tokens↗
·····
Pretrain context·
8192↗
·······
8192↗
·
8192↗
··
8,192↗
········
Other data·
distillation MiniPuzzle 56B -> 47B: NAS-chosen layer + FFN pruning, ~7B-token KD on 3 candidates, then 63B-token forward-KL distillation in FP8 (47B: 5 attn, 44 Mamba-2, 49 FFN layers)↗
············
checkpoint merging Sliding-window checkpoint merging (125B/250B/500B windows) as eval readout, +2-4 points in stable phase; the final base checkpoint is a 500B-token merge↗
elastic pruning Router-guided Nemotron Elastic pruning of Nano 9B v2: 56→42 layers (21 Mamba, 4 attention, 17 MLP), Mamba heads 128→96, FFN 15680→12544, hidden 4480→3136↗
·
video token reduction Conv3D fuses frame pairs (trained); EVS prunes tokens at inference: 512-frame video ~141k → ~75k → ~42k LLM tokens↗
divergence 2 horizon cut Second divergence near 16T, cause undetermined (rising MaxVio, early-layer residual-norm spikes); early LR annealing from the 15T checkpoint, horizon cut to 20T↗
distillation 1T-token logit distillation from Nemotron 3 Super Base (top-128 logits + sink token), forward KL 0.9 + CE 0.1, on Ultra 3 Phase 2 data↗
··
distillation 1T-token logit distillation from Nemotron 3 Ultra Base with Skew Reverse KL (α=0.1); LR 4.5e-6→4.5e-5→4.5e-6; MoE load-balance coeff 1e-5↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Nemotron-HNew English Common Crawl processing vs Nemotron-4 (classifier ensemble, more high-quality tokens kept, LLM rephrasing): Nemotron-CC ↗Why: More unique high-quality tokens for 15-20T-token horizons without many epochs
  2. Nemotron-HCode data shifted away from markup and config languages toward Python, C++, C and Java ↗
  3. Nano-2Web-crawl rephrasing mostly switched from Mistral NeMo 12B to Qwen3-30B-A3B ↗
  4. Nano-2Added eight newer Common Crawl snapshots and CC-NEWS through April 23, 2025 ↗Why: Improve the model's knowledge cutoff
  5. Nano-2New and improved datasets (Nemotron-CC-v2, Nemotron-CC-Math, fundamental-reasoning SFT-style data, translated multilingual QA) ↗Why: Gains over Nemotron-H-8B on math, multilingual and MMLU-Pro
  6. Nano-2-VLHigher-quality reasoning data, expanded OCR datasets and more long-context data ↗
  7. Nemotron-3-Nano25T pretraining tokens, including more than 3T new unique tokens over Nemotron 2 ↗
  8. Nemotron-3-NanoWeb rephrasing extended from High-Quality to Medium-High-Quality Common Crawl (2.1T new tokens), plus new translation of 9 languages into English ↗Why: Expand the pool of unique high-quality tokens
  9. Nemotron-3-SuperNew synthetic pretraining sets (code concepts, algorithmic code, economics, formal logic, MMLU-style MCQ); otherwise the Nano 3 mix is reused ↗
  10. Nemotron-3-UltraNew pretraining sets: benchmark-task-seeded MC and generative Q&A, Finewiki fact-seeking questions, CoT moral scenarios, synthetic legal data ↗
  11. Nemotron-3-UltraCode refresh: 173B new GitHub tokens with a Sept 30, 2025 cutoff ↗
  12. Nemotron-3.5-SuperNew 100B-token Indic continued-pretraining stage (10% Indic, 22 languages) ↗Why: Natural Indic text is scarce; the stage lifts all five Indic benchmarks, by up to 9.82 points
Mistral17 releases
DataSmall-3Jan 30, 2025Small-3.1Mar 17, 2025Devstral-Small-1.0May 21, 2025Magistral-Small-1.0Jun 10, 2025Small-3.2Jun 20, 2025Devstral-Small-1.1Jul 10, 2025VoxtralJul 15, 2025Magistral-Small-1.1Jul 24, 2025Magistral-Small-1.2Sep 17, 2025Large-3Dec 2, 2025Ministral-3Dec 2, 2025Devstral-2Dec 9, 2025Small-4Mar 16, 2026LeanstralMar 16, 2026Medium-3.5Apr 28, 2026Leanstral-1.5Jul 2, 2026Large-4Oct 6, 2026
Pretrain tokensnot disclosed········not disclosed
1-3T tokens per model (the paper contrasts 36T for Qwen3 and 15T for Llama 3)↗
not disclosednot disclosed·not disclosed·not disclosed
Mixnot disclosed········not disclosed
Text-only plus interleaved image-text data; one pass through the mix across the whole cascade (no repetition)↗
······
Synthetic data
None: the lab says no synthetic data was used↗
················
Multilingual
Dozens of languages, incl. English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Dutch, Polish↗
25 listed languages, adding e.g. Greek, Hindi, Indonesian, Malay, Nepali, Romanian, Serbian, Swedish, Turkish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Arabic, Bengali, Farsi↗
·······
Best-in-class on non-English/Chinese multilingual conversation; the Mistral 3 family claims 40+ native languages↗
··
Dozens of languages, incl. English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic↗
···
A significant multilingual share covering 160+ languages, incl. every official EU language↗
Knowledge cutoff
2023-10-01, per the recommended system prompt in the card↗
2023-10-01, per the shipped system prompt↗
·······
2023-10-01 per the shipped system prompt (no other cutoff stated)↗
2023-10-01 per the shipped system prompt↗
·
2024-11-01 per the shipped system prompt↗
·
2024-11-01 per the shipped system prompt↗
··
Multimodal data······
Audio segmented by VAD/diarization with transcripts (ASR pseudo-labels when missing); 'repeat' (ASR-like) and 'next' (cross-modal continuation) patterns balanced evenly↗
··········
Pretrain context··········
16,384 (short-context stage)↗
······
Other data······
text retention Text pretraining data kept in the audio pretraining mix to preserve text skills↗
···
distillation Cascade Distillation: prune Mistral Small 3.1 -> 14B -> 8B -> 3B, each child up-trained with forward-KL logit distillation from Mistral Small 3.1 (teacher at every stage)↗
pruning Layers pruned by output/input activation-norm ratio; hidden dim by a single PCA rotation; FFN dims by SwiGLU activation importance (Minitron/Wanda-like)↗
kd objective Pure forward-KL logit distillation beat mixing in a next-token loss↗
teacher choice For pretraining, distilling from Mistral Small 3.1 beat the stronger Mistral Medium 3, and an instruct teacher beat a base teacher (esp. math and code)↗
decoder shape Decoder shape (88 layers, dim 12288, 96/8 heads, FFN 28672) matches Mistral Large 2 (2411) params.json, but vocab is 131,072 vs 32,768; lineage not stated calc↗
small2 arch Devstral Small 2 (base_model: Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Base-2503) uses Ministral 3's architecture: Llama-4 rope scaling and Scalable-Softmax attention temperature↗
base origin Lab does not say; counted as its own base because no earlier Mistral model has this 119B latent-attention MoE shape (36 layers, dim 4096, 128 experts) to fine-tune from inferred↗
·
decoder shape Text-decoder dims identical to Devstral 2 123B (88 layers, 12288, 96/8 heads, FFN 28672); lineage not stated calc↗
·
moe Granular Mixture-of-Experts (expert counts not yet published)↗
2

Midtraining

Midtraining is now a stage 11 of the 13 labs describe; Gemma and Thinking Machines do not. It is where context grows from 4–32K to 128K–1M, where code, reasoning and agent data are upweighted, and, in 2026, where some labs switch optimizer (MiMo V2.6), start quantization-aware training, or continue a smaller base on a larger one's logits (Nemotron 3.5). Phases are assigned with the rule in How I split the stages: a decay inside the main schedule, or length growth the lab does not name, stays in pretraining.

2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct32K64K128K256K512K1MFinal context length (thousand tokens, log scale)
DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaMicrosoft AIThinking MachinesQwenMiniMaxStepFunLingNemotronMistral
Longest context each release was trained or served at, on a log scale. Most 2026 flagships reach 1M. DeepSeek V4 grows its training length to 1M within the pretraining run instead of in a separate extension step.
DeepSeek17 releases
MidtrainingV3Dec 26, 2024V3.1Aug 21, 2025V3.2-ExpSep 29, 2025V3.2Dec 1, 2025V4Apr 24, 2026V4-Flash-Vision-ExpAug 21, 2026V4.1-FlashSep 10, 2026
Stages
Two YaRN long-context phases after pre-training: 4K->32K (1000 steps, batch 1920), then 32K->128K (1000 steps, batch 480); LR 7.3e-6 in both↗
changed
V3.1-Base: original V3 base checkpoint -> 32K extension phase (630B tokens, 10x V3's) -> 128K extension phase (209B tokens, 3.3x V3's); method follows the V3 report↗
changed
1) Dense warm-up: dense attention, only lightning indexer trained (KL to summed main-attention distribution), 1000 steps; 2) Sparse training: top-k selection on, all par…↗
Same two-stage DSA continued pretraining as V3.2-Exp: dense indexer warm-up (1000 steps, 2.1B tokens, LR 1e-3) -> sparse training (15000 steps, 943.7B tokens, LR 7.3e-6)↗
Only a named mid-training phase with agentic data (size and place in the run not given). The 4K -> 16K -> 64K -> 1M growth, the sparse-attention switch at 64K and the final LR decay sit inside the single pre-training run, so they count as pretraining↗
Visual modules added to V4-Flash, then continued training to unlock visual understanding; data, token counts and starting checkpoint not given↗
Inside the single 45T run: (1) 34T: sequence length 64K -> 1M; (2) 28T-40T: cosine LR decay 2.6e-4 -> 2.6e-5, vision encoder unfrozen at decay onset; (3) 40T-45T: consta…↗
Tokens
~126B tokens across the two extension phases (computed) calc↗
840B tokens of continued pretraining for long-context extension (card: 630B at 32K + 209B at 128K)↗
945.8B (2.1B warm-up + 943.7B sparse) calc↗
945.8B (2.1B + 943.7B) calc↗
not disclosed·
~17T tokens after LR-decay onset (28T-45T), of which 11T at 1M context (34T-45T) calc↗
Long-context method
YaRN applied only to the decoupled shared RoPE key; scale s=40, alpha=1, beta=32, sqrt(t)=0.1 ln s + 1; same config as DeepSeek-V2↗
changed
Two-phase long-context extension following the DeepSeek-V3 report methodology, with more long documents↗
··changed
Progressive sequence-length extension during pre-training (4K->16K->64K->1M) on the CSA/HCA architecture; no separate post-hoc extension stage described↗
·
Sequence length raised from 64K to 1M at 34T tokens during pretraining (sparse attention throughout); RoPE scaling method not described↗
Final context
128K↗
changed
128K↗
changed
128K (inherited from V3.1-Terminus base; all continued training at 128K)↗
128K↗
changed
1M tokens (both sizes), natively after pre-training↗
·
1M tokens↗
Annealing datanot disclosed···
No annealing phase by the rule: the LR decay near the end (cosine to 2.7e-5 Flash / 2.0e-5 Pro) sits inside the main schedule, so it counts as pretraining; data used in the decay not described↗
·not disclosed
Agentic data····
Agentic data incorporated during the mid-training phase to strengthen coding↗
··
Other
mid lr 7.3e-6 for both phases (= final pre-training LR)↗
midtrain data Dataset expanded with additional long documents↗
mid warmup hparams Indexer warm-up: LR 1e-3, 1000 steps x 16 sequences x 128K = 2.1B tokens; all non-indexer params frozen↗
mid sparse hparams Sparse stage: LR 7.3e-6, top-k 2048 KV tokens per query, 15000 steps x 480 sequences x 128K↗
mid indexer loss Indexer trained only by KL loss to main attention (restricted to selected set in sparse stage); indexer input detached; main model trained only by LM loss↗
····

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. V3.1Long-context extension scaled up: 32K phase 10x to 630B tokens, 128K phase 3.3x to 209B tokens, with more long documents ↗
  2. V3.1Trained with UE8M0 FP8 scale format on weights and activations ↗Why: compatibility with microscaling data formats
  3. V3.2-ExpAdded ~946B tokens of two-stage continued pretraining (indexer warm-up, then sparse adaptation) on the same 128K long-context extension data mix ↗Why: Initialize the indexer, then adapt the whole model to the sparse pattern
  4. V4Native 1M context reached by length extension inside pre-training (4K->16K->64K->1M) ↗Why: support million-token contexts for long-horizon tasks and test-time scaling
  5. V4-Flash-Vision-ExpAdded vision encoder + aligner and continued training: image-text-to-text model; multimodal agent gains (ApexBench 26.2 text-only -> 36.5) with text-agent scores flat or up ↗Why: unlock visual understanding capabilities
Kimi11 releases
MidtrainingMoonlightFeb 24, 2025Kimi-VLApr 10, 2025K2Jul 11, 2025Kimi-LinearOct 30, 2025K2.5Jan 27, 2026K3Jul 16, 2026
Stages
Stage 3 'cooldown' 5.2T->5.7T tokens: LR re-warmed to 1e-4 then linearly decayed to 0 over 500B tokens, batch 4096, highest-quality math/code/reasoning data, aux-free bi…↗
changed
ViT training (CoCa-style, 2T) -> ViT/projector alignment (0.1T) -> joint pre-training (1.4T, MM ratio ramps up to 40%) -> joint cooldown (0.6T) -> joint long-context (0.…↗
changed
After the 5.5T cosine LR decay 2e-4 -> 2e-5 that ends the 15.5T pretraining run: (1) annealing 400B tokens @4k, LR 2e-5 -> 7e-6; (2) long-context activation 60B tokens @32k; (3) YaRN extension to 128k↗
Same annealing schedule and long-context activation phase as Kimi K2 (details not given in this report)↗
changed
1) ViT training: 1T tokens, seq 4096, ViT only (stage a: align MoonViT-3D to Moonlight-16B-A3B with caption loss; stage b: projector only) -> 2) Joint pre-training: 15T…↗
Four-stage context curriculum: 8K -> 64K during pre-training, then 256K -> 1M during the cooldown phase (with upsampled long docs/videos and synthetic long-context tasks)↗
Tokens
0.5T (cooldown)↗
4.4T total incl. ViT stages; 2.3T through the LLM (1.4T + 0.6T + 0.3T)↗
460B (400B annealing @4k + 60B @32k), excluding the 5.5T cosine-decay segment calc↗
·
1T (ViT stage) + 15T (joint pre-training) + 500B->200B (long-context)↗
not disclosed
Long-context method·changed
RoPE base 50,000 -> 800,000; two sub-stages each x4 length (8K->32K->128K); 25% long data (text, video, documents) + 75% replay of shorter data↗
changed
YaRN (after 32k long-context activation stage)↗
changed
NoPE in global MLA layers removes need for RoPE base tuning or YaRN; extended to 1M↗
changed
YaRN interpolation, sequential extension 32K -> 262,144 with higher-quality mid-training data↗
changed
NoPE + KDA recurrence; progressive extension, no RoPE rescaling/YaRN↗
Final context
8K (no long-context extension reported)↗
changed
128K (131,072)↗
changed
128K↗
changed
1M↗
changed
262,144 (256K)↗
changed
1M tokens (training context length 1M per Table 1)↗
Annealing data
Highest-quality data focused on math, code, reasoning↗
Joint cooldown (0.6T): high-fidelity text subsets plus synthetic math/knowledge/code QA from a proprietary LM with rejection sampling; academic vision data rewritten to…↗
not disclosed··changed
Long documents/videos cleaned (exact+fuzzy dedup, perceptual hashing of frames, heuristic+classifier filters, structural validation) and upsampled during cooldown↗
Reasoning data····
Long-context stage data: high-quality text & multimodal, long text, long video, reasoning, long-CoT↗
·
Other·
mid init checkpoint LLM initialized from Moonlight intermediate checkpoint after 5.2T text tokens at 8K context (i.e. before Moonlight's cooldown)↗
mid vit training MoonViT trained on image-text pairs with SigLIP loss + 2x caption loss (CoCa), progressive resolution, tiny text decoder; then 0.1T alignment updating only MoonViT + pro…↗
mid 2506 vit Thinking-2506: MoonViT further continually trained to encode up to 3.2M pixels per image (4x original)↗
··
mid vit training MoonViT-3D continually pretrained from SigLIP on image/video-text pairs with caption cross-entropy only (no contrastive loss, unlike Kimi-VL); ~1T tokens aligning to Moo…↗
mid vision ratio ablation Fixed vision+text budget ablation: early fusion (0%) at 10:90 beat mid (50%, 20:80) and late (80%, 50:50) injection on vision and text metrics; late/mid fusion shows tex…↗
·

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Kimi-VLAdded 400M MoonViT encoder + MLP projector; continued the Moonlight 5.2T-token text checkpoint with 2.3T joint text+multimodal tokens (4.4T incl. ViT stages) ↗Why: Build an efficient MoE VLM with native-resolution vision on top of the Moonlight LM
  2. Kimi-VLContext 8K -> 128K via RoPE base 50K -> 800K in two x4 sub-stages ↗Why: Long-context understanding of text, video and documents
  3. K2Added long-context stages: 400B tokens at 4k + 60B at 32k, then YaRN to 128k (Moonlight stayed at 8K) ↗
  4. Kimi-LinearContext 8K -> 1M (K2 long-context activation; NoPE removes RoPE base tuning/YaRN) ↗Why: Long-context efficiency is the point of the architecture
  5. K2.5Added native vision: MoonViT-3D encoder and ~15T vision-text tokens of joint continued pretraining from a near-end K2 checkpoint, vision mixed at a constant (moderate) ratio from the start rather than late at high ratio ↗Why: Joint text-vision optimization improves both modalities; ablation found early fusion with a lower vision ratio beats late, vision-heavy fusion at a fixed token budget
  6. K2.5Text data recipe extended: new unique tokens, more weight on code (repo-level code, issues, code reviews, commit histories, code documents), per-source epoch caps ↗Why: Strengthen repository-level comprehension and agentic coding subtasks (patch generation, unit tests)
  7. K2.5Own long-context stage: 32K -> 262,144 with YaRN on 500B->200B tokens (K2 card lists 128K context; K2-0905/K2-Thinking already served 256K) ↗Why: Generalization gains in long-context text understanding and long video comprehension
  8. K2.5Vision encoder: MoonViT extended to MoonViT-3D (shared image/video weights, 4-frame chunks, 4x temporal pooling); ViT continual pretraining drops the contrastive loss (caption cross-entropy only) ↗Why: Transfer image understanding to video within one parameter space and process ~4x longer videos in the same context; reason for dropping contrastive loss not stated
  9. K3Training context 128K -> 1M via 8K -> 64K (pre-training) -> 256K -> 1M (cooldown), no RoPE/YaRN changes ↗Why: Keep costly long-sequence compute to a small share of the budget while adapting gradually
GLM14 releases
MidtrainingGLM-4.1V-ThinkingJul 1, 2025GLM-4.5Jul 28, 2025GLM-4.5VAug 11, 2025GLM-4.6Sep 30, 2025GLM-4.6VDec 8, 2025GLM-5Feb 12, 2026GLM-5.2Jun 16, 2026GLM-5.3-FlashAug 26, 2026
Stages·changed
Repo-level code (32K; 500B) -> synthetic reasoning (32K; 500B) -> long-context & agent (128K; 100B)↗
Multimodal (continued) pre-training: seq 8,192, global batch 1,536, 120,000 steps, all modalities except video -> long-context continual training: seq 32,768, +video & >…↗
··changed
32K (1T) -> 128K (500B) -> 200K (50B); then DSA continued pre-training from the end-of-mid-training base: dense warm-up 1,000 steps x 14 x 202,752 tokens (lr 5e-3) + spa…↗
Trained with IndexShare from mid-training at 128K sequence length; expanded 1M-context training for coding-agent scenarios (stage not specified)↗
·
Tokens·
~1.1T (500B + 500B + 100B) calc↗
<=~1.51T (multimodal stage) + <=~0.50T (long-context stage) calc↗
·
<=~34B in the 128K extension stage calc↗
~1.55T mid-training + ~22.8B DSA adaptation calc↗
··
Long-context method·changed
Staged extension 4K -> 32K -> 128K, RoPE base 10K -> 1M, up-sampled long documents, best-fit packing in mid-training↗
··changed
Continual pre-training on massive long-context image-text data; Glyph-style visual-text compression alignment; billion-scale perception + world-knowledge dataset↗
Progressive extension to 200K; natural + synthetic long data (NextLong/EntropyLong-style, interleaved packing), MRCR-like multi-turn recall data at 200K; DSA (indexer to…↗
changed
IndexShare DSA + expanded 1M-context coding-agent training; RoPE theta 8,000,000 in config (GLM-5/5.1: 1,000,000)↗
·
Final context
64K claimed on the model card (report's long-context stage uses 32,768)↗
changed
128K (131,072)↗
64K claimed on the model card (report's long-context stage uses 32,768)↗
changed
200K (config max_position_embeddings 202,752), up from 128K↗
changed
128K (131,072): extra 2,000-step stage at global batch 128↗
changed
200K (202,752)↗
changed
1M (config max_position_embeddings 1,048,576), up from 200K↗
1M (config max_position_embeddings 1,048,576)↗
Reasoning data·changed
Q&A for math/science/coding competitions collected from web and books, reasoning processes synthesized by a reasoning model↗
······
Agentic data·changed
Repo-level concatenated files + model-filtered issues/PRs/commits (diff format) at 32K; large-scale synthetic agent trajectories at 128K↗
···
~10M issue-PR pairs (~160B unique tokens) with repo files/commit diffs; synthetic agent trajectories up-sampled in later stages↗
··
Other·····
mid dsa adaptation DSA introduced via continued pre-training (20B-token sparse stage vs DeepSeek-V3.2's 943.7B); DSA cuts long-sequence attention compute ~1.5-2x↗
··

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. GLM-4.5Explicit mid-training added: repo-level code, synthetic reasoning, long-context & agent; context 32K -> 128K ↗Why: Boost reasoning and agentic capacity
  2. GLM-4.6Context window 128K -> 200K (no architecture change in config) ↗Why: Handle more complex agentic tasks
  3. GLM-4.6VContext 64K -> 128K via extra 131,072-token stage; native multimodal function calling ↗Why: Bridge visual perception and executable action for multimodal agents
  4. GLM-5Mid-training scaled: 32K (1T) / 128K (500B) / new 200K stage (50B); ~10M issue-PR pairs ↗Why: Ultra-long documents and multi-file codebases
  5. GLM-5.2Context 200K -> 1M with expanded 1M-context coding-agent training; RoPE theta 1M -> 8M (config) ↗Why: Long-horizon tasks need reliable long context
MiMo8 releases
MidtrainingMiMo-7BApr 30, 2025MiMo-VL-7BMay 30, 2025V2-FlashDec 16, 2025V2.5Apr 22, 2026V2.5-ProApr 22, 2026V2.6Sep 22, 2026
Stages
Stage 2: math+code raised to ~70% at 8K (4T tokens, LR 3e-5 constant) -> Stage 3: +~10% synthetic reasoning responses, 32K context, RoPE base 640K, batch 640, LR 3e-5 th…↗
changed
S1 projector warmup on captions (300B, LR 1e-3, 8K) -> S2 ViT+projector on interleaved data (167B) -> S3 all params, OCR/grounding/video/GUI + some QA/reasoning/text (1.…↗
Stage 2 'Mid-training' (22-26T): upsample code-centric data + ~5% synthetic reasoning, LR 1e-4 -> 3e-5 -> Stage 3 'Context Extension' (26-27T): 256K, upsample long-range…↗
Projector warmup (audio + visual MLPs) -> large-scale multimodal pretraining↗
·changed
Agent-centric mid-training: stage A at 256K (majority of compute) -> stage B at 1M; optimizer switched to Muown; MXFP4 QAT↗
Tokens
~6T (Stage 2 4T + Stage 3 ~2T) calc↗
2.4T multimodal tokens over four stages (300B / 167B / 1.4T / 550B)↗
~5T (4T Stage 2 + 1T Stage 3) calc↗
··not disclosed
Long-context method
RoPE base 10,000 -> 640,000 with sequence length 8,192 -> 32,768 in Stage 3↗
·
GA RoPE base 640K -> 5M, sequence 32K -> 262,144; expert-bias update factor reduced to 1e-5↗
···
Final context
32,768↗
32K (Stage 4)↗
256K (262,144)↗
changed
1M (extended 32K -> 256K -> 1M during SFT & agentic post-training; Base released at 256K)↗
1M (Base released at 256K; stage of extension not stated)↗
changed
1M↗
Reasoning data
~10% synthetic responses for math, code and creative-writing queries in Stage 3↗
changed
Large-reasoning-model regenerated long-CoT answers with rejection sampling, put into later pre-training stages (not just SFT)↗
~5% synthetic reasoning data in Stage 2↗
···
Agentic data·····changed
Realistic agent trajectories (coding, general, visual, research) + high-quality text, repo-level code, image/video/audio; plus self-correction examples from reward-hacki…↗
Other·····
mid optimizer Switch AdamW -> Muown (Muon + explicit row-norm control) for hidden matrices; embeddings, LM head, router stay on AdamW; no loss spike↗
mid alignment data Self-correction data: MiMo reflects on its own reward-hacking turns and rewrites them, added to mid-training↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. MiMo-VL-7BAdded Qwen2.5-ViT + MLP projector to MiMo-7B-Base and continued pretraining on 2.4T multimodal tokens with long-CoT synthetic reasoning in later stages ↗Why: Long-CoT reasoning data in pretraining gives richer supervision than short QA and keeps improving without saturation
  2. V2.5Text-only model became natively omnimodal: in-house 729M ViT and audio encoder added via projectors and trained on ~48T total tokens; context extended to 1M ↗Why: Native visual and audio understanding with agentic capability in one model
  3. V2.6New agent-centric mid-training phase (agent trajectories + repo code + omni data, 256K then 1M) before RL ↗Why: Give RL a larger exploration space for agentic tasks
  4. V2.6Optimizer switched from AdamW to Muown (Muon variant with row-norm control) for hidden matrices from mid-training through RL ↗Why: AdamW optimization efficiency fell as batch size grew in mixed-task RL; Muon keeps data efficiency beyond the critical batch size
  5. V2.6MXFP4 quantization-aware training in mid-training; RL rollouts run MXFP4 experts with QDQ after each update (V2-Flash used FP8 for RL) ↗Why: Adapt the model to low-precision computation while preserving quality; identical expert weights across engines
Gemma6 releases
MidtrainingGemma-3Mar 12, 2025Gemma-3nJun 26, 2025Gemma-3-270MAug 14, 2025Gemma-4Apr 2, 2026Gemma-4-12BJun 3, 2026
Stages
None by the stage rule: the only disclosed step, 32K -> 128K at the end of pre-training (4B/12B/27B), is length growth the lab does not name as a separate phase, so it counts as pretraining; no annealing or data-mix stage disclosed↗
··not disclosed·
Tokensnot disclosed····
Long-context methodchanged
RoPE rescaling (positional interpolation, Chen et al. 2023) with scaling factor 8↗
··not disclosed·
Final contextchanged
128K (4B, 12B, 27B); 32K (1B)↗
32K↗
32K↗
changed
128K (E2B, E4B); 256K (26B-A4B, 31B)↗
256K↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Gemma-3Global-layer RoPE base 10k -> 1M; 32K pre-training then RoPE-rescaled (x8) to 128K ↗Why: Reach 128K context without training on 128K sequences from scratch
  2. Gemma-4Context 128K -> 256K for the medium models (E2B/E4B at 128K) ↗Why: Pass repositories or long documents in one prompt
Microsoft AI4 releases
MidtrainingMAI-Thinking-1Jun 2, 2026
Stages
MT1: 3.4T tokens at 65,536 ctx, cosine LR 2e-5 -> 1e-5, no warmup, 8,192 GPUs; MT2: 150B tokens at 262,144 ctx, constant LR 1e-6, 4,096 GPUs (ZeRO-3 + context parallelis…↗
Tokens
3.55T (3.4T + 150B)↗
Long-context method
Staged length increase 16K -> 64K -> 256K; same data mix re-packed at the longer length; no RoPE-rescaling method described (global layers are NoPE)↗
Final context
256K (262,144 tokens)↗
Annealing data
STEM/math raised to 35%, code kept at 55%, 10% background; all drawn from the pre-training corpus (no new or synthetic sources)↗
Reasoning data
PDF documents filtered with a 'Bloom Analyze' heuristic (EssentialAI taxonomy): high technical correctness, >= intermediate reasoning depth↗
Other
mid data source Subset of the pre-training corpus, filtered and re-weighted; no new or synthetic data↗
mid code data Per-quality-tier file-extension filtering; file-level documents added alongside repo-level format↗
mid epoch caps Memorization-aware epoch caps: stricter caps for sources whose loss gains come from near-certain (NLL<0.01) tokens↗
Thinking Machines2 releases
MidtrainingInklingJul 15, 2026Inkling-SmallJul 30, 2026
Stagesnot disclosednot disclosed
Long-context methodnot disclosed·
Final context
Up to 1M tokens↗
Up to 1M tokens↗
Qwen23 releases
MidtrainingQVQ-72B-PreviewDec 25, 2024Qwen2.5-VLJan 26, 2025Qwen2.5-1MJan 27, 2025QwQ-32BMar 6, 2025Qwen2.5-VL-32BMar 24, 2025Qwen2.5-OmniMar 27, 2025Qwen3Apr 29, 2025Qwen3-2507Jul 21, 2025Qwen3-CoderJul 22, 2025Qwen3-NextSep 11, 2025Qwen3-OmniSep 22, 2025Qwen3-VLSep 23, 2025Qwen3-Coder-NextFeb 3, 2026WebWorldFeb 16, 2026Qwen3.5Feb 16, 2026Qwen3.5-MediumFeb 24, 2026Qwen3.5-SmallMar 2, 2026Qwen3.6-35B-A3BApr 15, 2026Qwen3.6-27BApr 22, 2026Qwen-AgentWorldJun 22, 2026Qwen3.8Aug 12, 2026Qwen3.8-27BAug 14, 2026Qwen3.8-Flash-NextAug 26, 2026
Stages·
Visual pre-training 1.5T (ViT only, 8K) -> multimodal pre-training 2T (all params, 8K, incl. pure text) -> long-context pre-training 0.6T (32K)↗
5-stage progressive length expansion: 4K and 32K reuse an intermediate Qwen2.5 base; then 64K, 128K, 256K↗
··
S1: LLM locked, train vision/audio encoders (adapters first); S2: all params, wider multimodal data; S3: 32K long sequences↗
S2 Reasoning stage: ~5T higher-quality tokens at 4K, more STEM/code/reasoning/synthetic, faster LR decay; S3 Long-context stage: hundreds of billions of tokens at 32K↗
··not disclosedchanged
S1 encoder alignment (LLM from Qwen3 frozen; adapters, then encoders); S2 general, all params, ~2T; S3 long context 8,192 -> 32,768 with more long audio/video↗
S0 merger-only alignment 67B @8,192; S1 full multimodal ~1T @8,192; S2 long-context ~1T @32,768; S3 ultra-long 100B @262,144↗
One named mid-training (continued pretraining) stage on the Qwen3-Next base, then SFT, expert models and expert distillation↗
·not disclosed····changed
Three stages: (1) CPT on non-thinking environment trajectories + domain-knowledge corpora; (2) SFT on thinking trajectories; (3) RL (GSPO); stage data pools strictly disjoint↗
··
Continued pretraining at 256K that retrofits QSA: (1) dense distillation of attention into the indexer; (2) joint sparse training of backbone + indexer↗
Tokens·
4.1T on top of the Qwen2.5 LLM↗
not disclosed··
S2 adds ~1.2T multimodal tokens (800B image/video + 300B audio + 100B video-with-audio) plus pure text; S1/S3 not given calc↗
≈5T (S2) + hundreds of billions (S3) calc↗
···
~2T in S2; S1 and S3 token counts not given↗
≈2.2T (67B + ~1T + ~1T + 100B) on top of Qwen3 LLMs calc↗
"Trillions of tokens" (exact figure not given); repository-level data ≈600B tokens of it↗
······not disclosed··
≈202B in the two QSA stages (≈2B indexer warm-up + ≈200B sparse training); total CPT tokens not stated calc↗
Long-context method··changed
RoPE ABF: base 10k -> 1M at 32K; 1M, 5M, 10M at 64K, 128K, 256K; each stage 75% max-length + 25% shorter sequences↗
···
ABF (RoPE base 10k -> 1M) during 32K training; YaRN + Dual Chunk Attention for 4x length at inference↗
Training method not described; 1M use via Dual Chunk Attention + MInference sparse attention at inference (from Qwen2.5-1M), up to 3x faster near 1M↗
·
Training method not described; YaRN validated to 1M tokens at inference↗
·
Sequence length grown 8K -> 32K -> 262,144 across S1-S3, with more text-only and long video/document data as length grows↗
Training context extended 32,768 -> 262,144 during mid-training (repository-level data), with best-fit packing↗
·
Static YaRN RoPE scaling at inference beyond 262K; training-time extension not described↗
·······
CPT at 256K with QSA replacing full attention; YaRN to 1M at inference↗
Final contextnot disclosed
32,768 (third phase); config ships at 32,768↗
changed
Trained to 262,144; served at 1M via training-free extrapolation (DCA + YaRN attention scaling)↗
1M tokens input, 8K generation↗
131,072 (YaRN required beyond 8,192)↗
32,768 as configured; YaRN for longer inputs↗
32,768 (S1-S2 at 8,192)↗
32,768 native; 131,072 with YaRN (4B and larger list 128K)↗
32,768 native; 131,072 with YaRN↗
changed
262,144 native (up from 32,768 in Qwen3); how it was trained is not described↗
262,144 native; up to 1,010,000 with DCA + sparse attention (~1000 GB GPU memory for 1M)↗
256K native; 1M with YaRN; long-context data built from repo-scale and dynamic data such as pull requests↗
262,144 native↗
262,144 native; up to 1,010,000 with YaRN↗
262,144 native (default in SGLang/vLLM recipes); up to 1,010,000↗
32,768↗
changed
262,144 native; expandable to 1M↗
256K native, expandable to 1M↗
262,144 tokens natively↗
40,960 positions in config.json (inherited Qwen3 setting); fine-tuning sequences packed to 20,000 tokens (report Table 9)↗
262,144 native; up to 1,010,000 with YaRN↗
Hosted Qwen3.5-Plus: 1M context by default, built-in tools↗
262,144 native; up to 1,010,000 with YaRN↗
262,144 native (9B and 4B extensible to 1,010,000; 0.8B and 2B listed as 262,144 natively)↗
262,144 native; up to 1,010,000↗
262,144 native; up to 1,010,000↗
256K (262,144); SFT uses a 256k window, RL prompts capped at 128k↗
262,144 tokens↗
262,144 native; up to 1,010,000 (hosted Qwen3.8-Max: 1M by default)↗
Hosted Qwen3.8-Max: 1M context by default, vision input and non-thinking support↗
262,144 native; up to 1,000,000↗
262,144 native; up to 1,000,000 with YaRN↗
Hosted as Qwen3.8-Flash: 1M context by default; US$0.15 / 0.47 per M input / output tokens↗
Annealing data······
S2 raises the share of STEM, coding, reasoning and synthetic data↗
················
Reasoning data···········
12M+ synthesized multimodal long-CoT samples (validated, rejection-sampled) plus Qwen3 text reasoning data↗
···········
Agentic data···········
Cross-platform GUI trajectories from a self-evolving pipeline with human audits; synthetic multimodal function-calling and search trajectories↗
Multi-turn tool-calling trajectories on synthesized SWE tasks from six scaffolds (SWE-agent, Mini-SWE-agent, OpenHands, Claude Code, Qwen Code, Terminus); teacher Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B-Instruct; rule-filtered↗
······
CPT on environment trajectories from dedicated agent infrastructure (sandboxes, MCP servers, terminals, Android/browser/desktop VMs) and cleaned open interaction traces↗
···
Other··
length mix Each extension stage: 75% sequences at current max length, 25% shorter↗
long range synthetic data Natural long text (Common Crawl, arXiv, books, code repos) plus synthetic long-range tasks: fill-in-the-middle, keyword/position retrieval, paragraph reordering↗
ruler by stage 14B RULER@128K rises from 37.6 (after 32K stage) to 83.8 (128K) and 87.6 (256K stage)↗
···
long context mix Long-context corpus: 75% of text 16,384-32,768 tokens long, 25% 4,096-16,384↗
···
non degradation study Controlled study: text-only, vision-only and Omni 30B-A3B bases pre-trained with matched data, schedule and FLOPs; Omni matches text and vision baselines↗
·
midtrain mix Mostly natural data (GitHub files, repos, PRs, code review; Common Crawl text-code grounding) plus a smaller synthetic share; repo-level data ≈600B tokens↗
programming languages 370 programming languages (up from 92 in Qwen2.5-Coder)↗
synthetic rewriting Web documents rewritten into clean Markdown by Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B-Instruct (EvalPlus 54.4 -> 63.1 in ablation); also grounded QA pairs generated from Common Crawl↗
midtrain decontamination PR-derived data filtered and decontaminated against downstream benchmarks↗
packing Best-fit packing (re-implemented in C++ in Megatron) instead of concat-then-split, to avoid truncating tool definitions↗
fim objective Next-token prediction plus fill-in-the-middle (chat-FIM and search-and-replace FIM from Stack-V2)↗
repetition masking Loss masking on highly repetitive segments↗
······
cpt trajectories More than 10M environment interaction trajectories across 7 domains↗
cpt knowledge corpora Specialized-domain world-knowledge corpora mixed into CPT as single-turn data: industrial control, cybersecurity, law, medicine, finance, current affairs, encyclopedic↗
cpt loss masking Turn-level information-theoretic loss masking: overlap/novelty/Jaccard/length-ratio statistics sort turns into 7 categories with loss keep ratios (echo 5%, boilerplate 10%, transform 50%, others 100%)↗
data filtering Trajectory- and turn-level filters: drop <2-turn and environment-failure trajectories, skip garbage->error->retry cycles while keeping state, remove no-change GUI turns↗
··
qsa indexer warmup Indexer-only KL distillation from summed teacher attention: 1,000 steps, LR 1e-3, 8 × 256K sequences per step (≈2B tokens)↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Qwen2.5-1MOpen models go from 128K to 1M tokens (trained to 256K, extrapolated to 1M) ↗Why: Lab credits long-context pre-training and post-training
  2. Qwen2.5-1MProgressive five-stage length expansion to 262,144 with RoPE base raised to 10M, plus synthetic long-range tasks ↗Why: Cuts the cost of long-context training
  3. Qwen3-2507Native context 32,768 -> 262,144 (to ~1M with DCA + MInference) ↗
  4. Qwen3-OmniDropped the stage that trained encoder and adapter jointly on a frozen LLM; adapters trained first, then encoders ↗Why: Encoder compensating for a frozen LLM can degrade perception
  5. Qwen3-VLSquare-root-normalized per-token loss replaces per-sample loss ↗Why: Balance text-only and multimodal objectives without hurting text
  6. Qwen3-VLMultimodal pre-training extended to 256K (Qwen2.5-VL stopped at 32K) ↗
  7. Qwen-AgentWorldAdds a world-modeling continued pre-training stage on Qwen3.5 base checkpoints (environment trajectories + domain-knowledge corpora) before SFT and RL ↗Why: Make environment modeling the training objective from CPT onward rather than a post-hoc adaptation of a general LLM
MiniMax10 releases
MidtrainingText-01Jan 15, 2025VL-01Jan 15, 2025SynLogicMay 26, 2025M1Jun 16, 2025M2Oct 27, 2025M2.1Dec 23, 2025M2.5Feb 12, 2026M2.7Mar 18, 2026M3Jun 1, 2026M3.1-FlashOct 19, 2026
Stages
(1) fast-decay phase: 1T tokens, LR decayed exponentially to 3e-5; (2) three-stage long-context extension 128K -> 512K -> 1M (300B / 32B / 26B tokens)↗
Stage I modality alignment: 80B tokens of description data, ViT and adapter updated, images fixed at 336x336↗
·
Continued pre-training of Text-01: constant 8e-5 for 2.5T, then decay to 8e-6 over 5T; four-stage context extension 32K -> 1M↗
Decay phase: 9.3T tokens of short-text decay data plus long-context data, context 8K -> 32K -> 192K; MTP grown from 1 to 3 modules↗
·····
Tokens
≈1.36T (1T fast decay + 300B + 32B + 26B long-context) calc↗
512B vision-language tokens across all four stages as stated; the per-stage figures (80B + 420B + 44.8B) sum to 544.8B calc↗
·
7.5T↗
9.3T↗
·····
Long-context method
RoPE base 5M at 128K, 10M at 512K and 1M; long (>128K) data share 0 -> 30% -> 40%; 10% long-context QA in the last 20% of each stage; source weights interpolated linearly between stages↗
··changed
Smoother four-stage extension from 32K to 1M; aggressive extension had caused sudden gradient explosions (early and late lightning layers decay differently)↗
Multi-stage extension 8K -> 32K -> 192K; long samples from concatenated code, long PDFs and thematically related document packing↗
·····
Final context
1M trained (longer inference-time extrapolation: see context_length_served)↗
Up to 4M tokens at inference↗
Up to 4M tokens, stated for both MiniMax-01 models together; no VL-01-specific figure↗
131,072 (max_position_embeddings in the SynLogic-32B config.json)↗
1M input; up to 80K output (M1-80k)↗
1M input tokens↗
192K (196,608 in config)↗
196,608 (max_position_embeddings)↗
196,608 (max_position_embeddings)↗
196,608 (max_position_embeddings)↗
204,800 (max_position_embeddings; M2-M2.5: 196,608)↗
changed
1M↗
Up to 1M via API, with at least 512K guaranteed↗
1M (card: up to 1,000,000 tokens)↗
1,000,000↗
Annealing data····
High-quality data mixed into the decay phase↗
·····
Reasoning data···changed
STEM, code, book and reasoning data raised to 70%; natural QA pairs extracted from webpages, forums and textbooks, semantically deduplicated↗
······
Other···
cpt synthetic data Continued pre-training explicitly avoids synthetic data↗
······

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. M17.5T-token continued pre-training of Text-01 with STEM, code, book and reasoning data raised to 70% ↗Why: Strengthen the base's intrinsic reasoning before scaling RL
  2. M1Context extension made smoother: four stages from 32K to 1M ↗Why: Aggressive extension of the hybrid model caused sudden gradient explosions
  3. M31M-token context (from 192K-200K in the M2 series) ↗Why: Long-horizon agent tasks, repositories and long video
StepFun6 releases
MidtrainingORZFeb 18, 2025Step-3Jul 25, 2025PaCoRe-8BDec 9, 2025Step-3.5-FlashFeb 2, 2026Step-3.7-FlashMay 29, 2026Step-5-PreviewOct 15, 2026
Stages···
(1) annealing 3T (2T at 4K + 1T at 32K, filed under pre-training); (2) Mid-train S1: 386B at 32K (81B replay); (3) Mid-train S2: 364B at 128K (10.5B replay)↗
··
Tokens·
3.7T high-quality text tokens reserved for the annealing phases (counted within the 20T+ text tokens)↗
·
750B named mid-training (386B + 364B), plus the 3T annealing stage inside 'pre-training'↗
··
Long-context method···
Selective RoPE scaling on full-attention layers (theta 1M at 32K, 5M at 128K; SWA fixed at 10k); YaRN x2 on full layers only to serve 256K↗
·
Sparse GQA on full layers built for 1M-token training and inference; 'sustained training on long contexts' (stages not described)↗
Final context·
64K (65,536)↗
·
128K trained in mid-training; 256K served via YaRN↗
256K↗
256K↗
changed
Up to 1M tokens (config max positions 1,048,576); docs: max output 64K↗
1M input; maximum output 64K on the StepFun API↗
Annealing data···
Higher-quality knowledge, reasoning-dense samples, code and PR/Issue/Commit; books/papers limited to High/Medium-High tiers; cluster rebalancing in cooldown↗
··
Reasoning data···
Synthetic long-horizon reasoning plus natural >32K documents at 128K; 12B tokens of rewritten reasoning-oriented PR data↗
··
Agentic data···
SWE and tool-use-centric mixtures at 32K; code-agent, search-agent and tool-use data at 128K; PR dialogues converted to chat with prompts masked↗
··
Other···
midtrain router freeze Router weights frozen, EP-group balance loss off, MTP weight 0.1; LR warmed to 2e-5, constant in S1, decayed to 7.3e-6 in S2↗
··

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Step-5-PreviewUp to 1M tokens (Step 3.5 Flash: 256K served) ↗
Ling29 releases
MidtrainingLing-plusMar 7, 2025Ling-Coder-liteMar 22, 2025Ring-lite-distill-previewMar 29, 2025Ring-lite-linear-previewApr 24, 2025Ling-lite-1.5May 10, 2025Ring-liteJun 17, 2025Ling-lite-1.5-2506Jul 23, 2025Ring-lite-2507Aug 5, 2025Ling-lite-1.5-2507Aug 8, 2025Ling-mini-2.0Sep 8, 2025Ring-mini-2.0Sep 8, 2025Ling-flash-2.0Sep 17, 2025Ring-flash-2.0Sep 19, 2025Ring-linear-2.0Sep 24, 2025Ling-1TOct 9, 2025Ring-1TOct 14, 2025Ring-mini-sparse-2.0-expOct 14, 2025Ring-flash-linear-2.0-128kOct 21, 2025Ring-2.5-1TFeb 10, 2026Ling-2.5-1TFeb 14, 2026Ling-2.6-flashApr 28, 2026Ling-2.6-1TApr 29, 2026Ring-2.6-1TMay 14, 2026Ling-3.0-flashAug 2, 2026Ling-3.0-tinyAug 10, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-FinSep 3, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-VLSep 4, 2026Ling-3.1-flashOct 13, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-SanteOct 19, 2026
Stages
(1) long-context pre-training: 16K, RoPE θ 10K -> 600K, 150B tokens, less web data; (2) annealing: inverse-sqrt LR 1.2e-4 -> 1.2e-8 on curated data↗
From a 7T Ling-lite checkpoint: stage 1 870B (LR 3e-4 -> 1.5e-4 stepwise), stage 2 1.7T (cosine 1.4e-4 -> 1.1e-4), annealing 630B (inverse-sqrt to 1.4e-6)↗
···········
Attention converted on Ling-base-2.0-20T checkpoints; continued training at 4K on the original corpus; mid-training 4K -> 32K -> 128K with more reasoning data; WSM merging↗
(1) Long-context extension: 150B tokens, 20% at 32K; (2) reasoning pre-activation: 600B tokens with added CoT corpora at higher LR; top-32 checkpoints merged (WSM); YaRN to 128K↗
····
After the attention retrofit, continued pre-training of Ling-2.5-1T-base on 9T high-quality tokens (world knowledge, basic agent ability) with training context extended to 256K↗
·
(1) Migration ~400B at 4K: Lightning conversion, linear warm-up, MLA conversion, MLA warm-up; (2) continued pre-training 8T at 4K; (3) mid-training 1.2T: 250B (20% at 32K), 425B at 32K, 525B at 256K↗
·
Three released stages: pre-trained (30T, no decay) -> mid-trained -> WSM-merged base; context 8K -> 32K -> 256K; mid-training content not described↗
·····
Tokens
150B (long-context stage); annealing tokens not stated↗
3.2T on top of a 7T checkpoint (>10T total)↗
···········
600B (mini) / 1T (flash) for the restore stage; mid-training tokens not stated↗
750B (150B + 600B; computed) calc↗
·
+100B tokens from Ling-mini-base-2.0-20T↗
+1T tokens after conversion from Ling-flash-base-2.0↗
·
9T↗
·
~9.6T (≈400B migration + 8T continued + 1.2T mid-training)↗
·······
Long-context method
RoPE base increase (θ 10K -> 600K) with 16K sequences and long-form data↗
·············
Train at 32K, then YaRN extrapolation to 128K↗
·
YaRN 4x window extrapolation to 128K↗
··
Train at 256K, then YaRN to 1M↗
·
Staged 4K -> 32K -> 256K with high-quality data; AllGather context parallelism for Lightning Attention↗
·······
Final context
64K (Ling-plus and Ling-plus-base)↗
Ling-lite (0415 version) 128K; Ling-lite-base 64K↗
16K (base, instruct and GPTQ-Int8)↗
64K↗
64K↗
changed
128K (base and chat)↗
128K↗
128K↗
128K↗
not disclosed
32K -> 128K (YaRN)↗
128K (with YaRN)↗
32K -> 128K (YaRN)↗
32K native; the card's vLLM YaRN example sets factor 4.0 on 32,768, ≈128K (computed) calc↗
128K↗
128K (32K -> 128K via YaRN)↗
128K↗
64K -> 128K (YaRN)↗
128K (YaRN 4x window extrapolation)↗
128K native; 512K with YaRN↗
128K -> 256K (YaRN)↗
changed
256K -> 1M (YaRN)↗
262,144 tokens in the card's SGLang launch example↗
256K↗
262,144 tokens↗
128K -> 256K (YaRN)↗
256K native, extendable to 1M↗
128K native (config max_position_embeddings 131,072); 256K with YaRN factor 2 in the card's SGLang recipe↗
256K↗
256K↗
1M (official service exposes 256K)↗
256K (training extended to 256K tokens)↗
Annealing data
Only clean, meticulously curated high-quality datasets↗
Less raw code, more synthetic data: ~95B filtered high-quality code, ~163B Magpie-synthesized code QA (0.15B pairs), ~14B SFT-style data↗
············
No LR-decay anneal; parameters of the top-N (N = 32) final mid-training checkpoints are averaged (WSM)↗
······
No LR decay; final annealing via WSM checkpoint merging↗
·······
Reasoning data··············changed
High-quality chain-of-thought corpora to 'pre-activate' reasoning before post-training↗
······
Second mid-training phase (425B at 32K) sharply raises the share of high-quality data; mid-training drops general web from the multilingual mix↗
·······
Agentic data·····················
Agentic corpus from 500+ real MCP environments and 3,000+ tools plus synthetic coding tasks, trajectories from diverse teacher models; 15% of the 256K phase (43% general, 42% reasoning)↗
·······
Other·
code data mix Code ≥60% of continued training (~1.4T code data: 836B source, 119B code text, 177B synthetic, 182B filtered, 132B repo-level; 618 languages) plus 200B recalled math↗
fim objective Next-token prediction plus Fill-In-Middle during continued pre-training↗
·
attention conversion Converted from softmax-attention Ling-lite-0220 (conversion recipe not described; report marked TBD)↗
·········
attention conversion QKV of linear layers expanded to MHA along the head dim; new gate and RMSNorm parameters randomly initialised; >98% of base performance restored in most categories↗
long context data Retrieve-synthesize-validate long-text pipeline yielding ~1.2T tokens↗
······
migration cost QK Norm removal raised mini-scale test perplexity 6.65 -> 11.13 before partial-parameter warm-up recovered it↗
·······

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Ling-lite-1.5New Ling-lite-base-1.5 and chat model at 128K context (Ling-lite-base was 64K), with improved long-text capability on NIAH ↗
  2. Ling-1TChain-of-thought data introduced in mid-training to 'pre-activate' reasoning ↗Why: Raises the reasoning ceiling and stabilises later SFT and RL
  3. Ling-2.5-1TTraining context extended to 256K, with YaRN to 1M (Ling-1T: 128K) ↗Why: Hybrid linear attention makes long-context training efficient
Nemotron23 releases
MidtrainingLlama-NemotronMar 18, 2025Nemotron-HMar 21, 2025OpenCodeReasoning-NemotronApr 2, 2025OpenMath-NemotronApr 23, 2025LN-Nano-4B-v1.1May 20, 2025AceReason-NemotronMay 22, 2025LN-Nano-VLJun 3, 2025Nemotron-H-ReasoningJun 6, 2025LN-Super-v1.5Jul 25, 2025Nano-2Aug 18, 2025Nano-2-VLOct 28, 2025Nemotron-3-NanoDec 15, 2025Nemotron-CascadeDec 15, 2025Nemotron-TerminalFeb 24, 2026Nemotron-3-SuperMar 11, 2026Nemotron-3-Nano-4BMar 17, 2026Cascade-2Mar 19, 2026Nemotron-3-Nano-OmniApr 28, 2026Nemotron-3-UltraJun 4, 2026Nemotron-3.5-LightningAug 11, 2026Labs-Competitive-CodingSep 2, 2026Bolt-74BOct 15, 2026Nemotron-3.5-SuperOct 15, 2026
Stages
Post-NAS recovery: LN-Super 40B tokens knowledge distillation (Distillation Mix); LN-Ultra 65B tokens KD, then 88B tokens continued pretraining on Nemotron-H phase 4 data↗
·····
Three training stages, all on commercial images (stages not itemised); LLM unfrozen during interleaved image-text pre-training↗
··
Phase LC after pretraining Phase 3: continued pretraining at 524,288 (512k) context, constant LR 4.5e-6, batch 12 (~6M tokens); blend = Phase 3 at 80% + 20% synthetic long-document QA↗
Stage 0: MLP-connector warm-up with vision encoder and LLM frozen, ~2.2M samples (up to 36B tokens) at 16K↗
One: long-context phase (LC-Phase) CPT after the 25T run, constant LR 1e-5, global batch 48, on H100s↗
··
Long-context phase (CPT) after the 25T run: (1) 34B tokens at 1M context; (2) 17B tokens alternating 1M and 4K sequences↗
KD from the frozen 9B parent: Stage 1 63B tokens @8K (~70% post-training, 30% pretraining data); Stage 2 150B tokens @49K; 213B total (computed)↗
·
Modality-alignment stages at 16K: S0 vision projector 15.5B tok; S1 vision+LLM 214.8B; S2 audio projector 11.4B; S3 audio encoder+projector 100.5B↗
One LC-Phase of continuous pretraining from a 500B-token-window merged checkpoint: constant LR 2.5e-6, 46% long-context + 54% phase-2 data↗
changed
(1) 100B MTP warm-up; (2) 1T distillation, LR 1e-5→1e-4 over 200B, linear decay to 1e-5 over 800B; (3) 21B LC-Phase at 1M; no Indic CPT or SWE mid-training↗
··changed
(1) 100B MTP warm-up; (2) 1T distillation from Ultra 3 Base; (3) 100B Indic CPT; (4) 35B LC-Phase at 1M; (5) 65.4B agentic SWE mid-training at 256K; (6) 9B 1M recovery↗
Tokens
153B for LN-Ultra (65B KD + 88B continued pretraining); 40B KD for LN-Super calc↗
········
18.9B (Phase LC)↗
·
121B↗
··
51B (34B + 17B in the long-context phase) calc↗
···
33B tokens (LC-Phase)↗
≈1.121T (100B MTP warm-up + 1T distillation + 21B long-context) calc↗
·
120B KD tokens: 72B at 8K (router converges in the first 8B), then 48B at 128K; ~16.8M tokens/batch; 128 GB200 GPUs for ~64 h↗
≈1.31T (100B + 1T + 100B + 35B + 65.4B + 9B); card rounds SWE stage to 67B calc↗
Long-context method····
RoPE scaling applied after the RPO stages, followed by a light reasoning-accuracy recovery RPO round (128K served)↗
····
CPT at 512k sequence length (beat 256k/128k in Nemotron-H 8B ablations), TP8 + 16-way context parallelism, synthetic long-doc QA from Qwen-2.5-72B-Instruct↗
·changed
No RoPE; one CPT stage mixing 512k and 4k sequences (no staged 8k→512k ramp); blend 20% doc QA, 1% synthetic retrieval, 79% Phase-2 data↗
··
Direct CPT at 1M (model has no positional embeddings); constant LR 4.5e-6, global batch 16; 20% document-QA + 80% downscaled Phase 2 data; 1M/4K alternation to protect math↗
···changed
CPT at 1,048,576 tokens for 92% of iterations, 4K for 8% (math/code SFT-style data only there); doc QA + long-context SFT-style data, no RULER-style data↗
LC-Phase continued pretraining at 1M context, constant LR 1e-5, Nemotron 3 Ultra LC data blend; CP8/TP8/EP8/PP2 on GB200↗
··
LC-Phase CPT at 1M, constant LR 4.5e-6, Ultra 3 LC blend, 35B tokens (CP16/TP8/EP64, GB300); 9B recovery after 256K mid-training (RULER-1M 33.5→81.0)↗
Final context
128K tokens; no NVIDIA context-extension phase described↗
128K (input and output up to 131,072 tokens)↗
8K (base models)↗
32,768 tokens (1.0 models; the 1.1 cards double it)↗
131,072 tokens↗
128K (input/output up to 131,072 tokens)↗
·
16K tokens (input + output)↗
128K↗
128K (input/output up to 131,072 tokens)↗
changed
128K↗
128K↗
changed
128K (input + output)↗
changed
1M tokens (CPT at 512k, SFT at 256k; HF config default 256k)↗
Up to 1M tokens (examples default to 256k)↗
··
1M (1,048,576) tokens↗
Up to 1M tokens; Hugging Face config defaults to 256K↗
262K↗
Up to 1M tokens↗
changed
256K (262,144) reached in SFT Stage 6, after 16K and 48K stages↗
256K tokens↗
1M tokens (1,048,576)↗
Up to 1M tokens (vLLM examples default to 256K; 1M via --max-model-len 1048576)↗
1M tokens↗
Up to 1M tokens (256K on a single H100 in BF16)↗
262,144 tokens↗
Up to 256K tokens (24GB budget sized for 128K at batch 1)↗
1M tokens↗
Up to 1M tokens (text, visual inputs, history and output share the window)↗
Agentic data······················changed
65.4B tokens at 256K: issue-PR 41%, repos 20%, pretrain replay 20%, agent traces 10% (tool outputs masked), LC 5%, commits 3%, CI logs 1%↗
Other
puzzle nas Puzzle NAS (Super, Ultra): block-wise local distillation builds a library of block variants (attention removed, FFN at 87% down to 10% width); a MIP solver picks one per layer under throughput/memory limits↗
ffn fusion LN-Ultra only: runs of consecutive FFN blocks left after attention removal are fused into fewer, wider FFN layers executed in parallel, cutting sequential depth↗
····················
compression star elastic Star Elastic: budget-conditioned router (Gumbel-softmax prefix masks) picks routed-expert count and MoE width per layer for a <24GB target, trained jointly with logit KD from the frozen parent↗
·

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Nano-2Base made 128k-capable by a long-context continued-pretraining phase at 512k (Nemotron-H bases were 8K) ↗
  2. Nano-2-VLContext length extended from 16K to 128K ↗Why: Better handling of long videos and complex reasoning
  3. Nemotron-3-NanoLong-context document-QA data scaled 3x over Nano 2; CPT mixes 512k and 4k sequences ↗Why: Pure 512k batches slightly hurt short-context scores
  4. Nemotron-3-NanoMoE hybrid extends to 1M better than Nano 2's dense hybrid: base RULER@1M 54.19 vs 23.43, both trained up to 512k ↗
  5. Nemotron-3-Nano-OmniMaximum context raised from 128K to 256K tokens ↗Why: Better long-context multimodal reasoning
  6. Nemotron-3-UltraLC phase adds long-context SFT-style data to Super's doc-QA blend (46% long / 54% phase 2) and trains 92% of iterations at 1M, 8% at 4K ↗
  7. Nemotron-3.5-LightningNot a new pretrain: Nemotron 3 Nano Base is distilled for 1T tokens from Nemotron 3 Super Base ↗
  8. Nemotron-3.5-SuperNot a new pretrain: Nemotron 3 Super Base is distilled for 1T tokens from Nemotron 3 Ultra Base ↗
  9. Nemotron-3.5-SuperNew agentic software-engineering mid-training: 65.4B tokens at 256K of repos, issue-PR pairs, commits, CI logs, agent traces ↗Why: Pretraining sees almost no agent interactions and long SFT can blunt RL gains; improves robustness across agent harnesses
Mistral17 releases
MidtrainingSmall-3Jan 30, 2025Small-3.1Mar 17, 2025Devstral-Small-1.0May 21, 2025Magistral-Small-1.0Jun 10, 2025Small-3.2Jun 20, 2025Devstral-Small-1.1Jul 10, 2025VoxtralJul 15, 2025Magistral-Small-1.1Jul 24, 2025Magistral-Small-1.2Sep 17, 2025Large-3Dec 2, 2025Ministral-3Dec 2, 2025Devstral-2Dec 9, 2025Small-4Mar 16, 2026LeanstralMar 16, 2026Medium-3.5Apr 28, 2026Leanstral-1.5Jul 2, 2026Large-4Oct 6, 2026
Stages·
Continued training of Mistral Small 3 that adds vision and extends context to 128k; stages and token counts not described↗
The base model's long-context extension phase to 128k (no details)↗
···
Audio pretraining of an existing decoder: an adapter-only warm-up pass (encoder and decoder frozen), then audio-text training↗
···
Per size: prune -> short-context (16k) distillation -> long-context distillation to 262,144; the short-context child is pruned to seed the next size↗
····
A named mid-training stage precedes SFT and RL; data and token counts not described↗
·
Long-context method·not disclosed·······
YaRN factor 36 over 8,192 original positions plus Llama-4 scaling, per params.json; the extension phase itself is not described↗
YaRN + position-based temperature scaling, 16,384 -> 262,144 (YaRN factor 16 in params.json)↗
······
Final context
32k (max_seq_len 32768 in params.json)↗
32k↗
changed
128k↗
128k↗
128k↗
128k window, but performance may degrade past 40k (40k max recommended)↗
128k (card: key features same as Small 3.1)↗
128k↗
32K tokens (~40 min audio for understanding, ~30 min for transcription)↗
128k (performance may degrade past 40k)↗
128k; the lab now recommends keeping the full 128k (max_tokens 131072)↗
256k↗
256k (reasoning variants 128k)↗
256K for both sizes↗
256k↗
256k (<=200k recommended)↗
256k↗
256k (<=200k recommended)↗
1M↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Small-3.1Context window expanded from 32k to 128k tokens ↗
3

Posttraining

Posttraining changed the most of the three stages. Each lab's table shows its SFT data, RL algorithm, environments, rewards, distillation and thinking modes over time. The change list under each table gives the lab's own reasons.

The early-2025 recipe was DeepSeek-R1's: a short cold-start SFT, GRPO with rule-based rewards on math and code, rejection sampling, and a second RL round. By late 2025 most labs ran separate RL specialists per domain (math, code, agents, chat) and needed a way to combine them. Some labs merged specialists with plain SFT on their outputs (GLM-4.5, DeepSeek V3.2, and later Kimi K2.5, Step 3.5 Flash and MAI-Thinking-1); others, starting with MiMo V2-Flash in December 2025, used on-policy distillation (DeepSeek V4, GLM-5, Kimi K3, Nemotron 3 Ultra and 3.5 Super). RL itself became asynchronous and much larger. MAI-Thinking-1 trained on over 265K SWE environments, and DeepSeek V3.2 spent more than 10% of its pretraining compute on RL. Four labs introduced their own policy-gradient objectives, each a different way of handling the ratio between rollout and training probabilities: MiniMax's CISPO (M1), Qwen's GSPO, Ant's IcePop (Ring-flash-2.0) and StepFun's MIS-PO (Step 3.5 Flash). Labs also added reasoning-effort controls, from DeepSeek V4's three modes to V4.1's 1–100 setting.

DeepSeek17 releases
PosttrainingV3Dec 26, 2024R1Jan 20, 2025V3-0324Mar 25, 2025Prover-V2Apr 30, 2025R1-0528May 28, 2025V3.1Aug 21, 2025V3.1-TerminusSep 22, 2025V3.2-ExpSep 29, 2025Math-V2Nov 27, 2025V3.2Dec 1, 2025V4Apr 24, 2026V4-DSparkJun 27, 2026V4-Flash-0731Jul 31, 2026V4-Pro-0813Aug 13, 2026V4.1-FlashSep 10, 2026V4.1-Flash-1017Oct 17, 2026
SFTchanged
1.5M instruction instances across domains; reasoning data (math, competition code, logic puzzles) generated by an internal DeepSeek-R1 model via domain expert models + r…↗
changed
sft data Cold start: thousands of long-CoT samples. R1-Zero generations (temp 1.0) filtered for correct answers and readability, refined by DeepSeek-V3 (incl. translating CoT to…↗
sft data ~800K SFT samples (804,745): ~600K reasoning via rejection sampling from the stage-1 RL checkpoint (correct only; mixed-language, long-paragraph and code-block CoTs filt…↗
·
Non-CoT Lean proofs from expert iteration + cold-start CoT data (V3 chain-of-thought + composed formal proof; hundreds of examples); SFT on DeepSeek-V3-Base-671B at cons…↗
···
Specialist-distilled data: writing, general QA + 5 domains (math, competitive programming, general logical reasoning, agentic coding, agentic search); sizes not disclosed↗
·changed
Distilled from specialists: writing, general QA + 6 domains (math, programming, general logical reasoning, general agentic tasks, agentic coding, agentic search); plus p…↗
Per-specialist SFT on 'high-quality, domain-specific data'; size, sources and synthetic share not disclosed↗
···not disclosed·
RL algorithm
GRPO (Group Relative Policy Optimization), as in DeepSeek-V2↗
GRPO (no value model; group-normalized advantages) for both R1-Zero and R1↗
·
GRPO↗
···changed
GRPO↗
GRPO, alternating verifier and generator optimization each iteration; from iteration 2 the verifier starts from a rejection-fine-tuned checkpoint combining both skills↗
changed
GRPO (with stabilizing modifications)↗
changed
GRPO (for specialists), hyper-parameters close to prior DeepSeek work↗
···changed
GRPO-style group-relative advantages (unchanged from V4); asynchronous large-scale RL↗
·
RL details
No critic; baseline from group-normalized rewards (A_i=(r_i-mean)/std); PPO-style ratio clipping (epsilon) and KL penalty (beta) to a reference model; hyperparameter val…↗
rl detail GRPO objective: PPO-style ratio clipping, advantage = (r - mean)/std within the group; unbiased KL estimator added directly to the loss (not as per-token reward); refere…↗
rl detail R1-Zero: LR 3e-6, KL coef 0.001, rollout temp 1, 16 samples/question, max length 32,768 before step 8.2k then 65,536; 32 questions/step (batch 512); reference model repl…↗
rl detail R1 first RL stage: LR 3e-6, KL 0.001, GRPO clip ratio epsilon = 10, temp 1, 16 samples, max length 32,768, batch 512 (32 questions), ref reset every 400 steps, plus lang…↗
rl detail R1 second RL stage: same settings except temp 0.7; 1,700 steps; general instruction data and preference (RM) rewards only in the final 400 steps↗
·
Binary Lean-verified reward plus an early-training consistency reward for keeping the decomposed lemmas; 256 problems x 32 proofs per iteration, max 32,768 tokens↗
···
Single merged RL stage for reasoning, agent and human-alignment training (replacing earlier multi-stage RL) to avoid catastrophic forgetting↗
Generator writes proof then self-analysis; reward = format x (0.76*proof score + 0.24*self-analysis score), so honest self-assessment pays↗
changed
One merged RL stage (reasoning + agent + human alignment); unbiased K3 KL estimate via IS ratio, per-domain KL strength (weak/none for math); off-policy sequence masking…↗
changed
Separate specialists per reasoning-effort mode, trained with different length penalties and RL context windows; Max = longer context + reduced length penalty↗
···changed
rl detail Asynchronous RL: rollout and training colocated and time-shared; sample-level dispatch keeps rollout concurrency steady; token-level interruption with KV/routing state p…↗
rl detail Off-policy control: bounded maximum off-policy ratio and loss masking of tokens with excessive staleness; length-bias control via per-dataset concurrency limits and disc…↗
rl detail Concatenated routing replay: for samples spanning multiple checkpoints, MoE routing from each rollout segment is concatenated rather than recomputed↗
rl detail RL maximum context extended from 512K to 1M tokens, which further improves extremely long-horizon tasks (e.g., Terminal-Bench 3.0)↗
·
Environments
Prompts from coding, math, writing, role-playing and question answering; verifiable math (boxed answers) and LeetCode-style code (compiler + test cases)↗
Reasoning RL prompts: math 26K, code 17K algorithmic + 8K GitHub bug-fixing, STEM 22K multiple choice, logic 15K (web + synthetic code-IO and puzzles); general 66K helpf…↗
·····
RL only in search and code environments (per V3.2 report ablation)↗
·changed
Agentic RL tasks: code agent 24,667 (real env, extracted prompts); search agent 50,275 (real env, synthesized); general agent 4,417 tasks in 1,827 synthesized envs; code…↗
changed
One specialist per target domain, e.g. mathematics, coding, agent, instruction following; counts of environments not given↗
···changed
rl environments Synthesized verifiable tasks as (problem, environment, verification system) triplets for two core scenarios: general agents (mocked SaaS/enterprise/back-end tools recons…↗
rl environments Multi-scaffold RL: joint training across multiple Claude Code versions and heterogeneous scaffolds (OpenCode, Pi, DeepSeek Harness Standard and PTC), with a scaffold-agn…↗
·
RL scale
Steps not disclosed; all post-training (SFT+RL) took 5K H800 GPU hours↗
rl scale R1-Zero: 10,400 GRPO steps (1.6 epochs over the RL prompts)↗
rl scale R1 second RL stage: 1,700 steps (first-stage step count not stated)↗
·······changed
RL budget exceeds 10% of pretraining cost; thousands of steps of continued RL↗
not disclosed···changed
Thousands of cumulative RL steps shown (Figures 7-8: ~2,000-4,000); successive RL runs re-initialized from merged checkpoints; DSec sandbox platform scaled to millions o…↗
·
Rewards
Rule-based RM where verifiable (boxed math answers, compiler/test cases for LeetCode); model-based RM trained from V3 SFT checkpoints on preference data that includes ch…↗
changed
reward model Reasoning RL: rule-based accuracy reward (answer match / compiler test cases) + format reward (<think> tags), equal weight; no neural outcome or process RMs for reasoning↗
reward model Language-consistency reward = proportion of target-language words in the CoT, added to the final reward for reasoning and non-reasoning data↗
reward model Helpful RM: 66,000 preference pairs (DeepSeek-V3 judges each pair 4 times with the Arena-Hard prompt, keep score gap > 1, lengths balanced); RM = R1 architecture + scala…↗
reward model Safety RM: 106,000 prompts with model responses labeled safe/unsafe, trained point-wise; judges the whole response including reasoning↗
reward model Generative RM for rejection sampling: DeepSeek-V3 judges model answers against ground truth for data not checkable by rules↗
·····
Reasoning/agent: rule-based outcome reward + length penalty + language-consistency reward; general: generative RM with per-prompt rubrics↗
changed
LLM proof verifier (scores 0/0.5/1 with issue summary) trained by RL on expert-scored proofs for 17,503 AoPS proof problems, plus a meta-verifier that checks the verifie…↗
changed
Rule-based outcome reward + length penalty + language-consistency reward for reasoning/agent; generative RM with per-prompt rubrics for general tasks and non-verifiable…↗
changed
reward model Rule-based verifiers / test cases for easy-to-verify tasks; for hard-to-verify tasks, rubric-guided RL data scored by a Generative Reward Model; no scalar RM↗
reward model GRM is the actor itself and is RL-optimized jointly (judging + generation)↗
···
Verification systems synthesized with each task (e.g., fail-to-pass / pass-to-pass test points); environment crashes counted as failed trajectories with a 'repercussion'…↗
·
Distillationchanged
Reasoning distilled from an internal DeepSeek-R1 model: per-domain expert models (code, math, general reasoning) trained with SFT+RL on <problem, original response> and…↗
changed
SFT-only (off-policy) distillation of the 800K R1-generated samples into 6 dense students: Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B, Qwen2.5-Math-7B, Qwen2.5-14B, Qwen2.5-32B, Llama-3.1-8B, Ll…↗
·
7B: Prover-V1.5-Base-7B context extended 4,096->32,768, fine-tuned on 671B RL rollouts plus non-CoT data, then the same RL stage↗
changed
R1-0528 CoT distilled to post-train Qwen3-8B Base -> DeepSeek-R1-0528-Qwen3-8B (Qwen3-8B architecture, R1-0528 tokenizer config)↗
··
Specialist distillation: per-domain specialists (each trained with large-scale RL) generate the SFT data for the final model; separate generators for thinking and non-th…↗
·
Specialist distillation: six domain specialists (each RL-trained, thinking and non-thinking) generate data for the final checkpoint; gap to specialists closed by later RL↗
changed
Multi-teacher on-policy distillation: student samples its own trajectories and minimizes weighted reverse KL to >10 domain-specialist teachers, using full-vocabulary log…↗
···changed
Final post-training stage: full-vocabulary on-policy distillation on all domains from over 40 teacher models (architecturally heterogeneous, from different development s…↗
·
Mergingnot disclosed·········
No weight merging; specialists consolidated by logits-level OPD instead↗
···
Checkpoints from RL runs on different scaffolds/configurations are merged to re-initialize successive RL runs↗
·
Thinking modes
Single non-thinking chat mode (R1-style reasoning distilled but output length controlled); no hybrid/effort modes described↗
Reasoning-only model; CoT in <think> tags then a summary; adaptive length (avg 8,793 thinking tokens on 2024 competition math, <7K easy to >18K hard)↗
·
Two prompt-selected modes in one model: fast non-CoT and high-precision CoT↗
changed
Still reasoning-only; system prompt now supported and '<think>\n' no longer needs to be forced at the start of output↗
changed
Hybrid: one model, thinking and non-thinking selected by chat template (<think> vs </think> prefix); prior-turn reasoning dropped in multi-turn context↗
···changed
Thinking and non-thinking modes; thinking with tool use. Reasoning content kept across tool calls, dropped only on a new user message (tool-call history kept)↗
changed
Three reasoning-effort modes: Non-think, Think High, Think Max (Max adds an injected system-prompt instruction); eval context windows 8K / 128K / 384K↗
·changed
reasoning_effort levels low / high / max↗
reasoning_effort levels low / high / max↗
changed
thinking modes Continuous reasoning effort b in 1-100 given in the system prompt; RL samples several effort levels per prompt, advantages computed within (prompt, effort) subgroups, an…↗
thinking modes Public API tiers map to effort values: max=100, high=75, low=50↗
·
Agentic data pipeline·········changed
Synthesis: >1,800 environments and 85,000 prompts. Search: multi-agent QA construction + verification. Code: millions of GitHub issue-PR pairs -> tens of thousands of ex…↗
changed
DSec sandbox platform (function call, Docker-compatible container, Firecracker microVM, QEMU fullVM behind one SDK), hundreds of thousands of concurrent sandboxes; agent…↗
···changed
Model trained to construct its own RL tasks with difficulty and correctness as rewards; coding environments built by cooperating agents (feasibility/design agent, setup…↗
·
Safetynot disclosed
Safety in the final RL stage via the safety RM (106K labeled prompts) and 12K harmlessness questions; harmlessness judged over reasoning + summary. Deployed service adds…↗
·······not disclosednot disclosed···not disclosed·
Quantization-aware training··········changed
FP4 (MXFP4) QAT in post-training on MoE expert weights and the CSA indexer QK path; FP4->FP8 dequant is lossless so the FP8 framework is reused; index scores FP32->BF16…↗
···changed
QAT for FP4 main KV cache added in post-training: E2M1 values with one E4M3 scale per 16 channels (NVFP4 without the global scale), quantized after RoPE; SWA KV kept in…↗
·
Other
post sft settings 2 epochs on V3-Base; cosine LR 5e-6 -> 1e-6; packed sequences with sample masking (examples mutually invisible)↗
post self rewarding Constitutional-AI style self-feedback: DeepSeek-V3's own voting evaluations used as reward for general/open-ended questions↗
post pipeline R1 pipeline: cold-start long-CoT SFT (Dev1) -> reasoning RL with rule + language-consistency rewards (Dev2) -> rejection sampling + SFT on ~800K reasoning and non-reason…↗
post sft hparams Cold-start SFT and second-stage SFT both fine-tune DeepSeek-V3-Base for 2-3 epochs; cosine LR 5e-5 -> 5e-6; max context 32,768; batch 128↗
post distill vs rl Large-scale RL (>10K steps) on Qwen2.5-32B-Base (Qwen2.5-32B-Zero) only matches QwQ-32B-Preview; R1-Distill-Qwen-32B beats it on all benchmarks↗
post base model scale Pure RL failed on 7B dense and 16B MoE bases (repetition, no AIME gain); worked on 32B dense, 230B MoE and 671B MoE↗
post unsuccessful Process reward models and MCTS were tried and dropped (step definition and labeling hard, PRM reward hacking; token search space and value-model training too hard)↗
post rl infra RL framework: vLLM rollout workers with cross-node expert parallelism and redundant hot experts, MTP self-speculative decoding in rollout, async rule-based reward module…↗
post capability updates Reasoning gains vs V3: MMLU-Pro 75.9->81.2, GPQA 59.1->68.4, AIME 39.6->59.4, LiveCodeBench 39.2->49.2; training changes not described↗
post writing style Chinese writing aligned with the R1 writing style; better medium-to-long-form writing↗
post code frontend Front-end web development: more executable code, nicer web pages and game front-ends↗
post function calling More accurate function calling, fixing issues from earlier V3 versions↗
DeepSeek-V3 writes a natural-language sketch and Lean 'have ... sorry' subgoals; a 7B prover solves subgoals recursively; subgoal theorems feed a curriculum in expert it…↗
post compute More post-training compute plus unspecified 'algorithmic optimization mechanisms'↗
post reasoning length Longer thinking: AIME average 12K -> 23K tokens per question↗
post capabilities Reduced hallucination, enhanced function calling, better vibe coding↗
post tool use Tool use and agent tasks improved through post-training; tool calls in non-thinking mode; dedicated search-tool format in thinking mode (search agent); code-agent framew…↗
post thinking efficiency V3.1-Think matches R1-0528 answer quality while responding faster↗
post language consistency Fewer mixed Chinese-English outputs and abnormal characters↗
post agent updates Code Agent and Search Agent further optimized; search-agent template and tool-set updated↗
Post-training pipeline, algorithm and data kept identical to V3.1-Terminus (to isolate DSA's effect); post-training also uses sparse attention↗
post base model Built on DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp-Base; verifier RL started from a V3.2-Exp-SFT checkpoint (SFT on math and code reasoning data)↗
post auto labeling Scaled verification (n analyses + m meta-verifications per proof) auto-labels new hard proofs; replaced human annotation in the last two iterations↗
post cold start Cold start for thinking-with-tools built by prompting: system prompts ask the model to call tools inside <think>; occasional good trajectories seed RL↗
post offpolicy masking Masks sequences with negative advantage whose mean log-ratio pi_old/pi_theta exceeds delta; pi_old taken from inference engine so it also covers train-inference mismatch↗
post keep routing Replays inference-time MoE expert routing during training; used since V3-0324↗
post keep sampling mask Top-p/top-k truncation masks from sampling applied to pi_theta in training so both policies share action space↗
post length control Official V3.2 trained under stricter token constraints (length-constraint reward); removing it improves scores (see Speciale)↗
post speciale V3.2-Speciale: RL on reasoning data only with reduced length penalty, plus DeepSeekMath-V2 dataset and reward method for proofs; no tool calling↗
post pipeline Two stages: independent domain specialists (SFT then GRPO RL) and then multi-teacher on-policy distillation into one model; V3.2's mixed RL stage replaced by OPD↗
post tool schema New XML-based tool-call schema with special |DSML| token↗
post interleaved thinking Tool-calling contexts keep all reasoning across user turns (V3.2 dropped it at each new user message); chat contexts still drop it↗
post quick instruction Quick Instruction special tokens (<|action|>, <|title|>, <|query|>, <|authority|>, <|domain|>, <|read_url|>) for auxiliary chatbot tasks reusing the KV cache↗
post rl infra Preemptible, fault-tolerant rollout with token-granular write-ahead log (avoids length bias of regenerating); RL/OPD on million-token sequences; teacher hidden states ca…↗
post draft model DSpark = 'Confidence-Scheduled Speculative Decoding with Semi-Autoregressive Generation' (DeepSpec paper arXiv 2607.05147); public DeepSpec checkpoints use block size 7↗
post draft training DeepSpec pipeline: regenerate answers with the target model, build a target cache, train the draft against cached target outputs, evaluate acceptance; public drafts trai…↗
post draft training Public DeepSpec drafts (DSpark, DFlash, Eagle3) target Qwen3-4B/8B/14B and Gemma-4-12B, trained on open-perfectblend data from the target in non-thinking mode; the V4 dr…↗
··
post pipeline SFT -> RL -> on-policy distillation (OPD), explicitly with no algorithmic changes vs V4; all substantive changes are in the data/task/environment pipeline↗
post pipeline Lab attributes essentially all post-training gains to scale, diversity and verifiability of synthesized data and environments↗
post hierarchical indexer Hierarchical Sparse Indexer is introduced in post-training and applied identically in training and inference↗
post swa replay adaptation Decoder SWA Bounded Replay is simulated during post-training for train-aware adaptation↗
post dspark training DSpark drafter trained in a dedicated stage after pretraining with the backbone frozen, then trained alongside the backbone in post-training without gradients into the b…↗
post multi agent Agent Team (multi-agent) mode trained with RL reward = task performance + collaboration bonus + derived-latency penalty (critical path of an execution DAG); described as…↗
post sandbox containment Reward-hacking containment in RL sandboxes: per-sandbox AppArmor profiles and eBPF network policies after agents exploited kernel/AppArmor bugs and package-mirror answer…↗
RL with self-feedback used to improve end-to-end project development (games, 3D modeling); no further detail↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. V3Reasoning SFT data distilled from DeepSeek-R1 (long-CoT) via expert models and rejection sampling ↗Why: Improves reasoning (verification/reflection patterns) while controlling output style and length
  2. R1R1-Zero applies RL directly to DeepSeek-V3-Base with no SFT stage ↗Why: Human-defined reasoning patterns may limit exploration; unrestricted RL better incentivizes new reasoning behaviors
  3. R1Reasoning RL uses only rule-based accuracy and format rewards; neural outcome/process RMs dropped for reasoning ↗Why: Neural RMs get reward-hacked in large-scale RL, and retraining them adds compute and pipeline complexity
  4. R1Multi-stage pipeline: cold-start long-CoT SFT, reasoning RL, rejection-sampling SFT (~800K), all-scenario RL ↗Why: Fix R1-Zero's poor readability and language mixing and its weak non-reasoning (writing, open QA) performance
  5. R1Language-consistency reward added to RL ↗Why: Stop language mixing in the CoT; accepted a slight benchmark cost for readability
  6. R1Released SFT-distilled dense students (Qwen2.5 and Llama, 1.5B-70B) trained on 800K R1 samples ↗Why: Broader access to strong reasoning at lower energy cost
  7. V3-0324New checkpoint with the same architecture; better reasoning, front-end code, function calling, and Chinese writing aligned with R1 style (training changes not described) ↗
  8. R1-0528More post-training compute and algorithmic optimizations; thinking roughly doubles (AIME avg 12K -> 23K tokens) ↗Why: Improve depth of reasoning
  9. R1-0528Function calling / tool use added and hallucination reduced (R1 report said R1 cannot use tools) ↗
  10. R1-0528System prompt supported; '<think>\n' no longer needs to be forced ↗
  11. R1-0528Distillation target moved to Qwen3-8B Base (from Qwen2.5 / Llama-3 bases) ↗Why: R1-0528 CoT judged valuable for reasoning research and small-model development
  12. V3.1Chat (V3) and reasoning (R1) lines merged into one hybrid model; thinking toggled by chat template; new </think> token in non-thinking prefix ↗
  13. V3.1Post-training optimized for tool use and agents (code agent, search agent in thinking mode) ↗
  14. V3.1Thinking mode reaches R1-0528 answer quality with faster responses ↗
  15. V3.1-TerminusLanguage-consistency fixes and further Code Agent / Search Agent optimization; updated search-agent template and tool-set ↗Why: address issues reported by users
  16. V3.2-ExpNo recipe change: same post-training pipeline, algorithm and data (now run with sparse attention) ↗Why: Rigorous assessment of DSA's impact
  17. Math-V2Shift from formal Lean proofs with binary verifier reward to natural-language proofs rewarded by an LLM verifier plus self-verification ↗Why: final-answer rewards do not guarantee correct reasoning and do not apply to theorem proving
  18. V3.2Scaled RL compute to >10% of pretraining cost with GRPO stabilizers (unbiased KL estimate, off-policy sequence masking, Keep Sampling Mask; Keep Routing already used since V3-0324) ↗Why: Open models under-invest in post-training compute, limiting hard-task performance; stabilizers needed to scale RL
  19. V3.2Added large-scale agentic task synthesis (1,827 synthesized general-agent envs, ~85K prompts) and a sixth specialist domain (general agentic tasks); V3.2-Exp RL used only search and code environments ↗Why: Close open models' lag in agent generalization and instruction following
  20. V3.2Thinking integrated into tool use: reasoning retained across tool calls (dropped only on new user message) plus a prompt-built cold start ↗Why: R1-style discarding of reasoning each turn wastes tokens by forcing re-reasoning on every tool call
  21. V3.2New high-compute variant V3.2-Speciale: reasoning-only RL with reduced length penalty, plus DeepSeekMath-V2 proof data and reward ↗Why: Push the limits of open models in reasoning by relaxing length constraints
  22. V4Mixed RL stage replaced by multi-teacher, full-vocabulary On-Policy Distillation from >10 specialist teachers ↗Why: consolidate specialists at the logits level, avoiding degradation seen with weight merging or mixed RL
  23. V4Hard-to-verify tasks scored by a rubric-guided Generative Reward Model that is the actor itself, RL-optimized jointly with generation; conventional scalar RMs dispensed with. V3.2 already used a rubric-based generative RM for general tasks, so the new part is actor-as-GRM joint training ↗Why: handle hard-to-verify tasks with minimal human annotation
  24. V4Three reasoning-effort modes (Non-think / High / Max) trained via mode-specific length penalties and context windows ↗Why: reasoning performance is governed by compute spent
  25. V4FP4 (MXFP4) quantization-aware training for MoE experts and indexer QK path ↗Why: inference acceleration and lower memory traffic
  26. V4XML-based |DSML| tool-call schema ↗Why: fewer escaping failures and tool-call errors
  27. V4Reasoning kept across user turns in tool-calling contexts ↗Why: V3.2 policy caused token waste in agentic workflows
  28. V4-DSparkAttached DSpark speculative-decoding draft module to the unchanged V4-Pro checkpoint ↗
  29. V4-Flash-0731Official V4-Flash release replacing the preview: much stronger agentic results (e.g. Terminal-Bench 2.1 61.8 -> 82.7, DeepSWE 7.3 -> 54.4); DSpark module bundled; reasoning_effort parameter now supports low / high / max ↗
  30. V4-Pro-0813Official V4-Pro release replacing the preview: much stronger agentic results (e.g. Terminal-Bench 2.1 72.1 -> 87.9, DeepSWE 12.8 -> 62.7, HLE w/ tools 48.2 -> 60.0); DSpark module bundled ↗
  31. V4.1-FlashFP4 main KV cache via QAT in post-training (V4 used FP8 main KV) ↗Why: Nearly halves main-KV storage in HBM and on SSD with only marginal quality loss
  32. V4.1-FlashKept V4's SFT -> RL -> OPD algorithms unchanged; moved all effort into automated task/environment synthesis and scaling data, tasks and rollouts ↗Why: Lab finds data/environment engineering has higher marginal return than algorithmic novelty at this stage
  33. V4.1-FlashContinuous reasoning-effort control (integer 1-100) trained via effort-conditioned RL with an exponential effort-dependent token penalty; API tiers max/high/low = 100/75/50 ↗Why: Output tokens drive serving cost; a single checkpoint can move along the cost-quality frontier
  34. V4.1-FlashExtended post-training infrastructure to asynchronous rollout generation (sample-level dispatch, staleness masking, routing replay) ↗Why: Mitigate the long-tail rollout bottleneck in RL
  35. V4.1-Flash-1017RL with self-feedback for end-to-end project development (only method detail given for this update) ↗Why: better whole-project building; shorter outputs and faster task completion
Kimi11 releases
PosttrainingMoonlightFeb 24, 2025Kimi-VLApr 10, 2025K2Jul 11, 2025K2-0905Sep 5, 2025Kimi-LinearOct 30, 2025K2-ThinkingNov 6, 2025K2.5Jan 27, 2026K2.6Apr 20, 2026K2.7-CodeJun 12, 2026K3Jul 16, 2026K3.1-ProOct 24, 2026
SFTnot disclosedchanged
Human-annotated seed set -> seed model generates responses -> annotators rank and refine; rejection sampling for verifiable reasoning tasks; text:image tokens ~1:1; incl…↗
Large-scale instruction-tuning set across domains; candidates generated by K1.5 and in-house domain expert models, filtered by LLM or human judges; plus synthetic agenti…↗
·
K2 SFT data extended with extra reasoning tasks, heavy math/code; multi-stage SFT: broad instruction data then scheduled reasoning-intensive data↗
not disclosedchanged
Large-scale instruction set with responses synthesized from K2, K2 Thinking and proprietary in-house expert models; domain pipelines with human annotation, prompt engine…↗
··changed
Expanded SFT set focused on complex agentic tasks; trajectories synthesized by prior domain-specialized Kimi models, multi-stage verification + human-in-the-loop annotat…↗
·
RL algorithm·
Online policy mirror descent variant (as in Kimi k1.5), KL-regularized to the previous iterate↗
changed
K1.5 policy-optimisation objective: K samples per prompt, squared loss on (reward - mean reward - tau*log(pi/pi_old)), optimised with Muon↗
·
Kimi k1.5 RL algorithm plus extra tricks↗
not disclosedchanged
Custom policy gradient (from K1.5): K samples per prompt, mean-reward baseline, token-level log-ratio clipping as gradient masking outside [alpha, beta] regardless of ad…↗
··changed
Kimi K2.5's policy-optimization algorithm (not named in K3 sources), synchronous RL with partial rollouts and per-token regularization for stale data↗
·
RL details·changed
Length-based reward penalty against overthinking; curriculum and prioritized sampling by difficulty and per-instance success rate↗
Additions: per-task max token budget with truncation penalty (budget control); auxiliary PTX loss on hand-picked high-quality data; temperature decay from high explorati…↗
·
Truncated importance sampling for train/inference precision mismatch; dynamically adjusted KL penalty and mini-batch size (updates per iteration) to avoid entropy collap…↗
·changed
Token-level masking of out-of-range log-ratios to bound train/inference mismatch; logged inference log-probs for mismatch correction; partial rollout; Toggle alternates…↗
·
Outcome claim only: ~30% fewer thinking tokens than K2.6; method not disclosed↗
Partial rollout: generation pauses once a fraction λ of N×K trajectories finishes, paused rollouts resume next iteration; per-token regularization tolerates highly off-p…↗
·
Environments··changed
Gym-like framework: math/STEM/logic (moderate difficulty by SFT pass@k), complex instruction following (code + LLM-judge verification with hack-check), faithfulness, com…↗
·
Prompt sets: mathematics, code, STEM; pre-filtered to moderate difficulty for the starting checkpoint; subsets of K2 recipe data↗
·
Joint text+vision RL organized by ability (knowledge, reasoning, coding, agentic) not modality; visual RL on grounding/counting, chart/document, vision-critical STEM; PA…↗
··changed
Three domains: general tasks (experience, vision, reasoning, faithfulness, search, knowledge work), general agents (long-horizon assistant, deep research, writing), codi…↗
·
RL scale··changed
Steps/compute not stated; RL scaled in task diversity and training FLOPs vs K1.5↗
···not disclosed··changed
9 RL expert models (3 domains x low/high/max effort); co-located 1M-context RL within a few hundred GPUs per experiment; 51.2M sandboxes over training+eval↗
changed
Substantially larger post-training compute than K3; large-scale joint RL across hundreds of downstream domains↗
Rewards·
Binary correctness reward vs ground truth↗
changed
Verifiable rewards (rules, code interpreters, unit tests, LLM judge, sentence-level faithfulness judge) + Self-Critique Rubric Reward: K2 critic does pairwise ranking vs…↗
···changed
Rule-based outcome rewards for verifiable tasks + budget-control reward; Generative Reward Models with multiple rubrics for general/agentic tasks; task-specific visual r…↗
··changed
Agentic Generative Reward Model for non-verifiable tasks: tournament-style group reward with binary comparisons, mandatory rubric+scorepad protocol, budget-based verbosi…↗
·
Distillation·
Long-CoT SFT data: trajectories sampled from Kimi k1.5 on ground-truth QA, filtered by a reward model plus rules (rejection sampling); small warm-up set↗
Offline: SFT responses generated by K1.5 and in-house domain-specialised expert models; no on-policy distillation described↗
·not disclosed·
Offline only: SFT responses generated by K2, K2 Thinking and in-house expert models; no on-policy distillation described↗
··changed
Multi-Teacher On-Policy Distillation (MOPD): student samples effort e, teacher = matching domain×effort expert; per-token clipped log-ratio reward; top-k distillation tr…↗
·
Merging··not disclosed········
Thinking modes·changed
Separate Instruct and Thinking models; Thinking-2506 merges Instruct abilities into the thinking model and cuts output length ~20%↗
changed
Non-thinking 'reflex-grade' Instruct model (no long thinking)↗
··changed
Thinking-only model; interleaves chain-of-thought with function calls; 'Heavy' mode = 8 parallel trajectories then reflective aggregation↗
changed
Thinking and instant modes in one model; interleaved thinking + multi-step tool calls as in K2 Thinking↗
changed
Thinking and instant modes; new opt-in preserve_thinking mode keeps full reasoning across turns (for coding agents); interleaved thinking + multi-step tool calls as K2 T…↗
changed
Thinking and preserve_thinking forced on; instant mode not supported↗
changed
Thinking always on; reasoning_effort low / high / max (default max); trained in preserved-thinking-history mode↗
·
Agentic data pipeline··
agentic data pipeline 3-stage tool-use synthesis: tool repository (3000+ real MCP tools from GitHub + 20,000+ evolved synthetic tools) -> thousands of agents with rubric-based tasks -> multi-…↗
agentic data pipeline Simulation complemented by real execution sandboxes for coding/SWE (ground truth from test pass rates); described as large-scale rejection sampling↗
···changed
Agent Swarm via Parallel-Agent RL (PARL): trainable orchestrator with create_subagent/assign_task tools; frozen subagents from intermediate policy checkpoints; reward =…↗
changed
Agent Swarm scaled to 300 sub-agents x 4,000 coordinated steps (K2.5: 100 sub-agents, 1,500 steps); Claw Groups research preview (K2.6 as coordinator of heterogeneous ag…↗
·changed
Knowledge-graph-guided task synthesis: agents grow a hierarchical concept DAG via web search, sample nodes to retrieve public materials, synthesis agent writes tasks↗
·
Safety··
Safety RL from human-curated seed prompts (violence, fraud, discrimination...) expanded by automated attack/target/judge jailbreak evolution with task rubrics; evaluated…↗
···not disclosed
Claimed 'enhanced safety awareness during extended research tasks'; no method disclosed↗
·not disclosed
For the open-weight release, cyber-related data identified and removed from both mid-training and RL↗
Quantization-aware training··not disclosed··changed
QAT in post-training: INT4 weight-only quantisation of the MoE components; native INT4 inference ~2x faster generation; all reported benchmarks run at INT4↗
Native INT4, same method as K2-Thinking (K2-Thinking card: QAT in post-training, INT4 weight-only on MoE components)↗
Native INT4, same method as K2-Thinking↗
Native INT4, same method as K2-Thinking↗
changed
MXFP4 MoE-expert weights + MXFP8 activations, QAT through all of post-training (SFT and RL); attention, latent projections, shared experts, routers stay higher precision…↗
·
Other
Muon-pretrained + Muon-SFT is best; when SFT optimizer differs from pretraining optimizer, Muon SFT shows no clear advantage; Muon SFT of AdamW-pretrained Qwen2.5-7B onl…↗
Joint SFT 1 epoch at 32K (LR 2e-5 -> 2e-6) then 1 epoch at 128K (re-warm 1e-5 -> 1e-6); ViT, projector and LM all trained; loss on answers only↗
post optimizer Muon used for SFT and RL; recommended for fine-tuning K2↗
post rl infra Colocated synchronous RL (train + inference engines on same workers); distributed checkpoint engine broadcasts full params, update <30 s for 1T; partial rollout for long…↗
Improved agentic coding and frontend coding (aesthetics, practicality)↗
Matched math RLVR: Kimi Linear's train and test accuracy (MATH500, AIME 2025) rise faster than MLA's↗
post interleaved tool use End-to-end trained to interleave reasoning and tool calls; stable over 200-300 consecutive tool invocations (prior models degrade after 30-50 steps)↗
post test time scaling Test-time scaling along two axes: thinking tokens and tool-calling steps (up to 200-300 sequential calls)↗
post qat motivation Post-hoc low-bit quantisation hurts thinking models because of very long decodes↗
post zero vision sft Text-only SFT activates visual reasoning/tool use; text-vision SFT with human-designed visual trajectories did worse↗
post rft Visual-RL trajectories reused for rejection-sampling fine-tuning to feed later joint RL stages↗
post cross modal transfer Visual RL raised text scores: MMLU-Pro 84.7->86.4, GPQA-Diamond 84.3->86.4, LongBench v2 56.7->58.9↗
·
Coding-focused model built upon K2.6; training stages and data not disclosed↗
post chat template New XTML chat template (special tokens [open]/[sep]/[close]); channels think/response/tools; effort given as a natural-language option message↗
post effort budget control Per-problem token budget b0(x) from cold-start model; reward overridden to -1 above τ·b0(x); max-budget expert first, then τ annealed for high/low↗
post rl harness env Unified white-box RL environment composes harness modules (tools, prompts, context management, skills, memory, subagents) to mimic Kimi Code, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCla…↗
post sandboxes 51,219,741 sandboxes across 1,505,678 images (AgentENV microVMs, container and GPU sandboxes)↗
post kernel reward Kernel tasks: zero reward above numerical-error threshold; 0.5 for matching expert implementation, rising to 1 near roofline; hacking detector penalizes CUDA-graph repla…↗
post mopd topk Fine-grained top-k distillation objectives showed no advantage over the per-token reward↗
post preserved thinking Trained in preserved thinking history mode; history must include reasoning_content↗
post personal assistant env Mock Gmail/Notion/Slack/Canvas; multi-day persistent environments with dozens of events; rollouts up to thousands of tool calls and millions of tokens↗
post autonomous execution tasks AET: goal + action space + budget + independent verifier (public diagnostic + hidden verifiers), e.g. black-box system replication, factor discovery, tax auditing↗
post draft model MTP layer fine-tuned as EAGLE-3 draft (target frozen, 7-step unroll, fused low/mid/high AttnRes-block features), trained with LK loss on acceptance rate, under the same…↗
RL framework, long-context inference, sandbox infrastructure, rollout scheduling and a shared environment-quality platform optimized so each increment of RL compute give…↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Kimi-VLAdds a long-CoT SFT + RL (k1.5-style online mirror descent, length penalty) 'Thinking' variant ↗Why: Activate and enhance long-thinking multimodal reasoning
  2. K2Kept the K1.5 RL objective but scaled task diversity and FLOPs; added self-critique rubric reward for non-verifiable tasks, budget control, PTX loss and temperature decay ↗Why: Consistent gains across a broader set of domains in joint RL; extend RL to subjective tasks
  3. K2-0905Improved agentic coding and frontend coding (training changes not described) ↗
  4. K2-ThinkingFrom non-thinking reflex model to a thinking agent trained end-to-end to interleave reasoning and tool calls over 200-300 sequential calls ↗Why: Test-time scaling via thinking tokens and tool-call steps for long-horizon agentic tasks
  5. K2-ThinkingAdded INT4 weight-only QAT on MoE weights in post-training; released native INT4 checkpoints (K2/K2-0905 shipped block-FP8) ↗Why: Long thinking decodes make post-hoc quantisation lossy; INT4 gives ~2x generation speed
  6. K2.5Zero-vision SFT: post-training SFT kept text-only (image operations proxied through IPython), with SFT responses synthesized from K2, K2 Thinking and in-house experts ↗Why: Text-vision SFT with human-designed visual trajectories hurt generalization; joint pretraining already aligns modalities
  7. K2.5RL objective: K1.5-style policy optimization plus token-level log-ratio clipping (gradient masking outside [alpha, beta], sign-agnostic) ↗Why: Bound off-policy drift from train/inference framework discrepancies; essential for stability in long-horizon multi-step tool use
  8. K2.5Reward modeling: from K2's self-critique rubric reward for open-ended generation to Generative Reward Models applied across chat, coding, search and artifact agents and multimodal traces, with multiple rubrics ↗Why: Capture nuanced preferences rule-based verifiers miss; multiple rubrics mitigate reward hacking
  9. K2.5Toggle token-efficient RL: alternate budget-constrained and full-length phases instead of a fixed budget ↗Why: Rigid budget constraints cause length-overfitting (cannot use more inference tokens); Toggle cut K2 Thinking output tokens 25-30% with negligible loss
  10. K2.5Agent Swarm / PARL: RL-trained orchestrator that creates and schedules frozen subagents in parallel (K2 Thinking executed tool calls sequentially) ↗Why: Sequential agents scale inference time linearly; swarm cut WideSearch latency up to 4.5x and raised item-F1 72.8 -> 79.0
  11. K2.6Agent Swarm scaled from 100 sub-agents / 1,500 steps to 300 sub-agents / 4,000 coordinated steps ↗Why: Reduce end-to-end latency, improve output quality and expand what swarms can do
  12. K2.6Adds opt-in preserve_thinking mode (full reasoning kept across turns); not mentioned in the K2.5 card ↗Why: Better performance in coding-agent scenarios
  13. K2.7-CodeCoding-specialized derivative of K2.6; ~30% fewer thinking tokens; thinking and preserve_thinking forced on, instant mode removed ↗Why: Improve long-horizon coding and end-to-end task completion while improving token efficiency
  14. K3Pipeline: SFT cold start -> 9 RL experts (3 domains x low/high/max) -> multi-teacher on-policy distillation into one model ↗Why: Consolidate domain- and effort-specialized policies into a single unified model
  15. K3RL rollouts: partial-rollout scheme extended for million-token long-horizon agentic trajectories with resumable microVM sandboxes ↗Why: Reduce long-tail latency that grows in long-horizon tasks
  16. K3Generative reward model: keeps K2.5 tournament binary comparisons, adds mandatory rubric/scorepad protocol and verbosity budget ↗Why: Curb reward hacking toward longer outputs
  17. K3SFT set expanded toward complex agentic tasks, synthesized with prior Kimi domain specialists ↗Why: Give adaptive reasoning, precise tool calling and robust long-horizon execution
  18. K3QAT format: INT4 weight QAT (K2-Thinking) -> MXFP4 expert weights + MXFP8 activations, QAT from SFT onward ↗Why: Broad hardware compatibility, lower memory/serving cost, no train-inference mismatch in RL
  19. K3Chat template redesigned as XTML (special-token markup, think/response/tools channels, effort as a natural-language option message) ↗Why: Extensibility, low alignment tax (light SFT before RL), decoding friendliness
  20. K3MTP layer (1 in both) now fine-tuned into an EAGLE-3 draft with LK loss ↗Why: Faster serving of long-horizon agents; LK loss directly maximizes draft acceptance rate
  21. K3.1-ProSame K3 base with substantially larger post-training (RL) compute ↗Why: make each increment of RL compute deliver stable, predictable returns across hundreds of domains
GLM14 releases
PosttrainingGLM-4-0414Apr 14, 2025GLM-Z1-0414Apr 14, 2025GLM-4.1V-ThinkingJul 1, 2025GLM-4.5Jul 28, 2025GLM-4.5VAug 11, 2025GLM-4.6Sep 30, 2025GLM-4.6VDec 8, 2025GLM-4.7Dec 22, 2025GLM-5Feb 12, 2026GLM-5.1Apr 7, 2026GLM-5.2Jun 16, 2026GLM-5.3Aug 14, 2026GLM-5.3-FlashAug 26, 2026
SFTnot disclosed
Cold start (size not stated)↗
·
Expert stage: small cold-start long-CoT sets; unified stage: 'millions' of samples distilled from experts (reasoning, chat, agentic, long-context) at up to 128K; hard-pr…↗
Long-CoT cold-start corpus (verifiable STEM + non-verifiable tasks, mostly ZH/EN) plus text-only long-form data; full-parameter SFT at 32,768 seq len, global batch 32; R…↗
·
SFT at 131,072 sequence length↗
·changed
General chat / reasoning / coding & agent; agent and coding data much expanded vs GLM-4.5; up to 202,752 tokens; erroneous trajectory segments kept but loss-masked; math…↗
···not disclosed
RL algorithmnot disclosed··
GRPO without KL loss (reasoning, IF RL); group-wise policy optimization with mean-reward baseline for agentic RL↗
GRPO with Reinforcement Learning with Curriculum Sampling (RLCS); RLVR + RLHF across all multimodal domains↗
···changed
Reasoning RL: GRPO + IcePop (train/infer mismatch masking), KL removed; Agentic RL: fully async group-wise PG with direct double-sided token-level IS clipping; General R…↗
·changed
Critic-based PPO on individual rollouts (replaces group-wise optimization); named 'SAO' in the GLM-5.3 blog↗
SAO with compaction carried over from GLM-5.2↗
not disclosed
RL details
Rejection sampling + RL targeted at instruction following, engineering code and function calling (agent 'atomic capabilities')↗
··
Two-stage difficulty curriculum (stage 2: pass@8=0, pass@512>0); single-stage RL at 64K output length; dynamic sampling temperature; token-weighted mean loss for code; a…↗
No KL loss, no entropy loss, clip-higher, rollout top-p=1, per-sample loss, dynamic sampling expansion via ratio EMA, forced answering by inserting </think> on truncatio…↗
·
Tool-invocation behaviour folded into the general RL objective; explored a visual feedback loop for self-correction↗
·changed
Reasoning RL: beta=2, eps_low 0.2, eps_high 0.28, fully on-policy, group 32, batch 32; deterministic torch.topk in DSA indexer and frozen indexer during RL; async agenti…↗
·
Compaction during RL: all compacted sub-traces trained as trajectories with token-level loss; online anti-hack guard (rule filter + LLM judge) blocks hacked tool calls a…↗
Training-rollout numerical alignment (R3-style setups; mean logprob gap ~1e-7, >99.99% reduction); top-p mask; workload-aware rollout configs; >2.3x end-to-end RL throug…↗
·
Environments·
Math, code and logic tasks; Rumination variant uses search tools during thinking↗
·changed
Math/science (expert-verified MCQ)/code; web-search QA (KG multi-hop + human-in-the-loop obfuscation); SWE from GitHub PRs/issues with unit tests in sandbox; MCP-synthes…↗
····changed
Reasoning: math, science, code, tool-integrated reasoning (balanced mix); agentic: >10K SWE envs (RepoLaunch, 9 languages), thousands of Harbor-format terminal envs (>90…↗
··changed
Synthesized long-horizon environments resembling multi-day expert work (e.g., ML-infra optimization with clusters and docs); research agents build envs, judge agent chec…↗
·
Rewards·
General RL from pairwise ranking feedback; Rumination: ground-truth answers or rubrics (GLM-4 card) / multiple rule-based rewards (Z1 card)↗
·
Rule-based + RLHF reward model + RLAIF rubrics (general); IF: deterministic rules + trained RM + critique model; agents: outcome rewards (answer accuracy, unit tests); f…↗
Domain-specific unified reward system: rule-based verifiers (Sympy, IoU, edit distance) + LLM judges + text reward model for RLHF; answers boxed with special tokens↗
···
Binary outcome rewards from domain/source-specific judges (reasoning); General RL blends rule-based rewards, outcome RMs and generative RMs, with expert human-written re…↗
·
Verifiable pass/fail coding rewards guarded by a two-stage anti-hack detector (rule-based recall, LLM-judge precision)↗
changed
Synthesized binary verifiers built without the reference solution, hardened against shortcuts found by solver trajectories; must pass oracle / no-op / unsolved-state che…↗
·
Distillationnot disclosed··changed
Expert model iteration: train Reasoning / Agent / General-chat experts (cold-start SFT + RL), then unify via self-distillation SFT on expert outputs; iterative self-dist…↗
····changed
On-policy cross-stage distillation as the final stage: final checkpoints of earlier stages (SFT, Reasoning RL, General RL) as teachers; advantage = teacher/student log-r…↗
·changed
Parallel on-policy distillation (OPD) merging >10 expert models into the final model in ~2 days↗
slime adds top-k and full-vocabulary OPD and multi-teacher OPD with dynamic teacher switching (use in GLM-5.3 implied by 'Through GLM-5.3 we kept building it out')↗
not disclosed
Thinking modes·
Thinking-only; '<think>' forced on the first line by the chat template; 30K max_new_tokens recommended↗
Pure thinking model↗
changed
Hybrid: thinking and non-thinking modes from balanced SFT data↗
changed
Hybrid: thinking and non-thinking via '/nothink' token appended to the prompt↗
Reasoning with tool use during inference (tool-integrated reasoning)↗
·changed
Interleaved Thinking (since GLM-4.5) + new Preserved Thinking (keeps thinking blocks across turns in coding agents) + Turn-level Thinking (per-turn on/off)↗
Interleaved, Preserved and Turn-level thinking via updated chat template↗
·
Thinking effort levels (High, Max)↗
changed
Effort levels low / high / max (default max); thinking can no longer be disabled↗
·
Agentic data pipeline···changed
4-step automatic agentic SFT construction: frameworks/tools (incl. MCP, LLM-simulated tools) -> task synthesis -> trajectory generation (LLM user simulator) -> multi-jud…↗
··
Large-scale synthetic agentic data; MCP extended with URL-based multimodal handling and interleaved image-text output↗
·····
Visual-coding data synthesis with visual self-evaluation / test-time improvement; RL with environment feedback for frontend; agent-based GUI verification↗
Safety···
Safety is one dimension of the human-preference RM in Holistic RL; evaluated on SafetyBench (89.87)↗
·······changed
Weights withheld ~2 weeks after launch for safety evaluation and hardening↗
·
Quantization-aware training········changed
INT4 QAT during SFT with a kernel bitwise-identical between training and offline quantization↗
····
Other
Human preference alignment for dialogue↗
post rumination rl Z1-Rumination: scaled end-to-end RL with search tools for deep-research-style tasks↗
post small model Z1-9B trained with the same techniques↗
Shares the GLM-V recipe recorded under GLM-4.5V (multimodal continued pre-training, long-CoT SFT, GRPO + RLCS)↗
post adaptive clipping Adaptive clipping for robust policy updates on STEM problems (blog only; not in report)↗
post function call template XML-like <tool_call>/<arg_key>/<arg_value> template to avoid JSON escaping of code↗
post rl infra slime (Megatron training + SGLang rollout + data buffer): colocated sync mode for reasoning/general RL, disaggregated async mode for agentic RL; Docker runtime; HTTP end…↗
·
post style Writing aligned to human style/readability preferences; better role-play↗
post token efficiency ~15% fewer tokens than GLM-4.5 to finish CC-Bench tasks↗
Native multimodal function calling (first time); XML <tool_call>/<arg_key>/<arg_value> format↗
·
post rl infra slime with server-based multi-task rollout orchestrator (>1k concurrent rollouts), FP8 rollouts, MTP in rollout, PD disaggregation, EP64/DP64 over 8 nodes, DP-aware rout…↗
post slides rl Slide-generation expert via RL with 3-level rewards (static HTML attributes, runtime rendering geometry, perceptual features), rejection sampling and mask fine-tuning↗
Targeted at long-horizon agentic work: sustains optimization over hundreds of rounds and thousands of tool calls (method not disclosed)↗
slime: white-box / black-box rollouts, compact trajectories, sub-agent workflows; FP8 KV cache in rollouts↗
Post-training only; same base as GLM-5.2↗
·

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. GLM-4.5Separate chat (GLM-4) and reasoning (Z1) models merged into one hybrid thinking model via expert training + self-distillation; agentic RL on web search and SWE added ↗Why: Unify general, reasoning and agentic capabilities in one model
  2. GLM-4.5Built and open-sourced slime RL framework (sync colocated + async disaggregated, BF16 train / FP8 rollout) ↗Why: RL efficiency for long-horizon agentic tasks
  3. GLM-4.5VLLM backbone GLM-4-9B-0414 -> GLM-4.5-Air MoE; pure thinking -> hybrid thinking/non-thinking (/nothink) ↗Why: Flexible performance/efficiency trade-off
  4. GLM-4.6Reasoning with tool use; refined writing/role-play; ~15% fewer tokens on CC-Bench ↗
  5. GLM-4.7Added Preserved Thinking and Turn-level Thinking; coding/UI focus ↗Why: More stable and controllable complex tasks
  6. GLM-5Expert iteration + SFT distillation replaced by sequential Reasoning -> Agentic -> General RL with on-policy cross-stage distillation as final stage ↗Why: Prevent catastrophic forgetting across stages
  7. GLM-5Agentic RL: iterative self-distillation + outcome supervision -> fully asynchronous decoupled RL with TITO gateway and double-sided token-level IS ↗Why: Remove GPU idle time and handle off-policy drift in long-horizon rollouts
  8. GLM-5Reasoning RL adds IcePop train/inference mismatch masking; INT4 QAT in SFT ↗Why: Mitigate training-inference mismatch; low-precision accuracy
  9. GLM-5.1Post-training aimed at long-horizon agentic engineering (no architecture change in config; method not disclosed) ↗Why: Earlier models plateau early on long tasks
  10. GLM-5.2Group-wise (GRPO-style) RL -> critic-based PPO on single rollouts with compaction sub-traces; online anti-hack guard ↗Why: Compaction yields variable numbers/lengths of sub-traces per prompt; reward hacking in coding RL
  11. GLM-5.2Final model produced by parallel OPD merging >10 experts (vs GLM-5 cross-stage OPD) ↗
  12. GLM-5.3Same base; post-training scaled with synthesized environments/verifiers and vulnerability-discovery data ↗Why: Scale RL on the stack built for GLM-5.2
  13. GLM-5.3License MIT -> custom glm-5.3; weights delayed ~2 weeks for safety evaluation; thinking always on ↗Why: Safety evaluation and hardening (cyber capability)
MiMo8 releases
PosttrainingMiMo-7BApr 30, 2025MiMo-VL-7BMay 30, 2025V2-FlashDec 16, 2025V2.5Apr 22, 2026V2.5-ProApr 22, 2026V2.6Sep 22, 2026V2.6-Distill-Qwen-9BSep 22, 2026V2.6-MOPDSep 27, 2026
SFT
~500K samples, open-source + proprietary distilled data; 16-gram decontamination; max 8 responses per query (RL-0530: scaled to ~6M)↗
No separate SFT stage: the Stage-4 'long-context SFT' (550B tokens) inside pre-training yields MiMo-VL-7B-SFT↗
changed
Millions of samples (general chat, reasoning, coding, agent), thinking and non-thinking, responses from in-house domain-specialized checkpoints↗
SFT with diverse agentic data (size not given)↗
SFT on curated instruction pairs (size not given)↗
changed
'short' SFT stage; size/sources not disclosed↗
77.4B total tokens (27.2B loss tokens) of MiMo-V2.6-generated data: code 23.2B (29.9%), cyber 11.0B (14.2%), general 22.0B (28.5%), visual 21.2B (27.4%)↗
·
RL algorithm
Modified GRPO (DAPO-style: no KL, dynamic sampling, clip-higher); RL-0530 switched to on-policy RL↗
changed
MORL: fully on-policy GRPO variant (one update per rollout, no clipped surrogate), mixing RLVR and RLHF↗
changed
Domain teachers trained with independent RL (algorithm unnamed); student trained by MOPD: on-policy reverse-KL token advantage plus alpha x ORM advantage (e.g. GRPO)↗
not disclosednot disclosedchanged
GRPO, fully asynchronous with partial rollouts (staleness 4), one mixed-task run ('You Only RL Once')↗
GRPO, run separately per domain as baselines (plus a multi-harness coding run)↗
·
RL details
KL loss removed; dynamic sampling drops pass-rate 0/1 prompts; clip-higher; easy-data pool re-sampled with p=10%; batch 512, actor mini-batch 32, 16 grad updates/iterati…↗
changed
No KL loss, dynamic sampling, easy-data filter and re-sampling (from MiMo-7B); rewards normalized to [0,1]; no format reward↗
Training-inference importance sampling with discarding of high-discrepancy tokens; Rollout Routing Replay (R3); partial rollout with staleness-aware truncated IS; dynami…↗
··
Prompt-mean loss aggregation; per-token IS ratio with 4 decoupled clip bounds init [0.2, 5.0] tuned online from entropy; dynamic sampler drops all-pass/all-fail groups;…↗
··
Environments
130K verifiable problems: 100K math (open + proprietary competition sets, proof/MC filtered) + 30K code (test-case problems); single-turn only↗
RLVR: 80K visual STEM reasoning problems, MiMo-7B text math, image/GUI grounding (GIoU), counting, temporal video grounding (IoU); RLHF on text and multimodal queries↗
changed
Code agent 90K (real env/real prompt) + 30K (real env/synth prompt); terminal ~30K (Stack Overflow/Exchange); search agent 150K; general agent 50K synthesized; web-dev w…↗
··changed
Task mix: agentic + competitive coding 68%, general tool use 12%, aesthetic design 13%, context following 3%, cybersecurity 4%; code tasks from 5 synthesis pathways + pu…↗
Released: code ~3k (executable tests), cyber ~1k (rule checks), general ~1k (rubric judging), visual ~2k (visual grading), + ~1k music tasks↗
·
RL scale
RL-Zero run past 2,500 steps; RL-0530 trained ~175K samples with generation budget 32K->38K->48K↗
·
Code-agent RL over ~120K environments↗
·
'scaling post-training compute' for coding (no numbers)↗
changed
1,568 prompts x 16 rollouts = 25K trajectories, 2.7-3.7B tokens/step at up to 1M context; ~30 steps; Pro 123.1 h, Flash 81.8 h; cost $2.6M (Pro) / $0.9M (Flash)↗
·
Teacher: 12 RL steps (~7,000 examples); full MOPD fix run ~$90K (4% of the MixRL alternative)↗
Rewards
Rule-based only: Math-Verify for math; test-difficulty-driven partial code reward (IOI-style strict/soft tiers); no format or length reward↗
changed
Rule-based rewards plus two Bradley-Terry RMs (text RM from MiMo-7B, multimodal RM from MiMo-VL-7B) trained on VLM-ranked pairs; served via Reward-as-a-Service↗
changed
Verifiable: programmatic tools + LLM judge; subjective (helpfulness, safety): rubric-based LLM judge with reference answers; web-dev: vision verifier on recorded videos↗
··changed
Code: binary tests x Groupwise Reward Synthesis (offline task rubrics, R = R_test x S_sol x S_beh) or Groupwise Advantage Redistribution (online SFT-trained agentic grad…↗
·
Teacher reward: 0 if repetition, 1 only if neither repetition nor erroneous tool use↗
Distillation
Off-policy only: SFT on proprietary distilled data (teacher not named); no on-policy distillation↗
·changed
MOPD: student samples its own rollouts and gets dense token-level reverse-KL reward from the domain teacher for that prompt (teachers: RL-trained, SFT, or the student it…↗
MOPD (multi-teacher on-policy distillation), as in V2-Flash↗
MOPD: single student learns on-policy from its own rollouts with token-level guidance from all specialist teachers (V2-Flash three-stage recipe)↗
changed
MOPD2 after mixed RL: Standard MOPD (mixRL teachers on full student rollouts) + Teacher-Prefix OPD + SFT-Prefix OPD (single student turn from teacher/SFT history prefixe…↗
Off-policy SFT distillation from MiMo-V2.6 into Qwen3.5-9B↗
changed
Repetition-specialist single-turn RL teacher (reward 1 only with no repetition and no tool errors, KL to RL policy; 12 steps, ~7,000 examples) added to MOPD; final MOPD…↗
Thinking modes·
2508 update adds /no_think control (thinking default; 99.84% non-thinking control success)↗
Hybrid: SFT covers thinking and non-thinking modes (enable_thinking flag)↗
·····
Agentic data pipeline··changed
Automated env setup from repo snapshots: 70% success across 8 languages, Kubernetes with >10,000 concurrent pods; minimal scaffold with bash/str_replace/finish; search q…↗
·····
Safety··
Safety-alignment domain teacher in Stage 2; rubric-based LLM judge for safety↗
·····
Quantization-aware training·····
qat MXFP4 quantization-aware training during mid-training (experts served in MXFP4 during RL rollout)↗
qat MXFP4 experts in rollout; quantize-dequantize experts after every update to match MXFP4 inference kernels↗
··
Other
post sft hparams constant LR 3e-5, batch 128, packed to 32,768 tokens↗
post rl infra Seamless Rollout Engine (continuous rollout, async reward, early termination) on verl + vLLM: 2.29x training / 1.96x validation speedup; benchmarked on 256 H20 GPUs↗
post mtp After pretraining, MTP layer copied into extra layers fine-tuned with main model frozen; MTP tuned in SFT and frozen in RL↗
post rl0530 RL-0530 update: SFT 500K -> 6M samples; on-policy RL; RL window 32K -> 48K↗
2508 SFT checkpoint gives higher RL stability; internal VLM Arena 1131.2 vs 1093.9↗
post sft hparams cosine LR 5e-5 -> 5e-6, batch 128, AdamW eps 1e-8, expert-bias update 1e-4, seq aux loss 1e-6; monitor 'num-zeros' (zero-grad params) for MoE stability↗
post reward hacking Found SWE-Bench images leaking future commits (git hacking); moved to newest images and git-hack resolution↗
post rl infra SGLang inference + Megatron-LM training, FP8 both; R3, request-level prefix cache, data scheduler with partial rollout, Toolbox/Tool Manager on Ray↗
··
post rl cost split Pro: rollout 43.8%, training 43.5%, grader 12.7%; Flash (read from Fig.3 in same order): training 40.9%, rollout 44.9%, grader 14.2%↗
post rl gains DeepSWE v1.1 avg@3 during RL: Pro 58.4 -> 72.6, Flash 48.7 -> 65.7↗
post router freeze MoE router frozen during RL: trainable router caused load collapse (CV 0.78 -> 2.0, peak load 6x -> 16x, cold experts 0.5% -> 22% in 20 steps)↗
post reward hacking Artifact/cache/git-history cleanup, container network isolation, iterative 'hack agent' red-teaming until no exploit found, offline trajectory audits; confirmed-hack sha…↗
post multi harness Four task-adapted mini-harnesses in training; held-out harnesses (Codex, Claude Code, mini-swe-agent) mean DeepSWE pass@1 ~50% -> 66%↗
post rl infra SGLang + Megatron-LM; Harness Pool, Payload Porter (decoupled control/data planes), Sample Mixer; RL drafter: block-6 DFlash fine-tuned on RL rollouts (+31.3% accepted l…↗
·
post failure mode Tool-call repetition/flooding after V2.6 release: response-level repetition >0.05%; Flash share of replayed examples with >=10 calls/turn rose 11.1% -> 24.6% over RL ste…↗
post rejected fix Lowering the cap 32 -> 8 worked only after ~20 steps (est. $2.31M to redo MixRL) and generalized poorly (replay repetition 13.45% -> 3.83%)↗
post mopd2 teachers MOPD2 teachers: mixRL teachers (verifiable tasks) and SFT teachers (open-domain); extends to game development, scientific research, embodied intelligence↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. MiMo-7B-RL-0530SFT scaled 500K -> 6M samples; GRPO replaced by on-policy RL; generation budget raised 32K -> 38K -> 48K ↗Why: Vanilla GRPO saturated prematurely; on-policy RL was stable and kept improving
  2. MiMo-VL-7BClipped GRPO replaced by a fully on-policy GRPO variant (single update per rollout) mixing RLVR and RLHF (MORL), with Bradley-Terry reward models ↗Why: Vanilla GRPO plateaus around 20K samples while on-policy RL keeps scaling
  3. V2-FlashSingle-model GRPO on math/code replaced by SFT -> domain-specialized RL teachers -> Multi-Teacher On-Policy Distillation (MOPD) ↗Why: Avoid the 'see-saw' capability imbalance and learning inefficiency of combining specialized models
  4. V2-FlashRL scope expanded from 130K single-turn math/code problems to large agentic environments (>100K real GitHub-issue code tasks, terminal, search, web-dev, function calling); rewards add LLM judges and rubrics ↗Why: Scaling the number of available tasks drives sustained gains in code intelligence and generalizes to other domains
  5. V2.6Per-domain RL teachers + MOPD replaced as the main stage by one large mixed-task asynchronous GRPO run (1,568x16 rollouts, 2.7-3.7B tokens/step, 1M context) across many harnesses; MOPD2 only afterwards ↗Why: Capabilities reinforce each other and strategies transfer to harnesses never seen in training
  6. V2.6Groupwise agentic grading (GRS offline rubrics; GAR online grader redistributing advantage among passing rollouts) on top of binary test rewards ↗Why: Binary pass/fail cannot rank passing solutions; pushes toward smaller, maintainable patches and fewer tokens
  7. V2.6MoE router frozen during RL (V2-Flash relied on R3 replay only) ↗Why: A trainable router drifted and collapsed expert load within 20 steps
  8. V2.6MOPD -> MOPD2: adds Teacher-Prefix and SFT-Prefix single-turn OPD and SFT teachers alongside RL teachers ↗Why: Extend distillation to hard-to-verify domains and train decision points without regenerating earlier turns
  9. V2.6-MOPDTool-call repetition fixed by adding a short repetition-specialist RL teacher into MOPD instead of tightening the RL flooding penalty ↗Why: Environment-level penalty took ~20 steps (est. $2.31M) and generalized poorly; MOPD fix cost ~$90K
Gemma6 releases
PosttrainingGemma-3Mar 12, 2025Gemma-3-270MAug 14, 2025Gemma-4Apr 2, 2026Gemma-4-assistantMay 5, 2026
SFT
Post-training data filtered for PII, unsafe/toxic outputs, mistaken self-identification, duplicates; adds subsets for attribution, hedging and refusals; size and sources…↗
·
Post-training data filtered for PII, unsafe/toxic outputs, mistaken self-identification, duplicates; adds attribution/hedging/refusal subsets; size and sources not discl…↗
·
RL algorithm
RL finetuning based on improved BOND (best-of-N distillation), WARM (weight-averaged reward models) and WARP (weight-averaged rewarded policies)↗
·not disclosed·
Environments
Reward targets: helpfulness, math, coding, reasoning, instruction following, multilingual, harmlessness (no counts)↗
···
Rewardschanged
Weight-averaged reward models trained on human feedback + code-execution feedback + ground-truth math rewards↗
·not disclosed·
Distillationchanged
Improved knowledge distillation from a large instruction-tuned teacher (cites on-policy distillation, Agarwal et al. 2024)↗
·not disclosed·
Thinking modes
None: Gemma 3 has no thinking mode↗
·changed
Configurable thinking: <|think|> token in the system prompt turns it on; trace in <|channel>thought...<channel|>; larger models emit an empty thought block when off↗
·
Safety
Pre-training safety filtering; SFT and RLHF against Google safety policies; baseline assurance evals and CBRN knowledge evals↗
·
Train-time mitigations and post-training safety evals against Google safety policies; same safety evaluations as Gemini↗
·
Quantization-aware trainingchanged
QAT finetune of ~5,000 steps per model with the bf16 model's probabilities as targets; per-channel int4, per-block int4, switched fp8 (SFP8)↗
INT4 QAT checkpoints released↗
changed
QAT checkpoints: 'mobile' (per-channel int2/int4 mixed weights + int8 activations) and Q4_0 blockwise; per-block scalar scale for fp16 inference; encoders QAT'd (150M im…↗
·
Other
Function calling and structured output supported↗
IT model released alongside PT; tuned for instruction following and text structuring, not complex chat↗
post recipe Post-training 'similar' to Gemma 3, with a thinking mode added↗
post function calling Native function calling, structured JSON output, native system role↗
Trained 'with our models'; objective, data and steps not disclosed↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Gemma-3New post-training recipe: improved KD from a large IT teacher plus RL (improved BOND/WARM/WARP) with RM, code-execution and math rewards ↗Why: Improve math, chat, instruction following and multilingual ability
  2. Gemma-3Official QAT checkpoints (int4 per-channel, int4 per-block, SFP8) ↗Why: Match the most popular open-source quantized inference engines (e.g. llama.cpp)
  3. Gemma-4Added a thinking mode (reasoning trace before the answer), toggled per request ↗Why: Better reasoning-heavy performance, e.g. math and coding
  4. Gemma-4QAT formats: int4 per-channel/per-block/SFP8 -> 'mobile' int2/int4 + int8 activations and Q4_0; QAT also applied to the encoders ↗Why: Match popular quantized inference engines and efficient hardware support
  5. Gemma-4-assistantReleased MTP drafter heads for speculative decoding (not shipped at the April launch) ↗Why: Improve decoding speed
Microsoft AI4 releases
PosttrainingMAI-DS-R1Apr 16, 2025MAI-1-previewAug 28, 2025MAI-Thinking-1Jun 2, 2026
SFT
~460k examples: 110k Safety and Non-Compliance examples from the Tulu 3 SFT mixture + ~350k internally developed multilingual examples on topics with reported biases↗
not disclosed
sft data No cold-start SFT on reasoning traces: RL starts from the mid-trained base with an R1-Zero-style prompt template; later moved to chat format via self-distillation↗
sft data Consolidation SFT mix (samples / tokens): STEM+coding 56% / 89%, agentic 11% / 9%, helpfulness+safety 33% / 2%; 4 epochs, max LR 1e-5 decayed 2x↗
RL algorithmnot disclosednot disclosed
GRPO variant: token-level policy gradient normalized over the global batch, group-normalized advantages, adaptive entropy control (dynamic upper clip), outer ratio clip↗
RL details··
rl detail Adaptive entropy control: upper clip (1-eps)^-1 + k, k set by an integral controller toward target entropy 0.3 (eps 0.6, k_max 2.5, step 0.25); replaces an entropy bonus↗
rl detail Outer hard ratio clip on all branches (r_max 50) to stop gradient-norm spikes from unclipped GRPO branches↗
rl detail G=128 rollouts per prompt with early exit after 16 (keep if pass rate in [0.05, 0.8]); final pass-rate filter [0.1, 0.8]↗
rl detail Top-p 0.97 sampling; the rollout top-p mask is replayed in the learner; MoE routing replay; BF16 in both learner and inference↗
rl detail Learner and inference both in BF16 (lower precisions gave larger train/inference numerics gaps)↗
rl detail Output-length curriculum 8k -> 16k -> 32k -> 64k -> 128k↗
rl detail Reward = task + 0.5 x language-consistency (English CoT, 0.005 per non-English word) - 0.25 x length penalty scaled by pass rate (penalty removed at 128k)↗
rl detail Asynchronous off-policy: 5 gradient steps per inference weight update; rollouts more than 8 updates (40 steps) stale are dropped↗
rl detail RL optimizer AdamW (beta1=beta2=0.95, eps 1e-15, no weight decay), constant LR 1e-6 (9e-7 at long lengths); global batch 7,040 packed (<=12,000 sequences); MoE LBL coeff…↗
Environments··
rl environments STEM: 'STEM Mix' >5M verifiable (q, a) samples built from textbooks, papers, forums, competitions and vendors (>550k hardest; 58.5% math, 13.2% physics, 10.9% chemistry)…↗
rl environments Competitive coding: 160k problems with verified reference solutions and test cases, 17 languages↗
rl environments SWE: 265,617 executable environments from 94,044 repos (102M GitHub PRs -> 4.87M with linked issues -> 2.08M built -> 745,452 with fail-to-pass tests -> 265,617 verified…↗
rl environments General tool use: >150 synthetic closed-world environments and 130,000 tasks (often >50 tools per env) plus human-curated environments↗
rl environments Agentic climb mixes in STEM and competitive-coding tasks for stability and positive transfer↗
rl environments Helpfulness and safety climb: instruction following (expert + synthetic, 40+ domains), safety, honesty, style; prompts include PII-filtered consumer Copilot logs, vendor…↗
RL scale··
Largest RL job: 4,864 GB300 chips (4,096 inference, 768 learner); inference:learner up to 5:1; climbs run thousands of steps↗
Rewards··
reward model Generative reward model: post-trained MAI-Base-1 fine-tuned (SFT) on vendor human k-way preference scores 1-5; applied cyclically over response permutations; reward = P(…↗
reward model STEM: final answer checked by formal verifier (SymPy) or AI judge; competitive code run against test cases↗
reward model Reward combination without weighted sums where priorities matter: lexicographic shaping (lower rewards only break ties) and gated application (safety gate); plus rubric…↗
reward model Honesty: LLM judge assigns 5 factuality x confidence classes; confident hallucinations penalized most, abstention neutral↗
reward model Style: coarse prompted judges scoring 0/1/2, applied only after verifiable and safety constraints are met↗
Distillation·not disclosedchanged
distillation No distillation from third-party models↗
distillation Self-distillation: SFT of a mid-trained checkpoint on O(1M) successful traces from later RL checkpoints, used to restart climbs after collapses and to port progress to n…↗
distillation Specialist -> generalist: STEM, agentic and helpfulness/safety RL teachers distilled into one model by SFT, then a final RL stage↗
Thinking modes··changed
Single reasoning mode (CoT before answer); RL output up to 128k tokens; no effort levels or non-thinking mode described↗
Agentic data pipeline··
Automated SWE env building from public GitHub issues/PRs (LLM agent writes Dockerfiles, fail-to-pass/pass-to-pass tests, agent rewrites underspecified statements); anti-…↗
Safety
Goal: unblock topics R1 refused (described as CCP-aligned restrictions) while reducing harmful outputs; preserve R1 reasoning↗
·changed
safety alignment Safety trained inside the same RL loop: safety-gated reward (non-compliant -> minimum reward); judges for policy compliance, engagement (refuse/partial/do-not-refuse) an…↗
safety alignment Internal red teaming: 15 engagements across early/mid/late development, >2,170 goal-based adversarial scenarios (5-10 turns each) across 25 policy categories; findings (…↗
Other
post synthetic data Yes, some synthetic AI-generated data was used (source model not named)↗
post data dates Data collected up to March 2025; first used for training March 2025↗
Instruction following and helpful answers to everyday consumer queries↗
post specialists Three specialist RL climbs with the same recipe: STEM + competitive code (longest), agentic coding + tool use, helpfulness + safety↗
post consolidation rl Final lightweight RL on the consolidated model for safety, over-refusal and style; 128k max length; keeps some STEM/coding data↗
post rl infra Rocket: in-house asynchronous RL framework; YOLO learner, SGLang inference + router; 97-98% prefix-cache hit on multi-turn RL↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. MAI-Thinking-1From post-training a third-party reasoning model on safety/bias examples to learning reasoning from scratch with long RL climbs, self-distillation and specialist consolidation, with no third-party distillation ↗Why: capabilities should be learned, not inherited; imitated models are tied to the teacher's design choices
Thinking Machines2 releases
PosttrainingInklingJul 15, 2026Inkling-SmallJul 30, 2026
SFT
Bootstrap SFT on synthetic data generated by open-weights models including Kimi K2.5; a small fraction of post-training compute↗
not disclosed
RL algorithmnot disclosednot disclosed
RL details
Large-scale asynchronous RL; stable training over two long continuous runs↗
·
Environments
Math, agentic code & tool use, audio, image, chat, safety; synthetic and human-created environments↗
·
RL scale
rl scale Over 30M rollouts across two long continuous runs↗
rl scale Majority of post-training compute went to RL; SFT bootstrap a small fraction↗
rl scale Held-out reasoning aggregate reward 0.264 at SFT init -> 0.356 at the released checkpoint (~26.5M rollouts), log-linear in rollouts↗
After the preview checkpoint, agentic-coding RL continued for two more weeks↗
Rewards
reward model Rubric grader + claims grader for hard-to-verify instruction following↗
reward model Claims grader verifies each claim with agentic web search↗
·
Distillation
Off-policy only: bootstrap SFT on outputs of open-weights models (incl. Kimi K2.5); no on-policy distillation described for Inkling↗
changed
On-policy distillation with Inkling as teacher, used in part to post-train the preview checkpoint↗
Mergingnot disclosed·
Thinking modes
thinking modes Controllable thinking effort, learned in RL by varying the system message and a per-token cost↗
thinking modes Inference effort presets: none, minimal, low, medium, high, xhigh, max↗
Variable thinking effort; effort swept from minimal to xhigh in efficiency charts↗
Agentic data pipeline
Trained inside many coding/agent harnesses with randomized tool sets and schemas↗
·
Safety
safety alignment Trained to an internal spec of safe behavior across all modalities; external testers verified↗
safety alignment Pre-release dangerous-capability testing incl. refusal-suppressed variants for CBRN/cyber↗
safety alignment Release decision: no material uplift beyond existing open-weight models↗
safety alignment Three-part pre-release assessment: internal evals, four external testers, adversarial (helpful-only) fine-tuning study↗
safety alignment Adversarial fine-tuning: helpful-only variants gave no new CBRN/cyber uplift↗
safety alignment Internal multimodal harmful/benign look-alike eval across 17 languages and text, image, audio↗
safety alignment Inherited Inkling's safety post-training recipe↗
safety alignment Staged release: preview shown Jul 15 with weights held back until testing finished; weights released Jul 30↗
safety alignment Same pre-deployment testing as Inkling (internal evals + external red-teaming)↗
safety alignment Release decision: no material uplift beyond existing open-weight models↗
Quantization-aware trainingnot disclosed·
Other
post calibration Calibration RL against proper scoring rules on a large corpus of resolved real-world (forecasting) questions↗
post abstention Short-form factual QA with abstention-aware rewards (largest targeted dataset); prompts that ask for or forbid hedging↗
post censorship Trained to answer directly on topics that may be censored↗
post cot compression Chain of thought became more concise during RL without being targeted by the reward↗
post shared stack Same scalable post-training stack as Inkling↗
post calibration Calibration RL against proper scoring rules on real-world forecasting questions, as for Inkling↗
post visual tool use Improved Python tool use for visual tasks (crop, zoom, programmatic inspection)↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Inkling-SmallAdded on-policy distillation with Inkling as teacher (for the preview checkpoint), on top of the shared post-training stack ↗
  2. Inkling-SmallTwo more weeks of agentic-coding RL (TB2.1 52.7% -> 64.7%, SWE-bench Verified 77.4% -> 80.2%) ↗
  3. Inkling-SmallImproved Python tool use for visual tasks (crop, zoom, programmatic image inspection) ↗Why: Better usability on documents and charts where relevant information may be small or hard to inspect
Qwen23 releases
PosttrainingQVQ-72B-PreviewDec 25, 2024Qwen2.5-VLJan 26, 2025Qwen2.5-1MJan 27, 2025QwQ-32BMar 6, 2025Qwen2.5-VL-32BMar 24, 2025Qwen2.5-OmniMar 27, 2025Qwen3Apr 29, 2025Qwen3-2507Jul 21, 2025Qwen3-CoderJul 22, 2025Qwen3-NextSep 11, 2025Qwen3-OmniSep 22, 2025Qwen3-VLSep 23, 2025Qwen3-Coder-NextFeb 3, 2026WebWorldFeb 16, 2026Qwen3.5Feb 16, 2026Qwen3.5-MediumFeb 24, 2026Qwen3.5-SmallMar 2, 2026Qwen3.6-35B-A3BApr 15, 2026Qwen3.6-27BApr 22, 2026Qwen-AgentWorldJun 22, 2026Qwen3.8Aug 12, 2026Qwen3.8-27BAug 14, 2026Qwen3.8-Flash-NextAug 26, 2026
SFTnot disclosed
~2M entries, 50% pure text / 50% multimodal; mostly Chinese and English; categorized by Qwen2-VL-Instag into 8 domains / 30 subcategories, rule + RM filtering, rejection-sampled CoT↗
changed
Synthetic long-context QA: Qwen2.5 writes queries from document segments, Qwen-Agent (RAG, chunk-by-chunk reading) writes answers over the full document↗
Cold-start checkpoint before RL (card: SFT + RL); data not described↗
·
Thinker: ChatML instruction data mixing pure text, visual, audio and mixed-modality conversations↗
Long-CoT cold start: verifiable math/code/logic/STEM queries filtered by Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct; QwQ-32B responses filtered on 6 criteria; deliberately few samples and steps↗
not disclosed·not disclosed
Lightweight SFT on ChatML data mixing text, visual, audio and mixed-modality conversations↗
~1.2M samples (1/3 text-only, 2/3 image/video); one epoch at 32K then one at 256K; separate non-thinking and CoT formats↗
Three sources: in-house proprietary corpora, execution-verified agentic trajectories, documentation-grounded QA; filtered by a Mini-SWE-agent user simulator↗
Stage 1 (transition modeling): 1.06M trajectories (state, action -> next state) from the hierarchical web pipeline plus enrichment tasks (multi-format, web generation, descriptive simulation, general world model, general chat)↗
·····
7,094 thinking trajectories over 7 domains, kept from 10,250 candidates (69.2%) by best-of-3 rejection sampling with an independent judge; prompts drawn from 10 template variants↗
···
RL algorithmnot disclosed
DPO on image-text and pure-text preference data (each sample once), ViT frozen↗
Offline RL similar to DPO, reusing short (<=8,192-token) pairs from other Qwen2.5 models; generalizes to long context↗
not disclosednot disclosed
DPO for the Talker only (speech stability; ranked by WER and punctuation-pause error); no RL described for the Thinker↗
GRPO (Reasoning RL stage)↗
changed
GSPO, inferred: Qwen's GSPO blog (Jul 27, 2025) credits it for 'the latest Qwen3 models (Instruct, Coder, Thinking)', i.e. the 2507 models; the cards do not name it inferred↗
GSPO, inferred: Qwen's GSPO blog (Jul 27, 2025, five days after Qwen3-Coder) credits it for 'the latest Qwen3 models (Instruct, Coder, Thinking)'; the Coder blog and card name no algorithm inferred↗
changed
GSPO↗
changed
GSPO across text, image, video and audio↗
changed
SAPO (smooth, adaptive policy gradient)↗
not disclosednot disclosednot disclosed····
GSPO↗
not disclosed·not disclosed
RL details···
Stage 1 scales RL on math and coding only; stage 2 adds general-capability RL for a small number of steps without a significant math/code drop↗
changed
Further RL optimization of the Qwen2.5-VL recipe for output style, math reasoning and fine-grained image understanding; algorithm not named↗
·
Large batch, many rollouts per query, off-policy updates for sample efficiency; entropy kept rising or stable; one run without manual hyperparameter changes↗
GSPO uses sequence-likelihood importance ratios with sequence-level clipping; lab says it removes the need for Routing Replay in MoE RL↗
changed
Code RL scaled to a broad set of real-world coding tasks (not just competitive programming) using automatically scaled test cases↗
Lab says it fixed RL stability and efficiency problems specific to hybrid attention + high-sparsity MoE, improving RL speed and final quality↗
··
Single-turn RL on execution-verifiable coding tasks (library use, multilingual, secure code); unit tests generated by internal models and kept by majority-vote consensus↗
·
Asynchronous, fully disaggregated training-inference RL; FP8 end-to-end training, rollout router replay, speculative decoding, multi-turn rollout locking; bounded gradient staleness↗
····
Prompts capped at 128k; RL pool keeps exactly one turn per trajectory to avoid shared-prefix reward collapse; only the tag-extracted prediction reaches the judge (anti self-praise)↗
Online data balancer keeps each batch balanced over tasks, difficulty, workspaces and harnesses to cut inter-batch gradient variance↗
··
Environments······
General RL over 20+ tasks: instruction and format following, preference alignment, agent tool use with multi-turn real-environment feedback, RAG↗
·changed
Long-horizon Agent RL on SWE-style multi-turn tool use; 20,000 independent environments in parallel on Alibaba Cloud↗
··
Reasoning RL: math, code, logic, grounding, visual puzzles (rule/code verified); General RL: VQA, captioning, OCR, doc parsing, grounding, clock reading↗
Executable Docker environments from real GitHub PRs (Table 10: 807,693 instances, 52,960 repos) plus ~800K synthesized-bug tasks in 9+ languages; run on MegaFlow (Kubernetes/Argo)↗
·
Environments chosen for difficulty and generalizability rather than specific metrics; million-scale agent scaffolds and environments↗
····
Next-observation prediction on in-house agentic trajectories converted to environment trajectories over MCP, Search, Terminal, SWE, Android, Web and OS↗
Decoupled real environments scaled along three axes: task (up to multi-day), workspace (up to heterogeneous folders), harness (category, version, skills)↗
··
RL scale······
3,995 query-verifier pairs; AIME'24 70.1 -> 85.1 over 170 RL steps on 235B-A22B↗
····
~30K RL queries (text + multimodal); 16 samples per query, queries with pass rate >90% dropped per model↗
Average agent turns grew from 50 to 130 during SWE RL; SFT and RL prompts disjoint; max 300 turns in evaluation↗
·changed
Post-training gains attributed to scaling virtually all RL tasks and environments; "million-agent environments" with progressively complex task distributions↗
Card repeats the Qwen3.5 claim of RL across million-agent environments; no size-specific recipe↗
···
92,308 RL training samples across 7 domains (avg 19,443 tokens, 13.4 turns)↗
RL environments and compute scaled jointly; steady gains on dozens of benchmarks as RL scales↗
··
Rewards·
Reward models trained on the Qwen2.5-VL series score SFT QA pairs (correctness, completeness, clarity, relevance, helpfulness)↗
·changed
Stage 1: no reward model; accuracy verifier for math and code-execution server with test cases. Stage 2: general reward model + rule-based verifiers↗
··
Rule-based rewards; model-based with reference (Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct grades against a reference answer); reward model trained on human preference data↗
·
Execution-driven rewards (test cases); 'hard to solve, easy to verify' tasks↗
·
Rule-based rewards for verifiable tasks; LLM-as-judge with references: Qwen3 for general tasks, Qwen2.5-VL for visually grounded ones↗
Unified reward framework; no format reward; language-mismatch penalty; General RL mixes rule-based rewards with judges (Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct or Qwen3)↗
SWE RL: trajectory-level reward for final task completion, plus an unfinished-trajectory penalty and token-level penalties on malformed tool calls↗
······
Hybrid: 5-dimension rubric LLM judge (Format, Factuality, Consistency, Realism, Quality; 1-5 each, reward in [5,25]) + rule-based 0/1 verifier scaled to [0,25], mixed 9:1↗
changed
Universal Reward System: execution checks, rubric-conditioned judging of text and rendered visuals, and agentic inspection under auto-scaled rubrics, replacing task-specific verifiers↗
··
Distillation······changed
Flagships (235B-A22B, 32B) use the 4-stage pipeline; 0.6B-14B and 30B-A3B get strong-to-weak distillation: off-policy (think + no_think outputs), then on-policy logit KL to Qwen3-32B or 235B-A22B↗
··not disclosed
Strong-to-weak distillation as in Qwen3: off-policy, then on-policy logit KL to Qwen3-32B or Qwen3-235B-A22B↗
changed
Strong-to-weak distillation (off-policy, then on-policy logit KL) for lightweight models, run on text-only data to tune the LLM backbone↗
Expert distillation: WebDev, UX, single-turn RL and SWE experts (all from the same SFT model) distilled back into one model; mid-training trajectories come from a Qwen3-Coder-480B teacher↗
·not disclosed····
SFT reasoning traces are rollouts from an unnamed general-purpose reasoning model (3 per query, judge-selected)↗
not disclosed·not disclosed
Merging······not disclosed················
Thinking modes
Step-by-step visual reasoning model (preview); lab lists recursive reasoning loops and language mixing as known failure modes↗
··
Thinking-only reasoning model↗
··changed
Hybrid: thinking and non-thinking in one model via /think and /no_think flags (thinking default); thinking budget by forced stop-thinking text, which the lab says emerged untrained↗
changed
Hybrid mode dropped: Instruct-2507 is non-thinking only, Thinking-2507 thinking only (longer thinking)↗
Non-thinking only↗
Separate Instruct (non-thinking only) and Thinking (thinking only) models↗
changed
Separate Instruct and Thinking models; Thinking reasons over any input modality↗
changed
Separate non-thinking (Instruct) and thinking variants↗
Non-thinking only; no <think> blocks↗
·changed
Thinks by default; non-thinking via enable_thinking=false; Qwen3 /think and /nothink soft switches dropped↗
Thinking by default; non-thinking via API flag↗
changed
0.8B and 2B default to non-thinking (thinking optional); 4B and 9B think by default↗
changed
Thinking and non-thinking in one multimodal checkpoint; additionally trained to reuse thinking from earlier turns (preserve_thinking)↗
changed
Vision-language thinking and non-thinking in one checkpoint; trained for thinking preservation across turns↗
Thinks by default (<think>) before the predicted observation; CPT data is non-thinking, SFT introduces thinking↗
changed
Always-on thinking; reasoning_effort xhigh (default) / medium / low; preserve_thinking on by default↗
changed
Thinking on by default, can be disabled per request; reasoning_effort levels; preserve_thinking↗
Thinking by default; can be disabled↗
Agentic data pipeline···changed
Agent capabilities (tool use, adapting to environment feedback) integrated into the reasoning model; method not detailed↗
··
Agent ability trained in General RL with complete multi-turn rollouts on real environment execution feedback↗
····
Thinking with images: ~10k cold-start grounding SFT + tool RL on Qwen2.5-VL-32B, which then generates ~120k multi-turn agentic interactions for Qwen3-VL SFT + tool-integrated RL↗
changed
Training on 21 tool-chat templates (incl. new XML qwen3_coder format); SWE-bench Verified rises with template count at fixed data↗
Three-level collection on live websites: randomized crawling (293K trajectories, 3-10 steps), LLM-agent autonomous exploration (38K, up to 30 steps), task-oriented execution of synthesized tasks (94K successful traces)↗
·········
Safety······not disclosed················
Other··
two stage sft Stage 1: short instructions only (<=32,768); stage 2: mixed short and long up to 262,144 tokens↗
··
talker training Talker: (1) in-context speech continuation, (2) DPO, (3) multi-speaker instruction fine-tuning↗
onpolicy distill vs rl On Qwen3-8B from the same off-policy checkpoint: on-policy distillation 1,800 GPU hours (AIME'24 74.4) vs RL 17,920 GPU hours (67.6); only distillation raises pass@64↗
thinking mode fusion Stage 3 continual SFT on the RL model: thinking data by rejection sampling with the Stage 2 model; non-thinking data across code, math, IF, multilingual, writing, QA, role-play, graded by auto checklists↗
general rl tradeoff Stages 3-4 lower thinking-mode AIME'24 and LiveCodeBench on Qwen3-32B; lab accepts the trade-off for versatility↗
thinking length Thinking-2507 has longer thinking; recommended for highly complex reasoning↗
··
talker training Talker: (1) hundreds of millions of speech samples, (2) continual pre-training on high-quality data + long context, (3) DPO on multilingual preference pairs, (4) speaker fine-tuning↗
audio captioner Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Captioner: fine-tuned on a large set of detailed audio descriptions↗
long cot cold start Thinking cold start: ~1:1 vision-language to text queries; VL math kept only if Qwen3-30B-nothink fails without the image↗
pairwise judge SFT responses ranked by a trained pairwise judge over n candidates from in-house models (checklist: accuracy, usefulness, style)↗
rl infra MegaFlow: internal cloud-native orchestration (Alibaba Cloud Kubernetes, Argo workflows: rollout, evaluation, post-processing)↗
reward hacking blocker Heuristic blocker: tool calls combining a repo link with git/curl/wget are refused with feedback (agents learned to re-fetch ground truth via git)↗
data mix Randomized crawling 43.3%, autonomous exploration 20.4%, task-oriented execution 16.1% of total data↗
url sources Target URLs taken from pre-training corpora: FineWeb (~618k English URLs) and a quality-filtered CCI 3.0 subset (~64k Chinese URLs), plus curated high-traffic sites↗
data filtering URL reachability keeps 15.7%, of which 85.2% pass a banned-keyword check; LLM scores sites on 4 axes; trajectories filtered by rules only (no LLM judge), dropping >30k tokens or >30 turns↗
cot activation Stage 2 (reasoning activation): 1K synthesized CoT samples (0.09% of data) from the Stage-1 checkpoint; 1K beats 10K CoT tuned directly on Qwen3-8B (0.561 vs 0.510 total score)↗
sft hyperparams Full-parameter BF16 SFT (LLaMA-Factory); LR 2e-5 (Stage 1) / 8e-6 (Stage 2), cosine with 10% warmup; 1 / 5 epochs; packing to 20,000 tokens; Stage 2 loss on CoT only↗
training compute Stage 1 on 16×A100-80GB: 8B ~4.05 days, 14B ~7.9 days, 32B ~12.8 days; Stage 2 on 8×A100: 2-3 hours↗
eval holdout WebWorld-Bench built with the same pipeline as training data but strictly held out↗
downstream use 8,000 WebWorld-synthesized trajectories used to fine-tune Qwen3-8B: +9.9 pts MiniWob++, +10.9 pts WebArena↗
rl infra Disaggregated async RL framework for all Qwen3.5 sizes (text, multimodal, multi-turn); 3×-5× end-to-end speedup↗
·
intended use 0.8B and 2B positioned for prototyping and task-specific fine-tuning↗
changed
focus Update shaped by community feedback: stability, frontend and repository-level agentic coding↗
thinking preservation Additionally trained to use thinking traces from earlier turns↗
prompt autoresearch System-prompt templates produced by an AutoResearch loop (12 parallel runs x 10 propose-evaluate-refine iterations, human-audited); disjoint template sets per stage↗
rl steps 440 RL steps tracked for Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B↗
lwm warmup World-model RL on Qwen3.5-35B-A3B-SFT (single-turn, no tool calls) lifts agent benchmarks without further tuning: Claw-Eval +11.3, QwenClawBench +9.7, BFCL v4 +9.0, Terminal-Bench 2.0 +6.3↗
···

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Qwen2.5-1MTwo-stage SFT: short-only first, then a balanced short/long mix up to 262,144 tokens ↗Why: Keep short-task skills while adding long-context ability
  2. QwQ-32BMath and code RL uses an accuracy verifier and a code-execution server instead of reward models ↗
  3. QwQ-32BAgent capabilities (tool use, reacting to environment feedback) added to the reasoning model ↗
  4. Qwen2.5-VL-32BRL added on top of the Qwen2.5-VL SFT + DPO recipe ↗Why: More human-aligned answers, better math and fine-grained image reasoning
  5. Qwen3Thinking and non-thinking unified in one model with a thinking budget, replacing separate Qwen2.5 and QwQ models ↗Why: No need to switch between chat and reasoning models
  6. Qwen3Smaller models built by strong-to-weak distillation instead of the full four-stage pipeline ↗Why: Better pass@1 and pass@64 at about 1/10 the GPU hours
  7. Qwen3-2507Hybrid mode dropped: separate Instruct-2507 (non-thinking only) and Thinking-2507 (thinking only) ↗
  8. Qwen3-2507GSPO (sequence-level ratio and clipping) replaces GRPO for the latest Qwen3 models (per the GSPO paper) ↗Why: Stabilizes MoE RL without Routing Replay and is more efficient than GRPO
  9. Qwen3-CoderLong-horizon Agent RL introduced, on 20,000 parallel environments ↗Why: Environment scaling is the key challenge of agent RL
  10. Qwen3-CoderCode RL broadened from competitive programming to real-world coding tasks with auto-scaled test cases ↗Why: All code tasks are easy to verify by execution
  11. Qwen3-NextGSPO used to make RL stable on hybrid attention + high-sparsity MoE ↗Why: That architecture caused RL stability and efficiency problems
  12. Qwen3-OmniThinker gains strong-to-weak distillation and GSPO RL (Qwen2.5-Omni Thinker had instruction tuning only) ↗
  13. Qwen3-OmniNew Thinking model reasoning over any modality, including audio-video and audio-only ↗
  14. Qwen3-VLRL with SAPO (Qwen2.5-VL used DPO after SFT) ↗
  15. Qwen3-VLStrong-to-weak distillation on text-only data added for smaller models ↗Why: Large reasoning gains on both text and multimodal tasks
  16. Qwen3-VLSeparate non-thinking and thinking variants released ↗Why: Different application needs
  17. Qwen3-Coder-NextTrains on 21 tool-chat templates and adds an XML tool-call format (qwen3_coder) instead of a single template ↗Why: JSON escaping hurts long code arguments; template diversity improves robustness to unseen formats
  18. Qwen3.5Post-training gains vs Qwen3 come mainly from scaling virtually all RL tasks and environments ↗Why: Generalization rather than metric-specific optimization
  19. Qwen3.5Drops Qwen3's /think and /nothink soft switches; thinking is on by default and toggled via the API ↗
  20. Qwen3.5-Small0.8B and 2B default to non-thinking mode (other Qwen3.5 models think by default) ↗
  21. Qwen3.6-35B-A3BAdditionally trained to keep and reuse thinking traces from earlier turns (preserve_thinking option) ↗Why: More consistent agent decisions, fewer redundant reasoning tokens, better KV-cache reuse
  22. Qwen3.6-35B-A3BAgentic-coding upgrade for frontend workflows and repository-level reasoning, driven by community feedback ↗Why: Stability and real-world utility
  23. Qwen3.6-27BAdditionally trained to keep and reuse thinking traces from earlier turns (preserve_thinking option) ↗Why: Agentic use with full reasoning context
  24. Qwen3.8One Universal Reward System (execution, rubric judging of text and rendered visuals, agentic inspection) replaces task-specific verifiers ↗Why: Consistent, reliable reward across all environments
  25. Qwen3.8Official reasoning_effort levels (xhigh default, medium, low) and preserve_thinking on by default; open 2.4T checkpoint cannot disable thinking ↗Why: Control depth and cost
  26. Qwen3.8-27BAdds reasoning_effort control to the dense 27B, with thinking on by default and preserve_thinking ↗Why: Flexible thinking control
MiniMax10 releases
PosttrainingText-01Jan 15, 2025VL-01Jan 15, 2025SynLogicMay 26, 2025M1Jun 16, 2025M2Oct 27, 2025M2.1Dec 23, 2025M2.5Feb 12, 2026M2.7Mar 18, 2026M3Jun 1, 2026M3.1-FlashOct 19, 2026
SFT
Rejection-sampled responses from domain-specific expert models (iterative SFT and RL), several temperatures, n-gram and semantic diversity filters; prompt pool of millions tagged by task, domain and difficulty↗
Stage II: 420B multimodal instruction tokens mixed 20:1 with Text-01 post-training data, all parameters trained; Stage III: 44.8B tokens of user-experience data for 1 epoch↗
·
Cold-start long-CoT SFT across math, coding, STEM, writing, QA and multi-turn chat; math and code about 60%↗
Interleaved-thinking SFT: rejection-sampled trajectories with reasoning between actions and observations, over chat, reasoning, code and cowork↗
·····
RL algorithm
Offline DPO, then online RL with a modified GRPO (extra IS-weight clipping, reformulated KL term, balanced advantage)↗
DPO on 40,000 image-text pairs plus text-only pairs↗
GRPO↗
changed
CISPO (new): clips importance-sampling weights instead of token updates, so every token keeps a gradient↗
CISPO adapted to agent RL (M2-series report)↗
·
CISPO, kept for MoE stability at scale↗
CISPO (M2-series report)↗
not disclosed·
RL details
Online RL mainly for math, on SFT-untrained prompts with moderate pass rates; DPO pairs are best vs worst sampled responses on SFT prompts↗
DPO stopped before one full epoch to avoid overfitting↗
Zero-RL from the base model with no instruction tuning (Mix-3)↗
Group-relative advantage, token-level loss, only the upper IS bound tuned, no KL, DAPO dynamic sampling and length penalty, 16 off-policy updates per batch; 2x faster than DAPO in a Qwen2.5-32B test↗
Each (state, action) step is a training sample; IS ratio clipped to [0, 1+eps_high]; reward-to-go with a trajectory baseline; staged mixed-domain RL over reasoning, coding, agent and general data with per-stage ratios, context and difficulty↗
·changed
Forge agent-native RL framework: middleware decouples the training-inference engine from arbitrary agents; async scheduling trades throughput against off-policyness; tree-structured sample merging ~40x speedup↗
···
Environments··
35 synthesized, automatically verifiable logic tasks for 32B (27 for 7B)↗
changed
Math ~50K, logic ~53K (SynLogic, 41 tasks), competitive programming 30K, SWE sandboxes (several thousand), general tasks 25K↗
White-box and black-box (API-only) agents through one gateway; validated on hundreds of scaffolds and thousands of tool formats↗
Trained for scaffold generalization across Claude Code, Droid, Cline, Kilo Code, Roo Code, BlackBox and context-management files (Skill.md, Claude.md)↗
200,000+ real-world coding environments in 10+ languages, spanning full-stack Web, Android, iOS and Windows projects↗
·changed
Interactive user simulator (clarifications, feedback, task switching, multi-round iteration) used in both training and evaluation of coding agents↗
·
RL scale··
33k SynLogic-Hard samples (32B); Mix-3: 35k math + 9k code + 17k SynLogic samples↗
Full RL run: 3 weeks on 512 H800 GPUs, about $534,700 rental↗
··changed
Hundreds of thousands of RL environments, most built from MiniMax's own internal tasks and workspaces↗
···
Rewards
Hierarchical reward on correctness (early Text-01 judge, sandboxed tests), truthfulness, helpfulness and harmlessness↗
Text-01 acts as multi-dimensional evaluator for DPO pairs (and injects hallucinations to build negatives)↗
Binary rule-based rewards for format and correctness↗
changed
Rule-based correctness + format rewards; generative reward model for general tasks (5-grade vs ground truth, pairwise -1/0/1 vs a reference); GenRM recalibrated on detected length bias↗
Composite reward: process reward (penalties for language mixing and tool-format errors) + task-completion-time reward + task performance↗
·changed
Process reward for long-context credit assignment, plus a task-completion-time signal to trade intelligence against speed↗
···
Distillation
Only from in-house domain expert models via rejection sampling; no external teacher named↗
··not disclosed
Off-policy: cowork trajectories distilled from a rotating set of strong teacher models under perturbed scaffolds; AppDev uses prompt distillation (expert system prompt dropped at training time)↗
···not disclosed·
Thinking modes···changed
Two thinking budgets, M1-40k and M1-80k; the 40k model is an intermediate checkpoint of the 80k run, which grew output length 40K -> 48K -> 56K -> 64K -> 72K -> 80K↗
changed
Interleaved thinking: reasoning between tool calls; earlier <think> blocks must stay in the history↗
changed
Interleaved thinking kept; responses and thought chains more concise than M2↗
RL rewards efficient reasoning and task decomposition: 3.52M vs 3.72M tokens per SWE-Bench Verified task and ~20% fewer search rounds than M2.1↗
·changed
Three modes via the thinking parameter: enabled, adaptive (model decides), disabled↗
changed
reasoning_effort low / medium / high / xhigh / max (API default max)↗
Agentic data pipeline····changed
SWE-scaling from merged GitHub PRs: agent-built Docker envs in 10+ languages, PR-type routing (bug fix F2P/P2P, feature, perf), model validation, augmentation (bug injection, commit merging, SWE-Test, review)↗
changed
Coding data and environments broadened beyond Python to Rust, Java, Go, C++, Kotlin, Objective-C, TypeScript and JavaScript↗
changed
Office data co-built with senior professionals in finance, law and social sciences (Word, PowerPoint, Excel financial modeling)↗
changed
New full-stack repository data (NL2Repo 26.6 -> 39.8)↗
··
Safety
Safety prompts (category-specific, real user, red-team augmented) plus a harmless reward model built on safety rules that include helpfulness principles↗
·········
Quantization-aware training·········changed
Routed MoE experts and attention paths quantized during training (release formats: see inference_notes)↗
Other
long context posttraining Five stages: SFT at 8K -> SFT at 1,032,192 (50% long prompts) -> DPO at 8K -> DPO at 1,032,192 -> online RL at 8K; RoPE base fixed at 10M↗
··
rl stability Generation halted after 3,000 consecutive tokens with p > 0.99; sample-level loss + token-level normalization and lower grad-clip / eps_high in the 80K stage↗
rl curriculum Starts with rule-verified reasoning tasks, then gradually mixes in general-domain tasks↗
rl decontamination Math RL data decontaminated against common benchmarks with n-gram and embedding methods↗
appdev pipeline AppDev: expert meta-queries, MinHash dedup, rubric filters; Agent-as-a-Verifier deploys each app and checks execution, interaction (Playwright) and visual aesthetics↗
terminal gym Terminal tasks synthesized from the full Stack Overflow dump with agent-written Dockerfiles and tests, query evolution and difficulty calibration↗
cowork data Cowork track: deep search, GDPval-anchored office tasks, finance and spreadsheets, slides; acceptance by artifact-specific verifiers and rubrics↗
rl infrastructure Forge: windowed-FIFO scheduling (W ≈ 0.3N), prefix-tree merging (up to 40x), MTP co-trained with the policy, prefill-decode disaggregation, global KV cache↗
reasoning data Reasoning data: CoT cleaned with rules + LLM judge, harder queries kept by pass rate or complexity, separate verifiable and non-verifiable pipelines↗
agent generalization Agent data built for robustness to perturbations in tools, system prompt, user prompt, environment and tool responses (full-trajectory generalization)↗
role play Role-play track: self-play between expert models, RLHF from denoised product feedback (M2-series report; checkpoint not named)↗
appdev Native Android and iOS development and web/app design aesthetics strengthened↗
·changed
self evolution An internal M2.7 built and ran a research-agent harness for the RL team, handling 30-50% of the experiment workflow (logs, debugging, metric analysis, fixes)↗
scaffold self optimization M2.7 optimized an internal coding scaffold over 100+ autonomous rounds (sampling params, workflow rules, loop detection): +30% on internal evals↗
agent teams Native Agent Teams (stable roles, adversarial reasoning) and complex skills: 97% adherence over 40+ skills of >2,000 tokens each↗
persona Character consistency and conversational ability strengthened for entertainment use (OpenRoom demo)↗
harness cotraining MiniMax Code agent product trained together with M3↗
·

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. M1CISPO replaces Text-01's modified GRPO: clip importance-sampling weights, keep every token's gradient, no KL ↗Why: PPO/GRPO clipping dropped rare reflective 'fork' tokens and stalled long-CoT emergence on the hybrid model
  2. M1Becomes a reasoning model with two thinking budgets (40K and 80K output) ↗Why: Lightning attention makes long generations cheap: ~25% of DeepSeek-R1's FLOPs at 100K tokens
  3. M1RL adds SWE-bench-style sandboxes and SynLogic logic tasks (41 tasks) alongside math and code ↗
  4. M1Generative reward models for general tasks, with online length-bias monitoring and recalibration ↗Why: GenRMs preferred longer outputs, inviting reward hacking
  5. M2Interleaved thinking: reasoning between tool calls, with prior thinking kept in context ↗Why: Agents must keep focus over long tasks and re-evaluate after unpredictable tool outputs
  6. M2Agent data built for full-trajectory generalization (perturbing tools, prompts, environments, tool responses), not just tool count ↗Why: Tool scaling alone collapsed when the scaffold changed
  7. M2.1Coding training widened to Rust, Java, Go, C++, Kotlin, Objective-C, TypeScript, JavaScript; Android/iOS strengthened ↗Why: Real-world systems are multi-language; M2 had targeted cost and accessibility
  8. M2.1More concise responses and thought chains than M2 ↗Why: Faster responses and lower token use in coding and agent workflows
  9. M2.5RL scaled to hundreds of thousands of environments, 200K+ for coding in 10+ languages ↗Why: RL scaling named as a key driver of the M2-series gains
  10. M2.5Forge agent-native RL framework: middleware decoupling engine and agent, async scheduling, tree-structured sample merging (~40x) ↗Why: Integrate arbitrary agents and generalize across scaffolds while keeping throughput
  11. M2.5Process reward plus task-completion-time evaluation added to outcome rewards ↗Why: Credit assignment over long agent rollouts; trade intelligence against response speed
  12. M2.5Office-task data co-built with senior finance, law and social-science professionals ↗Why: Bring industries' tacit knowledge into training for deliverable office outputs
  13. M2.7Self-evolution: an internal M2.7 builds harness skills and memory and runs 30-50% of its own RL experiment workflow ↗Why: Speed up model iteration beyond human throughput
  14. M2.7New full-stack repository data, plus native Agent Teams and complex-skill training ↗
  15. M3Interactive user simulator added to coding-agent training and evaluation ↗Why: Single-turn benchmarks miss multi-round collaboration with real users
  16. M3Three reasoning modes: enabled, adaptive, disabled ↗
  17. M3.1-FlashRouted experts and attention paths quantized during training (NVFP4 / MXFP8 release) ↗Why: Smaller memory footprint and better serving efficiency
  18. M3.1-FlashFive reasoning-effort levels (low to max) replace M3's enabled/adaptive/disabled switch ↗
StepFun6 releases
PosttrainingORZFeb 18, 2025Step-3Jul 25, 2025PaCoRe-8BDec 9, 2025Step-3.5-FlashFeb 2, 2026Step-3.7-FlashMay 29, 2026Step-5-PreviewOct 15, 2026
SFT
None: RL launched directly from the base model↗
Curated multimodal math reasoning, competitive programming, STEM and general non-reasoning conversations; parse, perplexity, dedup, repetition, n-gram and quality-scorer filters↗
·
871k samples / 7.23B tokens across math, code, STEM, logic, general, code agent, tool use, search agent, long context; stage 2 adds ~30k expert chemistry trajectories + synthetic arithmetic↗
··
RL algorithm
Vanilla PPO with a learned critic, GAE lambda=1 and gamma=1, no KL regularization; chosen over GRPO for better value estimation↗
Not named; RL with a dedicated value network supplying advantage estimates (actor-critic); verified rewards for structured problems, preference model or human feedback otherwise↗
Strict on-policy PPO with GAE (lambda=1, gamma=1) following ORZ; 16 instances x 64 responses, 131,072 max length↗
changed
MIS-PO (Metropolis Independence Sampling-filtered PO): binary token-level [0.5, 2] and trajectory-level [0.996, 1.001] masks replace importance weights; actor-critic, gamma=lambda=1↗
not disclosed
Not named; online actor-critic agentic RL with a pretrained learnable critic for per-token baselines and turn-level return penalties↗
RL details
AdamW, policy LR 1e-6, critic LR 5e-6, constant after 50-step warmup; 128 prompts x 64 responses per step, T=top-p=1.0; strict on-policy policy update, critic 12 mini-batches; no KL or entropy bonus↗
·
Episodes feed 16-24 cached messages from RLVR-8B; Stage 1 (250 iters) keeps message sets with low accuracy, Stage 2 (450 iters) refines further↗
Truncation-aware value bootstrapping; routing-confidence monitoring; actor LR 2e-6, critic 5e-6 (Muon, wd 0.1); T=top-p=1.0, 128K rollouts; unbiased KL 0.001 in final stage↗
·changed
Bitwise train/inference alignment at staleness 0 (TP-invariant, <10% overhead); for stale rollouts, replay of routed experts (frozen router), top-p set and zero-center logit-gradient projection↗
Environments
Curated math QA (AIME up to 2023, MATH, NuminaMath, Tulu3 MATH, OpenR1-Math-220k, AoPS) plus programmatically synthesized logic/reasoning tasks; proofs excluded; 57k then 129k prompts↗
·
Competition-level math and coding problems↗
50k verified SWE environments (15k+ repos, 20+ languages) plus SWE-smith, SWE-Gym, R2E-Gym, SWE-rebench, SETA; search/research and tool-use tasks↗
·
Million-level verifiable environments: scientific reasoning, software engineering, ML research and development, professional work↗
RL scale
ORZ-32B: ~1,100 RL steps, then a 100-step 'annealing' stage on 13k hard prompts with LR decayed to 3e-7↗
··
Per generation: 256 prompts x 16 (reasoning), 512 x 8 (preference), 128 x 8 (tool use); 4 actor / 12 critic mini-batches per step↗
·
Rollout ledger tracks every expected sample; end-to-end sample drop rate below 1% (inference is most of the compute)↗
Rewards
Binary rule-based correctness reward on the <answer> span; no format reward↗
Dense automatically verified rewards for structured problems; preference model or human feedback for open-ended tasks↗
Outcome-based terminal reward on the extracted final answer↗
RLVR: rule checkers + gpt-oss-120b verifier for STEM; RLHF: pairwise GenRM vs a fixed reference, Bradley-Terry win rate, length penalty, MetaRM; agents: entity matching and rubric judges↗
·
Episodic outcome rewards with turn-level penalties (malformed tool calls); an in-flight reward-hacking detector refuses and penalizes the turn↗
Distillation
None for ORZ models; the later ORZ-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B applies the recipe to DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B↗
not disclosed·
Self-distillation: domain RL experts generate rejection-sampled trajectories distilled into one student initialized from the mid-train checkpoint↗
·not disclosed
Thinking modes
R1-Zero-style template: reasoning in <think>, answer in <answer>↗
Released as a multimodal reasoning model; no separate non-thinking mode described↗
PaCoRe inference at low/medium/high coordination levels (parallel trajectories x rounds with message compaction)↗
Single reasoning model; keeps reasoning only for the tool trajectory after the latest user turn; XML tool calls; optional PaCoRe parallel 'deep think'↗
changed
Three reasoning-effort levels: low, medium (default), high↗
Reasoning effort low / medium / high; card results use High↗
Agentic data pipeline·
Reverse synthesis of reasoning and tool-use queries, refined with a DAG, rejection sampling and difficulty filtering↗
·
Execution-verified FSM tool-use synthesis (100K+ trajectories); SWE-factory-derived environment builder (40% success); knowledge-graph multi-hop search data filtered against DeepSeek-R1↗
·changed
Agent-native synthesis: shared context layer, agent-driven knowledge sourcing, difficulty/diversity steering, anti-hacking audits; experts set principles, code runs deterministic steps↗
Safety···
SFT filtering of harmful content and PII; zero RL reward for fabricated citations, overconfident claims or language inconsistency↗
··
Quantization-aware training·····
FP8 KV-cache QAT (with MXFP4 weight storage) in the RL rollout stack; native FP8 MoE matches BF16 quality↗
Other···
sft hparams Muon, 3% warmup, cosine 1e-5 -> 5e-6; batch 32 at 128K sequence length; router frozen↗
truncation bootstrap Truncated rollouts get the critic's value of the final state instead of zero reward (stable up to 20% truncation)↗
visual tool use Strengthened calls to a Visual Search tool and a Python image tool (crop, zoom, draw boxes) for perception↗
gui operation Phone-use GUI operation added across multiple apps↗
emergent tool composition Combining visual and non-visual tools was not trained for explicitly↗
changed
context compaction Context compaction into a resumable state trained end-to-end under the task reward↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Step-3.5-FlashMIS-PO: binary token- and trajectory-level filtering instead of importance weighting in PPO-style actor-critic RL ↗Why: Reduce gradient variance from train-inference mismatch in long-horizon MoE off-policy RL
  2. Step-3.7-FlashThree selectable reasoning levels (low, medium, high) ↗Why: Let developers trade speed and cost against depth
  3. Step-3.7-FlashVisual tools (Visual Search, Python crop/zoom/draw) and phone GUI operation added to the agent skill set ↗Why: Move perception from parametric capacity to test-time tool use given the model's size
  4. Step-5-PreviewBitwise-identical training and inference kernels at zero staleness; routed-expert, top-p and logit-gradient replay for stale rollouts ↗Why: Small numerical gaps amplify through MoE routing and depth over long rollouts
  5. Step-5-PreviewAgent-native data construction producing million-level verifiable environments (Step 3.5 Flash: 50k SWE environments) ↗Why: Frontier agents can now run much of the synthesis under expert principles
  6. Step-5-PreviewContext compaction learned end-to-end as part of the policy ↗Why: Decouple task horizon from the context window
Ling29 releases
PosttrainingLing-plusMar 7, 2025Ling-Coder-liteMar 22, 2025Ring-lite-distill-previewMar 29, 2025Ring-lite-linear-previewApr 24, 2025Ling-lite-1.5May 10, 2025Ring-liteJun 17, 2025Ling-lite-1.5-2506Jul 23, 2025Ring-lite-2507Aug 5, 2025Ling-lite-1.5-2507Aug 8, 2025Ling-mini-2.0Sep 8, 2025Ring-mini-2.0Sep 8, 2025Ling-flash-2.0Sep 17, 2025Ring-flash-2.0Sep 19, 2025Ring-linear-2.0Sep 24, 2025Ling-1TOct 9, 2025Ring-1TOct 14, 2025Ring-mini-sparse-2.0-expOct 14, 2025Ring-flash-linear-2.0-128kOct 21, 2025Ring-2.5-1TFeb 10, 2026Ling-2.5-1TFeb 14, 2026Ling-2.6-flashApr 28, 2026Ling-2.6-1TApr 29, 2026Ring-2.6-1TMay 14, 2026Ling-3.0-flashAug 2, 2026Ling-3.0-tinyAug 10, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-FinSep 3, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-VLSep 4, 2026Ling-3.1-flashOct 13, 2026Ling-3.0-flash-SanteOct 19, 2026
SFT
Seed of 1-2M instances (human + open-source) scaled by Magpie/OSS-Instruct-style synthesis, rejection sampling, execution and majority-vote checks, LLM judge; 10-20% removed by semantic dedup↗
18.8M instructions (11.7M code), code:general:math ≈ 3:1:1; 5 epochs, LR 4e-5, batch 384, packing↗
~2.59M reasoning SFT samples plus 1,082K general samples; two-stage SFT (reasoning-oriented, then generalization-oriented)↗
··
Long-CoT SFT data: math 64.5%, code 25.5%, science 9.2%; 3 epochs, LR 3e-4, batch 256, 32K context with RoPE base 600K↗
···
Multi-stage SFT and RL (recipe in the Ling 2.0 report: DFT, Evo-CoT RL with LPO, GAR)↗
··
Lightweight Long-CoT SFT on Ling-flash-2.0-base to seed diverse thinking patterns↗
Reasoning (math, code, science, logic) plus general (knowledge, agent, creative, medical) SFT at 128K; function-calling data re-synthesized; an earlier-epoch checkpoint used for RL↗
Decoupled Fine-Tuning with instant vs in-depth-reasoning system prompts; reasoning, general and industrial (finance, medical, supply chain) data; ApexEval picks the RL start↗
Long-CoT SFT: math 46%, STEM 26%, code 20%, other 8%; queries from open-source, experts and LLM synthesis; packed to 64K; 3 epochs, LR 2e-4 cosine↗
·····
Cold-start SFT then expert SFT per specialist: reasoning (50K+ synthetic logic queries), agentic (200+ toolkits), long-context (256K financial-report multi-hop)↗
·······
RL algorithm
SFT then iterative offline DPO (vanilla DPO, robustness-optimisation DPO with NLL term 0.05, and a format-only DPO pass); RL on short-context data also mentioned↗
Offline DPO only: 2 epochs over 1.4M chosen/rejected pairs, LR 3e-7, batch 192↗
No RL: 7K-sample DPO for instruction adherence and format↗
··changed
C3PO: GRPO-style objective with a fixed per-step training-token budget (greedy token-level batch), plus entropy bonus, balance and z-losses↗
·
C3PO (as Ring-lite) with token-efficiency-based choice of the SFT checkpoint for RL↗
··
Long-CoT SFT, then 'more stable and continuous' RLVR jointly optimised with RLHF (Ring-1T report uses Ring-mini-2.0 for IcePop ablations)↗
SFT plus multi-stage RL (Ling 2.0 recipe: Evo-CoT with LPO, GAR)↗
changed
IcePop (introduced here): GRPO with bidirectional truncation of the train/inference probability ratio and masking of tokens with large discrepancies↗
PPO-style clipped objective using rollout (inference-engine) probabilities directly, made possible by systematic training-inference alignment↗
changed
LPO (Linguistic-unit Policy Optimization): sentence-level importance ratios and clipping (ε 0.03) inside Evo-CoT RL; Group Arena Reward RLHF↗
IcePop (GRPO variant with double-sided ratio masking, α 0.5, β 5) + C3PO++ for reasoning RL; GRPO for general RL↗
··
Not named; RLVR extended with dense rewards on the rigor of the reasoning process, plus large-scale fully-async agentic RL↗
Not named; RL with a composite 'Correctness' + 'Process Redundancy' reward, bidirectional RL feedback and agentic RL↗
·
Reasoning specialists: Evo-CoT RL with LPO and redundancy penalties; agentic specialists: GSPO with process reward and zlib-compression repetition penalty↗
changed
KPop: replaces IcePop's uniform ratio bound with a symmetric binary-KL mask (single threshold φ) to stop over-masking low-probability tokens; run asynchronously↗
Not named; developer docs credit an 'RL strong-check mechanism' for long-horizon tool-calling stability↗
···not disclosed·
RL details
Robustness DPO samples prompts with 0.2-0.6 pass rate, best-of-N chosen vs worst-of-N rejected; DPO packing gives 3.7x speed-up; format DPO masks everything but formatting↗
····changed
512 prompts x 16 samples, LR 3e-6, token budget 409,600, max length 24,576 (32,768 in stage 2); entropy 5e-4, KL 1e-3; SFT checkpoint chosen by entropy, not validation score↗
······
Vanilla GRPO fails once train/infer token-probability gaps exceed 5%; two-staged RL (RLVR then RLHF) chosen over joint training to avoid long-tail rollouts↗
changed
64K RL window; alignment fixes: FP32 linear-attention KV state, FP32 LM head, FP32 RMSNorm and residual, matched RoPE/attention backends, stable top-k in MoE↗
Evo-CoT RL runs in instant-response mode with accuracy, difficulty-scaled dynamic length, -0.5 for <think> tags, and task rewards (e.g. visual reward for front-end)↗
changed
C3PO++: token-budgeted rollout partitioning; unfinished rollouts buffered and resumed by the next policy (≈2.5x rollout, 1.5x end-to-end speed-up); KL 0, temperature 1.0↗
·····
Composite reward: accuracy, -0.5 format penalty, difficulty-scaled dynamic length penalty, LLM-judged semantic-redundancy penalty; Dynamic Pass Rating curriculum↗
Partial-rollout async RL gated by a global token budget (C3PO++-style), cross-version rollout buffer, bounded staleness of a few steps, ARouter tail-request migration↗
······
Environments··············
Unified reward service: multi-language sandboxes, SWE/database/browser environments, 40K concurrent requests↗
Verifiers for math, science, logic; code sandbox; in-house game generator for logic (ARC-style, Sudoku, mazes, 24 Game, Knights and Knaves); ASandbox serverless sandboxes↗
··changed
Large-scale fully-async agentic RL for long-horizon execution (Claude Code, OpenClaw compatible)↗
Agentic RL in large-scale high-fidelity interactive environments (Claude Code, OpenCode, OpenClaw compatible)↗
··
SWE RL on ~2,500 filtered instances from 1,550 repos (30+ languages) in AEnvironment sandboxes with 3 tools (bash, search_replace, task_done); search and MCP/tool-use simulators↗
10,000+ interactive training environments for coding, general and deep-research agent tasks↗
·····
RL scale·····
256 H800 GPUs for all experiments↗
·changed
Reasoning RL on 67K math, 32K code and 9.9K science problems plus 19K+ logic games (ARC-AGI, Countdown, Sudoku, AlphaMaze)↗
·······
Reasoning RL: 480 prompts x 8 rollouts per step, max 65,536 tokens, LR 2e-6; general RL: 80 x 8, max 32,768, LR 3e-6↗
······
Up to 200 turns per trajectory in training (500 in eval); coding reward 0.54 -> ~0.68; SWE-bench Verified 70.8% -> 76.28% during RL↗
······
Rewards
LLM judge plus a reward model score preference candidates↗
DPO data ranked and filtered with Llama-3.1-Nemotron-70B-Reward↗
···
Rule-based: Math-Verify binary reward for math/science; code sandbox reward 1 only if all tests pass; no format reward↗
·
General RL: reward model for open-ended prompts, rule-based verifier for checkable ones such as instruction following↗
······changed
Group Arena Reward: generative RM referees round-robin pairwise comparisons within a group; RubriX rubrics; Visually-Augmented Reward renders front-end code for a multimodal judge↗
RLVR with multi-domain verifiers, then RLHF on general data (Magpie, arena human-preference sets, Zhihu/StackOverflow)↗
···changed
Bidirectional RL feedback and agent-based verification of instruction constraints for preference alignment↗
·
Bidirectional focus reward: one RM with positive and negative terms, reweighted away from saturated rubrics; ReportLogic for writing; verification agent for IF↗
Verifiable environment rewards; restricted git history and live monitoring against reward hacking (~0.2% cheating trajectories)↗
······
Distillationnot disclosed
Off-policy: SFT answers generated by SOTA code LLMs for synthesized problems↗
changed
Long-CoT answers distilled from DeepSeek-R1 for open-source and synthesized prompts↗
··
Long-CoT SFT distils a larger teacher's reasoning into Ling-lite-1.5 (Ring-lite-distill)↗
········not disclosednot disclosed··not disclosednot disclosed·changed
Specialist-then-distillation into one model; shortest-correct-response distillation from proprietary expert models; LLM judge prunes over-reflection (-200 to 300 tokens)↗
Specialist distillation after reasoning and agentic specialists↗
No distillation stage described; training-content summary says synthetic data came from Ling-2.6 series models↗
···
No distillation stage described; training-content summary says synthetic data came from Ling-2.6 series models↗
·
Thinking modes········
Single model that answers simple queries concisely and reasons at length on hard ones (no explicit switch described)↗
·····
Non-thinking ('reflex-grade') instruct model; thinking variants are the Ring series↗
Thinking-only model↗
··
Thinking model; tested 'heavy thinking mode' with parallel thinking and summarization↗
Instant (non-thinking) flagship↗
Instruct model optimised for token efficiency: ~15M tokens on the full AA suite↗
Instant model: explicit <think> output penalised; ~4x token efficiency vs Ling-2.0-1T (lab-run AA index 34 with ~16M output tokens)↗
changed
Adaptive thinking trained with SFT + RL: high (moderate length penalty, default for agents) and xhigh (minimal length penalty)↗
changed
Hybrid reasoning: thinking on by default, switchable per request (enable_thinking)↗
Hybrid reasoning; thinking configurable per request↗
··
Hybrid reasoning; enable_thinking recommended on↗
·
Agentic data pipeline
Tool-use data from RapidAPI, Alipay and knowledge-graph synthetic APIs (14 subgraph patterns with FOL); 30K+ instruction templates; self-reflective multi-agent dialogues↗
····················
Executable environments with 200+ real and synthetic toolkits and 2,500+ functions; seed-centric and critical-tool-chain synthesis of verifiable trajectories↗
GH-Archive PR-issue mining (>100 stars, merged PRs with tests, SWE-bench repos excluded) -> ~300K pairs; ~220K auto-built Docker images; 197 MCP servers↗
······
Safety
Harmlessness targeted in the vanilla-DPO phase; evaluated on Arena Safety, CValues, XSTest and OR-Bench over-refusal↗
··············
Safety covered in the general RL (RLHF) stage↗
·············
Other
long context sft Progressive SFT: short (≤4K) first, then 4K-16K data mixed 95:5 short:long↗
·
sft decontamination N-gram and semantic-similarity decontamination against AIME24, GPQA Diamond, MATH-500, LiveCodeBench↗
··
two stage rl Two-stage RL to avoid domain conflict: math first, then code + science; followed by a general SFT stage↗
rl decontamination RL data: character- and semantic-level dedup and decontamination; drop problems all-solved or unsolved by the distilled model and DeepSeek-R1↗
·········
rl system ASystem (SingleController + SPMD): Hybrid Runtime, AMem, AState (1T weight sync in <10 s), ASandbox, AReaL↗
sft decontamination Exact-match dedup, harmful-content filtering, hash + exact-string benchmark decontamination of SFT data↗
·····
mtp posttrain Two additional MTP layers continued-trained in post-training (shared parameters, gradients detached) to raise speculative-decoding acceptance↗
card rl note Model card instead credits Async RL with IcePop and promises details of a 'Stick-Breaking' algorithm (report names KPop)↗
··
domain continued training Continued training of the post-trained Ling-3.0-flash on high-quality financial data, built with financial institutions (method not specified); FinFIRST benchmark released↗
··
domain specialization Healthcare-specialized model built on Ling-3.0-flash (training method not described)↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Ring-lite-distill-previewFirst Ring model: reasoning distilled from DeepSeek-R1 into Ling-lite, with general data mixed in to keep tool use and instruction following ↗Why: Pure reasoning gains degraded general abilities such as instruction following
  2. Ring-liteMoved from SFT + DPO to RL with C3PO, a fixed per-step token budget on top of GRPO ↗Why: Response-length variance caused gradient instability and reward collapse in MoE RL
  3. Ring-liteTwo-stage RL: math first, then code and science ↗Why: Mixed-domain RL caused domain conflict and performance declines
  4. Ring-lite-2507Larger reasoning RL set (adds logic games) and a new general RL stage ↗
  5. Ring-flash-2.0IcePop: masked bidirectional truncation of train/inference probability ratios added to GRPO ↗Why: Train/inference precision gaps grow with sequence length and steps in MoE RL and break GRPO
  6. Ring-linear-2.0Systematic module-by-module training-inference alignment (KV state, LM head, RMSNorm, RoPE, attention, MoE) instead of algorithmic patches ↗Why: Training-inference disparity identified as the root cause of RL collapse
  7. Ling-1TSentence-level LPO replaces token/sequence-level policy optimisation ↗Why: Smoother, more stable reward curves than GRPO and GSPO; ~10% gains on complex reasoning
  8. Ling-1TGroup Arena Reward: round-robin pairwise judging within a group replaces absolute RM scores for open-ended tasks ↗Why: Reduce reward noise and variance on subjective tasks
  9. Ring-1TC3PO++ extends C3PO with token-budgeted rollout partitioning across policy versions ↗Why: Long rollouts left compute idle; ≈2.5x faster rollout
  10. Ring-2.5-1TDense rewards on the rigor of the reasoning process added on top of RLVR ↗Why: Improve proof rigor (IMO/CMO gold-level)
  11. Ring-2.5-1TLarge-scale fully-async agentic RL for long-horizon tasks ↗Why: Long-horizon autonomous execution in agent frameworks
  12. Ling-2.5-1TComposite reward of correctness and process redundancy for token efficiency ↗Why: Approach thinking-model reasoning at instant-model token budgets
  13. Ling-2.6-1TUnified post-training replaced by specialist SFT + RL then distillation back into one model ↗Why: Maximise capability density while keeping fast, token-efficient responses
  14. Ring-2.6-1TKPop replaces IcePop's fixed ratio bounds with a symmetric binary-KL mask ↗Why: IcePop's constant ratio over-masks low-probability tokens
  15. Ring-2.6-1TAdjustable reasoning effort (high, xhigh) via adaptive-thinking SFT + RL ↗Why: Balance effectiveness, speed and cost per task
  16. Ling-3.0-flashSeparate instant (Ling) and thinking (Ring) lines merge into one hybrid reasoning model with thinking on by default ↗
Nemotron23 releases
PosttrainingLlama-NemotronMar 18, 2025Nemotron-HMar 21, 2025OpenCodeReasoning-NemotronApr 2, 2025OpenMath-NemotronApr 23, 2025LN-Nano-4B-v1.1May 20, 2025AceReason-NemotronMay 22, 2025LN-Nano-VLJun 3, 2025Nemotron-H-ReasoningJun 6, 2025LN-Super-v1.5Jul 25, 2025Nano-2Aug 18, 2025Nano-2-VLOct 28, 2025Nemotron-3-NanoDec 15, 2025Nemotron-CascadeDec 15, 2025Nemotron-TerminalFeb 24, 2026Nemotron-3-SuperMar 11, 2026Nemotron-3-Nano-4BMar 17, 2026Cascade-2Mar 19, 2026Nemotron-3-Nano-OmniApr 28, 2026Nemotron-3-UltraJun 4, 2026Nemotron-3.5-LightningAug 11, 2026Labs-Competitive-CodingSep 2, 2026Bolt-74BOct 15, 2026Nemotron-3.5-SuperOct 15, 2026
SFT
33,011,757 synthetic samples: math 66.8%, code 30.6%, science 2.1%, chat 0.12%, instruction following 0.17%, safety 0.10%; split into reasoning on/off↗
·
Released models: Qwen2.5-7B/14B/32B-Instruct + SFT; 3 epochs, AdamW, batch 256, max seq 32,768, LR 5e-5 cosine (10% warmup); no RL↗
5.5M samples (3.2M CoT, 1.7M TIR, 566K GenSelect), 6 epochs, batch 1024, LR 3e-4/2e-4/1e-4; bases Qwen2.5-14B/32B and Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B/7B (RoPE base 500K); 2nd round 2.2M hard, 4 epochs↗
SFT stages on mixed reasoning on/off data (math, coding, science, safety, tool calling), partly from Llama-Nemotron-Post-Training-Dataset; sequence-packed with NeMo-Skills↗
·
Text-only instruction data re-blended into training to lift both VLM and text-only performance↗
Stage 1: math/code/science, 5:1 reasoning:non-reasoning (partly public in Llama-Nemotron-Post-Training-Dataset); stage 2: ~10x smaller instruction-following, safety, multi-turn blend↗
changed
SFT for math, code, science and tool calling; released Nemotron-Post-Training-Dataset-v1 has over 26M synthetic rows (function calling, IF, reasoning, chat, math, code)↗
~80B-token SFT (≈90B total post-training): math/science/code from DeepSeek-R1-0528, tool calling and chat from Qwen3-235B-A22B; 5.0M multilingual and 2K safety samples↗
SFT Stage 1 at 16K, all weights unfrozen: ~32.5M samples (~112.5B tokens) = 26M multimodal (~72B) + 6.5M Nano 2 text-reasoning samples (~40B); traces from Qwen2.5-VL-32B, GLM-4.1V, GLM-4.5V↗
changed
18M+ samples: chat 28.6%, code 20.7%, science 12.8%, math 9.9%, multilingual 7.4%, math w/ tools 4.9%; 13,000 steps, batch 64, packed to 256K, LR 5e-5↗
Two-stage SFT (16K, then 32K adding tool use and SWE), one epoch each; general-domain corpus 2.8M samples / 3.2B tokens plus 1.2M knowledge samples / 1.5B tokens↗
SFT only: dataset adapters (math/code/SWE, 226,313) + synthetic tasks (seed/skill, 264,207) in 8B ablations; LR 2e-5, 2 epochs, max seq 32,768, batch 128↗
changed
Over 7M samples (~80B tokens per Fig. 12), larger agentic share; two stages: token-level loss (256K packing), then per-conversation loss (512K packing, 85% of blend + 256K/512K long-context data)↗
Two SFT stages on Nemotron-Post-Training-v3 subsets: reasoning + non-reasoning mix (math, code, science, chat, IF, agentic), then a small safety stage↗
Single-stage multi-domain SFT (256K packing, ~1.5 epochs) on teacher outputs: DeepSeek-V3.2/-Speciale (math: 1.8M tool + 1.9M non-tool), GPT-OSS-120B (code, science, chat), Qwen3-235B-2507↗
Joint omni SFT: S4 57.3B tok @16K, S5 33.5B @48K, S6 34.0B @256K; all 7 SFT stages 434.1M samples / 466.9B tokens (with repeats)↗
changed
Mostly distilled: math 1.8M tool + 1.9M non-tool (DeepSeek-V3.2/-Speciale); code 1.2M Py + 1.0M C++ + 1.3M tool traces (GPT-OSS-120B); RTL ~1.2M; CUDA ~100K↗
Single-stage, text-only SFT (Super uses two stages with vision)↗
477,642 GLM-5.2 reasoning traces over 22,000 problems from 16 contest families, 1 epoch; more generations for harder problems, plus self-refinement traces↗
Vision-heavy SFT: parent's SFT blends (54.1B effective tokens, 7.3M samples, 47.5% vision) reweighted toward vision; ScreenSpot Pro ~10.1B and WebArena ~9.5B tokens↗
changed
Two-stage VL SFT after projector warm-up; reasoning traces from Kimi K3 (math/STEM), DeepSeek V4 Pro (proofs), GLM-5.2 (code); <5K-token traces dropped↗
RL algorithm
GRPO for LN-Ultra reasoning RL and RLHF; RLOO for instruction-following RL (Super, Ultra); iterative online RPO for Super RLHF; offline RPO for Nano↗
···
Multiple RPO (Reward-aware Preference Optimization) stages on on-policy data, with NeMo-Aligner↗
GRPO, strict on-policy (one gradient update per rollout group), token-level loss, KL and entropy coefficients 0 (REINFORCE with group-normalized rewards)↗
·
GRPO in multiple phases: verifier-based skill phases, then general reward model↗
RPO for chat, RLVR for reasoning (blog: instruction following, math, science), iterative DPO for tool calling↗
GRPO (IFEval RL; RLHF with a reward model) + iterative on-policy DPO for tool calling↗
·
Synchronous GRPO with masked importance sampling; 128 prompts × 16 rollouts (batch 2048, on-policy); router frozen; max generation 49K; overlong filtering↗
GRPO, strict on-policy (one update per rollout group), no KL, token-level loss, as in AceReason-Nemotron; verl↗
None: SFT only; RL left as future work↗
Asynchronous GRPO (separate training/inference GPUs, in-flight weight updates, at most one step policy lag, masked importance-sampling ratio); PivotRL for agentic domains↗
·
GRPO, strictly on-policy (one gradient step per rollout batch), KL term removed (REINFORCE with group-normalized rewards, token-level loss); AdamW LR 3e-6; Nemo-RL↗
Adapted GSPO; global batch 4,096, 16 rollouts per prompt; NeMo-RL on B200 and H100↗
Asynchronous GRPO for unified multi-environment RLVR (Super's stability fixes), then MOPD: reverse-KL on-policy distillation with PPO-style clipping↗
GRPO, asynchronous (training decoupled from inference; MTP speeds rollouts); report calls it RLVR↗
·
Full end-to-end GRPO in agentic MCP and SWE environments, plus RLHF↗
Asynchronous GRPO in NeMo-RL (same algorithm as Nemotron 3 Ultra); joint RLVR + RLHF, then GRPO-trained specialist teachers↗
RL details
LN-Ultra GRPO: 72 prompts x 16 samples per rollout (temperature 1, top_p 1), global batch 576, 2 gradient updates per rollout, trained to convergence; reasoning RL only on Ultra↗
····
Math-only RL 8K→16K→24K, then code-only RL 24K→32K, then math RL at 32K; batch 128, 8-16 rollouts, LR 1e-6 (math) / 5e-6 (code); hard-prompt curriculum↗
·
IFEval RL: 16,000 LMSYS prompts + IFEval-style instructions, rule-based verifier, LR 1e-6; tool calling: ~40K Glaive V2/xLAM examples + 10K abstain negatives; ~200 GRPO steps on HelpSteer2↗
···changed
Two unified multi-environment RLVR stages (after SFT and after RLHF); prompts at 100% SFT pass rate dropped; Gaussian pass-rate curriculum, easy to hard↗
Cascade RL: sequential domain-wise RL, RLHF → IF-RL → Math RL → Code RL → SWE RL, general to specialized; cross-domain prompt overlap minimized (math/code prompts removed from RLHF)↗
·changed
RLVR: 256 prompts x 16 responses per step, batch 4096 (one gradient update per rollout), max generation 49K raised to 64K; KV cache not recomputed after weight updates↗
Three RLVR stages (NeMo-RL/Gym): single-turn IF → multi-turn IF + structured outputs → conversational tool calling; 50/50 reasoning mix, KL raised each stage↗
changed
Cascade RL after SFT: IF-RL -> multi-domain RL -> MOPD -> RLHF -> long-context RL -> Code RL -> SWE RL (agentless + agentic); mostly 128 prompts x 16 rollouts, tens of steps per stage↗
Curriculum: MPO (DPO + BCO losses) → Text-RL 1 → Image-RL → Omni-RL → Text-RL 2; text RL reuses Nano/Super RL data, LM only, input embeddings frozen↗
MOPD: asynchronous, 1,024 prompts × 1 rollout per batch, 192K max generation, IcePop token masking, two iterations; MTP drafting (k=5) speeds rollouts 1.46×↗
···changed
Global batch 8,192 with 16 rollouts/sample, max generation 80K→128K; router replay + FP32 LM head cut train-inference KL >10x; student = RL step 120↗
Environments·········
IFEval-style verifiable instructions on 16,000 LMSYS prompts (rule-based verifier); WorkBench multi-step tool-calling environment checked by database state↗
·
NeMo Gym, all at once: math 17K+104K, code 22K, STEM MCQ 135K, JSON schema 9K, IF 46K+3K, long context 12K, Workplace Assistant 690, banking agent ~1K↗
··changed
21 environments, 37 datasets: math (with/without Python), formal proofs, code, STEM, instruction following, safety, long context, conversational tool use, terminal, Reasoning Gym; plus SWE-RL↗
·changed
Verifiable IF; multi-domain ~55% STEM MCQA / 30% Workplace Assistant tool calling / 15% structured output; RLHF; long-context QA; 3.5K hard code prompts; agentless + OpenHands SWE↗
Omni-RL: ~120K prompts, 113 sub-datasets (image, video, audio, text); verifiers MC 34%, string 31%, math 26%, GUI 6%, ASR 3% (reward 1−WER)↗
Terminal, office/productivity, SWE, search, tool-calling, math, code, STEM, safety, chat, IF, long-context QA, inductive/transductive reasoning, structured outputs, usability↗
Math, code, science, instruction following, multi-step tool use, multi-turn conversation, structured output↗
··
Olympiad competitive programming (2,847 train / 372 val, binary reward), NeMo Gym finance agent, Terminal/SWE/Search sandboxes, vision/video RLVR↗
RL scale
~140k H100 hours for LN-Ultra reasoning RL on 72 nodes of 8xH100 (training TP8, CP2, PP18, DP2; generation TP8, DP72)↗
··········changed
Not quantified; NVIDIA calls it its first scaled-up RL, with significantly more post-training compute than Nano 2↗
··
Fig. 12: RLVR rounds of 25/30/26 env types, then an agentic round with 37 env types and up to 4,000 env instances per batch; SWE-RL 20B tokens; RLHF 18B tokens↗
···
RLVR: global batch 8192 with 16 rollouts per sample, max generation 48K → 64K tokens; step count not disclosed↗
····
Rewards
Reasoning RL: Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct judges answers vs ground truth, plus format reward for <think> tags; IF RL: instruction verifier; RLHF: Llama-3.1-Nemotron-70B-Reward↗
······
Qwen-32B-based reward model (92.8 on RewardBench) with HelpSteer2 prompts in the final GRPO phase↗
·
Qwen-based reward model judging RLHF (GRPO) rollouts on English HelpSteer3 prompts, with and without thinking traces↗
·
Pairwise GenRM: Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 RL-trained with GRPO (released as Qwen3-Nemotron-235B-A22B-GenRM); RLHF uses circular comparisons over 16 responses↗
RLHF: 72B Bradley-Terry RM from Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct on 82K preference pairs; SWE RL: execution-free patch-similarity reward (lexical + Kimi-Dev-72B judge)↗
·changed
Principle-following GenRM initialized from Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 (HelpSteer 3, lmarena-140k subsets, new preference data), used during RLVR and a final RLHF stage; released↗
·
RLHF GenRM: Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 (HelpSteer3 recipe), pairwise over all rollout pairs; GPT-OSS-120B judges agentless SWE; Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 judges long-context QA↗
·changed
Ultra-based pairwise GenRM (optionally principle-conditioned), trained from Ultra SFT with RLVR; its overall score is the RLHF reward for the chat teacher; released↗
··
Nemotron 3 Ultra GenRM for RLHF, trained with a reasoning-length penalty for token efficiency↗
changed
New Nemotron 3 Ultra GenRM variant with reasoning-length penalty; responses compared to a fixed Gemma 4 31B-it answer, scored by mean per-rubric score↗
Distillation
Reasoning distilled by SFT on DeepSeek-R1 traces (math, code, science, general); reasoning-off responses from Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct and Llama-3.1-Nemotron-70B-Instruct; Qwen2.5 models in data pipelines↗
·
SFT-only distillation from DeepSeek-R1: 736,712 Python solutions with reasoning traces for 28,904 competitive-programming questions↗
CoT from DeepSeek-R1 (2.7M) and QwQ-32B (0.5M) after filtering = 3.2M; 1.7M TIR solutions from iteratively fine-tuned QwQ-32B/14B; GenSelect traces by QwQ-32B↗
·
1.1 only: SFT on DeepSeek-R1 responses for 383K prompts (247K math, 136K code), blends scaled up to 2.2M samples, from Qwen2.5-Math-7B (rope_theta 10K→1M, 128K)↗
·
SFT on reasoning traces generated by DeepSeek R1 for several domains↗
Post-training data generated entirely by teacher models Qwen3 235B and DeepSeek R1 671B 0528↗
changed
Minitron pruning + forward-KL KD, aligned 12B -> 9B: depth 62->56 (~60B tok), hidden 5120->4480, FFN 20480->15680 (~50B@8K, ~25B@49K, ~1B@262K), ~0.4B post-RL KD↗
·
Off-policy only: SFT traces from teachers (GPT-OSS-120B, Qwen3-235B-A22B, DeepSeek-R1-0528, Qwen3-Coder-480B, Kimi-K2); no logit distillation described↗
SFT data from DeepSeek-R1-0528 (thinking) and DeepSeek-V3-0324 (non-thinking); after RL the 14B beats its SFT teacher R1-0528 on LiveCodeBench v5/v6/Pro↗
Teacher DeepSeek-V3.2 generates the synthetic tasks and Terminus 2 agent trajectories↗
Off-policy only: SFT traces from other open models (Qwen3-Coder-480B, MiniMax M2.5, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2, GPT-OSS-120B, Qwen3-235B); no logit distillation described↗
·changed
Multi-domain on-policy distillation (MOPD) inside Cascade RL: token-level reverse-KL advantage from 3 teachers taken from the pipeline (math = SFT ckpt, RLHF ckpt, IF-RL + multi-domain ckpt); 52 steps↗
·changed
MOPD from >10 domain teachers (SWE, office, search, terminal, tool-use, usability, agentic safety, chat, IF, STEM, coding) into the RLVR student; plus SFT on external-model traces↗
No on-policy distillation: Lightning skips the MOPD stage Super uses (SFT + RLVR only)↗
Off-policy SFT distillation from GLM-5.2 (picked over a DeepSeek-V4-Flash-trained variant); SFT only, starting from Ultra's RLVR-teacher checkpoint, no RL↗
Off-policy: text SFT on Kimi-K3-generated synthetic data plus a very small share of GLM 5.2 MCP-Atlas trajectories (logit KD from the parent happened during compression)↗
MOPD (on-policy reverse KL) from specialist teachers: stage 1 agentic 35%/reasoning 25%/alignment 20%/vision-tool 15%, 30 steps; stage 2 40 steps↗
Merging
LN-Super only: checkpoints merged to balance IFEval vs Arena-Hard; not adopted for other sizes due to mixed outcomes↗
··
Final models average 4 equally spaced checkpoints; the AIMO-2 Kaggle 14B linearly merges CoT and TIR checkpoints (0.3/0.7)↗
Final checkpoint merges the final SFT and RPO checkpoints↗
··
8B only: linear interpolation with an earlier, safer RL checkpoint, alpha ~0.5, to restore safety↗
Final checkpoint merges several RL and DPO checkpoints↗
Linear checkpoint interpolation (alpha ~0.5) of a reasoning-strong and a chat-strong RL checkpoint; 9B also merged at 0.5 after RLHF↗
···········
Two SLERP merges: vision-SFT checkpoint with the adaptor-only checkpoint (80:20), and the final RLHF and extended SWE-RL branches (75:25) into the BF16 release↗
·
Thinking modeschanged
One model, two modes: system prompt 'detailed thinking on/off' toggles reasoning; SFT pairs on and off responses for the same prompts↗
······
Reasoning on/off via {'reasoning': True/False} in the system prompt (omitted: model chooses); SFT pairs examples with reasoning stripped↗
Reasoning ON by default (empty system prompt); '/no_think' in the system prompt switches it off↗
changed
Reasoning on/off (~10% of Stage-1 SFT prompts with traces stripped) + thinking-budget control: ~5% truncated traces (1-2k tokens); </think> inserted at next newline after budget, forced at budget+500↗
·
Reasoning on/off via chat template (traces stripped from 10% of SFT samples) and token-budget control (3% of traces truncated)↗
8B is unified: /think and /no_think flags per user turn; 8B-Thinking and 14B-Thinking are thinking-only↗
·changed
Reasoning-off, regular and new low-effort mode (2% of SFT samples from GPT-OSS-120B low-effort; 2% then 1% of RL prompts with length-aware reward); budget control via 350-step semi-on-policy SFT↗
·changed
One model with thinking and instruct modes; /think and /no_think tags dropped, an empty <think></think> block selects non-thinking↗
·changed
Reasoning-off, regular and medium-effort (+ budget control); medium uses ~2.5× fewer tokens for ~7% lower accuracy; ~2.5% of RLVR prompts medium-effort↗
Reasoning on (default) / off via enable_thinking chat-template flag↗
··
Reasoning-off, regular, medium-effort (Kimi K3 low-effort SFT data; ~4% RL prompts); budget control; medium ≈2.2x fewer tokens, ≈9% lower accuracy↗
Agentic data pipeline···········
LLM-simulated user/agent/tool trajectories filtered by an LLM judge; SWE trajectories from 3 agent harnesses with Qwen3-Coder-480B; Terminal-Bench-style tasks↗
·
Terminal-Task-Gen: seed-based and skill-based synthetic task generation in Docker; unfiltered trajectories (incl. failed) beat success-only filtering↗
changed
Agentic-CLI SFT: ~15k synthesized tasks (+AGENTS.md specs), ~3k SWE and 10k web-dev tasks run by teacher agents in Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code CLI, Stirrup; 279,116 tool-use conversations (838 domains)↗
···changed
Terminal ~370K conversations (DeepSeek-V3.2 in Terminus-2/Harbor); SWE trajectories (MiniMax-M2.5, Qwen3-Coder) heuristically filtered; 21.7K OpenResearcher search; PivotRL teachers↗
····
Safety···········
Safety SFT on unsafe prompts (Nemotron Content Safety v2, Gretel, Harmful Tasks, Red-Team-2K) with refusal templates; safety preference pairs in GenRM data↗
··changed
SFT with an explicit response-policy classifier and deliberative-alignment style two-stage generation; RL environments for over-refusal and PAIR-style jailbreaks↗
···changed
~135K safety SFT samples (45K English + 6 translated languages), safety RLVR environments, agentic-safety teacher against indirect prompt injection↗
···
Nemotron 3 Ultra safety SFT blend plus dual-risk CBRNE and demographic-bias data; abstention training mixed into RLHF↗
Quantization-aware training··········
FP8 via PTQ; NVFP4 via quantization-aware distillation: PTQ student distilled from BF16 teacher with KL logit loss, Stage-1 hyperparameters, LR 2e-6↗
No QAT: FP8 post-training quantization (ModelOpt) keeping 6 attention + 6 preceding Mamba layers in BF16, FP8 KV cache; ~99% median recovery↗
··
No QAT: FP8 (W8A8) and NVFP4 (W4A4) checkpoints are PTQ with Model-Optimizer; NVFP4 uses MSE-chosen weight scales + AutoQuantize (4.75-bit budget), 99.8% median accuracy vs BF16↗
···
No QAT; NVFP4 release is PTQ (Model-Optimizer): NVFP4 routed experts, FP8 shared experts and Mamba linears, BF16 attention/latent/MTP; 5.03 bits/element↗
NVFP4 W4A16 via PTQ + QAD (NVFP4 experts and lm_head, FP8 Mamba projections, BF16 attention); 99.24% median recovery; MTP not quantized↗
No QAT; NVFP4 PTQ with Model Optimizer on 1,000 × 32,768-token SFT sequences; 736.8 vs 199.1 tok/s/GPU at 52.8% vs 59.4% IOI 2025 Score@1↗
changed
2-bit QAD: routed and shared experts IQ2_XXS (2.0625 bits), Mamba projections NVFP4, attention/embeddings/LM head Q8_0; 148 GB BF16 -> 22.1 GB↗
NVFP4 'aggressive' PTQ (NVFP4 MoE GEMMs; FP8 attention, Mamba linear, lm_head) + 200-iteration SFT-based QAD; 4.82 bits/param; 99.62% median recovery↗
Other
rl curriculum Prompts LN-Super solves at pass rate >=0.75 (8 samples) dropped; progressive batching with a Gaussian target pass rate moving easy to hard, more stable than random order↗
fp8 rollouts RL generation in vLLM online FP8 (per-token activation, per-tensor weight scales) from BF16 trainer weights: 1.8x generation speedup vs BF16, peak 32 tokens/s/GPU/prompt↗
preference rl After reasoning RL: RLOO instruction-following RL (<120 steps, 128 prompts/batch); RLHF by 2 iterations online RPO for Super (Arena Hard 69.1 -> 88.1), GRPO for Ultra (30 steps), 2 offline RPO rounds for Nano↗
·
v1 1 retrain 1.1 (7B/14B/32B): same Qwen2.5-Instruct bases, 1.165M samples with DeepSeek-R1-0528 responses; 64K context (1.0: 32K)↗
····
long context sft Extra SFT on the Stage-2 blend extended to samples up to 512k tokens (concatenated chats, synthetic long-range reference turns, document QA, common-word retrieval); 83% RULER at 128k↗
··
vl sft stages Stage 2 at 49,152: ~11M samples (~55B tokens; 25% Stage-1 reuse); Stage 3 at 49,152: 1M code-reasoning samples (15B) to recover LiveCodeBench; Stage 4 at 311,296: ~74K long samples (12B)↗
rlhf length control Group Relative Length Control in RLHF: zero-mean in-group length bonus (λ 0.5) plus quality-gated conciseness bonus; verbosity down 30%↗
prealign base Post-training started from an earlier 'pre-alignment base' checkpoint; the released Base is a later, improved base model↗
······
sft recipe Two stages: 294,912-token packs, GBS 64, 204,800 samples, cosine 1.5e-5→1e-6; then 515K packs with ≤512K data, 19,200 samples, 1e-5→2e-6; MTP loss kept↗
mtp boosting Last stage trains only the shared MTP head: forward-KL (T=2) to backbone logits over 7 draft steps, 12K steps; avg acceptance length 4.387 → 4.584↗
mtp boosting MTP-only boosting for 48k steps on the frozen final backbone (no SFT warm start); KD from backbone with LK loss + hidden-state mixing↗
·
qad recipe Weighted Jaccard-distance loss to a frozen BF16 teacher (no CE term); LR 1e-5, 1.2B-token warmup, cosine to 1e-7 over 25B; 26B tokens, then 10M with the final teacher↗
changed
specialist teachers Teachers branched from the RL trunk: agentic, reasoning, video reasoning + tracking, vision tool use, vision reasoning, alignment (RLHF)↗
mtp boosting MTP-only KD training (LK loss, hidden-state mixing), 4k steps at SFT then 25k on the final backbone; acceptance length 3.787→4.612 at temp 1↗
benchmark decontamination N-gram + embedding retrieval, LLM-judge verification against 30 benchmarks: 20,671 post-training samples removed (~0.09%)↗

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Llama-NemotronReasoning toggle in a single model: 'detailed thinking on/off' system prompt switches between chat and reasoning ↗Why: Not every query benefits from long reasoning; lets users allocate inference compute
  2. AceReason-Nemotron1.1-7B adds its own SFT stage on Qwen2.5-Math-7B before the unchanged 1.0 RL recipe (1.0 started RL from DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B) ↗Why: Stronger SFT starting points still give better results after large-scale RL, though the gap narrows
  3. LN-Super-v1.5Further post-training on additional high-quality reasoning data, same methodology as Llama Nemotron Ultra v1 ↗
  4. Nano-2Minitron pruning + distillation applied to the aligned reasoning model under a memory and throughput target, not only to base models ↗Why: Fit 128k-context inference on one A10G (22 GiB) in bfloat16
  5. Nano-2Added thinking-budget control, trained with about 5% deliberately truncated reasoning traces ↗Why: Robust answers under varying inference-time thinking budgets
  6. Nemotron-3-NanoSFT reworked with higher quality and diversity and much new multi-step, multi-turn agentic data ↗
  7. Nemotron-3-NanoSignificantly more post-training compute than Nano 2; NVIDIA's first scaled-up RL ↗
  8. Nemotron-3-NanoAll RL environments trained simultaneously instead of separate per-task stages ↗Why: Simultaneous training was more stable, less prone to reward hacking and avoided capability loss
  9. Nemotron-3-SuperTwo-stage SFT (token-level loss, then per-conversation loss) with a larger agentic share of the blend ↗Why: Single-stage SFT degraded long-input, short-output tasks
  10. Nemotron-3-SuperAdds a low-effort reasoning mode alongside reasoning-off and regular ↗Why: More user control over reasoning length
  11. Nemotron-3-SuperRLVR scaled to 21 environments / 37 datasets, adding formal proofs, multi-challenge IF, safety, conversational tool use and terminal use ↗
  12. Nemotron-3-SuperLarge-scale asynchronous RL with in-flight weight updates, plus a separate end-to-end SWE-RL stage ↗Why: Long-horizon agentic tasks; SWE rollouts are slow and long-context, so they get their own stage
  13. Nemotron-3-SuperPrinciple-following GenRM used throughout multi-environment RL, plus a separate RLHF-only stage at the end ↗Why: Principles steer behavior on identity and safety topics
  14. Nemotron-3-SuperExplicit response-policy framework with deliberative-alignment style two-stage safety data generation ↗Why: Safe, context-appropriate and consistent responses
  15. Nemotron-3-SuperConversational tool-use SFT scaled to 279,116 conversations over 838 domains (Nano 3: 15,588 over 5) ↗
  16. Nemotron-3-SuperAdds a final MTP-healing stage that trains only the MTP heads ↗Why: Significantly improves MTP accuracy
  17. Cascade-2IF-RL moved to the first Cascade RL stage and trained in thinking mode only, without a reward model ↗Why: IF-RL hurts human-preference alignment that later GenRM RLHF can recover, and an early IF-RL model is a strong teacher for MOPD
  18. Cascade-2Adds multi-domain on-policy distillation from the strongest intermediate teacher per domain inside the Cascade RL pipeline ↗Why: Recovers benchmark regressions that build up as more RL environments are added
  19. Cascade-2Cascade RL expanded to many more reasoning and agentic domains, with a joint multi-domain RL stage for compatible tasks ↗
  20. Cascade-2Chat template drops the /think and /no_think tags; an empty <think></think> block selects non-thinking mode ↗Why: Simplicity
  21. Cascade-2RLHF trained exclusively in thinking mode ↗Why: Mixing thinking and non-thinking modes degraded instruction following more than later stages could recover
  22. Cascade-2Code RL max response length raised to 118K tokens and rollouts per prompt to 16 ↗Why: To capture sparse rewards on very hard problems that need long reasoning traces
  23. Nemotron-3-UltraPost-training redesigned: SFT, unified RLVR, then MOPD from >10 specialist teachers (two iterations), then MTP boosting ↗Why: With many environments, mixed RLVR dilutes per-domain signal; separate teachers allow targeted specialization
  24. Nemotron-3-UltraSuper's 45K safety SFT blend translated into six languages (~135K total); new agentic-safety teacher for indirect prompt injection ↗
  25. Nemotron-3-UltraBudget-truncated reasoning SFT samples now mask </think> tokens from the loss ↗
  26. Nemotron-3-UltraLarger, Ultra-based GenRM trained on more data, principle-conditioned, used for RLHF ↗Why: Larger policies increasingly exploit weaknesses of smaller reward models (reward hacking)
  27. Nemotron-3-UltraSearch teacher trained with context-management trajectories (discard-all resets, summary compression) ↗Why: Super had no context-management supervision; long noisy search histories exhaust the context window
  28. Nemotron-3-UltraMultilingual SFT translation switched from line-by-line to end-to-end JSON translation with DeepSeek-V3-0324 ↗Why: Quality issues found in the previous line-by-line pipeline
  29. Bolt-74BQuantization-aware distillation extended from 4-bit NVFP4 to 2-bit IQ2_XXS experts, with a Jaccard loss and a two-teacher schedule ↗Why: A larger network at lower bits beats a smaller one at higher bits for the same memory
  30. Nemotron-3.5-SuperVersus Nemotron 3 Ultra: refreshed RL data, reward profiling, plus router replay and FP32 LM head ↗Why: Cuts train-inference KL error by more than an order of magnitude
  31. Nemotron-3.5-SuperAlignment RLHF compares responses to a fixed Gemma 4 31B-it answer instead of cyclical self-comparison; GenRM gets a reasoning-length penalty ↗
  32. Nemotron-3.5-SuperPrimary math/STEM reasoning teacher switched from DeepSeek V4 Pro (used for Ultra) to Kimi K3; traces regenerated ↗Why: Kimi K3 data kept improving over multiple passes where DeepSeek V4 Pro data plateaued after one
  33. Nemotron-3.5-SuperMTP boosting uses the LK loss instead of Nemotron 3 Ultra's temperature-scaled forward KL ↗
Mistral17 releases
PosttrainingSmall-3Jan 30, 2025Small-3.1Mar 17, 2025Devstral-Small-1.0May 21, 2025Magistral-Small-1.0Jun 10, 2025Small-3.2Jun 20, 2025Devstral-Small-1.1Jul 10, 2025VoxtralJul 15, 2025Magistral-Small-1.1Jul 24, 2025Magistral-Small-1.2Sep 17, 2025Large-3Dec 2, 2025Ministral-3Dec 2, 2025Devstral-2Dec 9, 2025Small-4Mar 16, 2026LeanstralMar 16, 2026Medium-3.5Apr 28, 2026Leanstral-1.5Jul 2, 2026Large-4Oct 6, 2026
SFT
Instruction fine-tune of the released base; data not described beyond 'no synthetic data'↗
not disclosed
Two-stage SFT: a larger heuristic-filtered rollout set, then only trajectories passing the strictest filters↗
Cold start: Magistral Medium RL-run traces (no early short-CoT steps, difficulty-balanced) + Magistral Medium answers to OpenThoughts/OpenR1-code prompts + 10% general instruction data; 4 epochs↗
not disclosed
Re-tuned trajectory filtering recalibrates the first-stage SFT data↗
Mostly synthetic: Mistral Large QA, summaries and translations from long-form transcripts; TTS-voiced text SFT incl. function calling; real-speech questions; transcribe-mode token↗
··not disclosed
Curated multimodal and text instruction data; SFT in fp8 with a logit-distillation loss; vision encoder frozen, adapter trained↗
not disclosed···changed
Improved SFT mixture quality (no details)↗
SFT then RL; both stages credited for the downstream gains (SFT data not described)↗
RL algorithm
None: not trained with RL↗
·
Unnamed 'policy optimization' on further rollouts from the fine-tuned model↗
changed
GRPO, modified: KL penalty removed, loss normalized by total tokens in the group, advantage r - mean then minibatch-normalized, Clip-Higher, zero-advantage groups dropped↗
·not disclosed
DPO and Online DPO (two samples per prompt at T=0.5); the online variant was more effective↗
··not disclosed
Instruct: SFT + Online DPO; Reasoning: SFT with CoT -> GRPO (Magistral recipe) -> ODPO↗
not disclosednot disclosednot disclosednot disclosed
CISPO↗
not disclosed
RL details···
Small run: batch 2048 sequences, 32k max non-penalized completion length, sampling temperature 1.0, eps_high 0.3 (Medium tuned 0.26-0.28)↗
······
Two GRPO stages (STEM, then General with rubrics); max generation length raised from 32K to 80K after many truncations↗
····
Long-horizon episodes across multiple rounds of context compaction (completing partial proofs, building auxiliary lemmas)↗
Asynchronous RL: an autoscaling actor fleet generates tens of thousands of rollouts in parallel; trajectories with million-token budgets across compactions, kept low-staleness↗
Environments···
Verifiable math (numerical answer or expression) and competitive-programming code with tests (Python and C++)↗
······
STEM RL on math, code and visual reasoning; General RL on chat, instruction following and open-ended reasoning↗
··
Proof engineering in realistic formal repositories; trained for lean-lsp-mcp inside Mistral Vibe↗
·
(1) multiturn prove-or-disprove environment with Lean compiler feedback; (2) code-agent environment with a raw filesystem, bash and the Lean language server↗
Composable environments in one run: chat, science problems, safety, factuality, long-horizon tool use; shared sandboxes, web search, APIs; same stack as Mistral Forge↗
RL scale···
RL data: math 699k -> 501k (format filter) -> 38k (difficulty filter); 35k code problems↗
············
~3k GPUs; ~33B tokens/day per run, ~16B of them trainable completion tokens; the run was still in progress at preview↗
Rewards···
Rule-based: format gate (0/0.1), +0.9 if correct (SymPy-based math verifier; code run on 20 sampled tests), soft length penalty to -0.1, +0.1 language consistency↗
··
Text-based reward model scoring the conversation with audio replaced by its transcription; reuses Magistral's sampling and reward infrastructure↗
···
ODPO: pairwise reward model with soft win probabilities, temperature calibration and beta-rescaling; General RL: LLM judge scores atomic rubrics↗
··
Lean as a perfect verifier, combined with parallel inference↗
·
Verification: Lean compilation; code-agent runs checked by Mistral's SafeVerify fork against a list of target theorems↗
Reward models, unit tests, LLM judges and static checks combined per task↗
Distillationnot disclosed··
SFT on reasoning traces from Magistral Medium (teacher) before RL; RL then adds over 5 points across benchmarks↗
··
SFT targets generated by Mistral Large (no logit distillation described)↗
Same described recipe: Small 3.1 base, SFT on Magistral Medium traces, RL on top↗
SFT on Magistral Medium traces before RL↗
not disclosed
SFT distilled from Mistral Medium 3 (a preference-tuned teacher beat an SFT-only one); the 3B reasoning SFT distilled from Magistral Small 1.2↗
·not disclosed·not disclosed··
Merging··············
'First flagship merged model': instruct, reasoning and coding in one set of weights; how they were merged is not described↗
··
Thinking modes···changed
Reasoning-only: <think> draft then a summary, both in the user's language, set by a fixed system prompt↗
···
[THINK]/[/THINK] special tokens wrap the reasoning chunk; the reasoning prompt moves into the system prompt↗
[THINK]/[/THINK] tokens; reasoning prompt in the system prompt↗
Non-reasoning instruct only; a reasoning version was promised (none on Hugging Face as of 2026-10-25)↗
Separate instruct and reasoning checkpoints at each size (no hybrid mode)↗
·changed
Hybrid: reasoning_effort 'none' (Small 3.2-style chat) or 'high' (Magistral-level verbosity), per request↗
·changed
reasoning_effort 'none' or 'high', per request↗
·
Hybrid instruct-and-reasoning model↗
Agentic data pipeline··
Trajectories from an OpenHands CodeAct agent run in SWE-Gym environments, alternating reasoning and actions; unit tests judge the final patch↗
··changed
Refreshed data: pseudo-scaffolds for scaffold generalization; prompts in both XML and native Mistral function-calling formats↗
···········
Safety················
Red-teamed with cybersecurity leaders, vetted partners and state authorities before weight release; resists 93.3% of Lakera B3 attacks; higher cyber refusal rate than other open models↗
Quantization-aware training··········
SFT runs with fp8 quantization (not called QAT); instruct weights ship in FP8↗
······
Other
function calling Native function calling and JSON output↗
·
general data Selected natural-language data mixed in to retain general understanding↗
rl no kl No KL penalty and no reference model copy↗
rl loss norm Token losses summed over all generations and divided by total generation length in the group, to avoid length bias↗
rl group filter Groups where every generation is right or every one is wrong (zero advantage) are dropped from batches↗
language reward 10% of English problems translated into French, Spanish, Italian, German, Chinese, Russian; fastText checks that problem, thoughts and answer share one language (+0.1)↗
difficulty filtering Two-pass difficulty filter: Mistral Large 2 samples 16 solutions per problem, then an RL-trained 24B grader re-grades; problems whose majority answer contradicts the reference are dropped↗
rl infra Asynchronous generators never wait for trainers; new weights are broadcast over NCCL mid-generation (<5 s) without recomputing the KV cache↗
multimodal transfer Text-only RL kept and improved multimodal reasoning (e.g. MMMU-Pro-Vision +12%) and kept function calling and instruction following↗
changed
update scope Minor instruct update of Small 3.1: better precise instruction following, fewer infinite or repetitive generations (2.11% -> 1.29% internal), more robust function-calling template↗
repetition Infinite generations halved on challenging, long and repetitive prompts↗
··changed
update scope Better tone and LaTeX/Markdown formatting, shorter answers on easy prompts, fewer infinite loops; about the same scores as 1.0↗
··
rubric reward General RL reward = fraction of LLM-judged atomic rubric items satisfied↗
odpo tools ODPO treats samples that loop forever as losers and executes tools during generation↗
·
unified One model replaces the Instruct, Magistral (reasoning), Devstral (coding) and Pixtral (vision) lines↗
output length Short outputs: AA-LCR 0.72 with 1.6K characters vs 5.8-6.1K for Qwen models at similar scores↗
tech report Training approach deferred to a promised tech report (with the FLTEval suite)↗
long horizon Built for long-horizon tasks, reliable multi-tool calling and structured output; powers Vibe's async cloud agents↗
··

What changed, in the lab's words

  1. Magistral-Small-1.0First Mistral reasoning model: a thinking draft before every answer ↗Why: Transparent, domain-specific and multilingual reasoning
  2. Magistral-Small-1.0First Mistral RL stack: in-house asynchronous GRPO-based RLVR pipeline ↗Why: Built from the ground up on Mistral's own models and infrastructure rather than existing implementations or distilled traces
  3. Small-3.2Better precise instruction following, about half the infinite generations, more robust function-calling template ↗
  4. Devstral-Small-1.1Refreshed agent data: pseudo-scaffolds, XML plus native function-calling prompts, recalibrated trajectory filtering ↗Why: Generalize to different prompts and agentic scaffolds beyond OpenHands
  5. Magistral-Small-1.1Better tone and formatting, shorter answers on easy prompts, fewer infinite generation loops ↗
  6. Small-4One hybrid model with per-request reasoning_effort replaces separate Instruct, Magistral, Pixtral and Devstral models ↗Why: Users no longer choose between fast instruct, reasoning and multimodal models
  7. Medium-3.5First flagship merged model: instruct, reasoning and coding in one set of weights, replacing Medium 3.1, Magistral and Devstral 2 ↗
  8. Leanstral-1.5Improved SFT mixture quality and extended long-context reasoning ↗
4

Evals

Independent scores from Artificial Analysis first, then what the labs report themselves: each lab's latest flagship, which benchmarks they choose to report, and how scores moved.

4.1 Independent scores from Artificial Analysis

Lab-reported scores use each lab's own harness, so they rarely line up. Artificial Analysis (AA) runs the same tests on every model with one harness, which makes it the closest thing to a like-for-like comparison. The chart shows AA's Intelligence Index (v4.3, fetched Oct 25, 2026) for every release AA has scored from the 13 labs, plus a selection of releases from the four reference labs (these appear only as scores; their recipes are not covered), taking the best-scoring effort setting of each release. Filled points mark a new high for that lab. The table shows each lab's highest-scoring model on AA's individual tests; the best value in each row is bold. Every value links to its AA model page.

2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct0102030405060Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexAnthropicMetaKimiOpenAIGeminiMiMoDeepSeekGLMStepFunMiniMaxLingQwenNemotronTMLGemmaMistral
DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaMicrosoft AIThinking MachinesQwenMiniMaxStepFunLingNemotronMistral
AA Intelligence Index by release date. Colored lines are the 13 labs in this report; gray dashed lines are the reference labs, labelled at their latest high. Hollow points are releases that did not beat the lab's previous best. AA re-scores older models whenever the index version changes, so the whole chart is on one scale. Microsoft AI's MAI models are not scored by Artificial Analysis.
Artificial AnalysisDeepSeekDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) · Oct 17, 2026 · openKimiKimi K3.1 Pro · Oct 24, 2026 (AA lists Oct 23)GLMGLM-5.3 (Max) · Aug 18, 2026 · openMiMoMiMo-V2.6-Pro · Sep 21, 2026 · openGemmaGemma 4 26B A4B (Reasoning) · Apr 2, 2026 · openThinking MachinesInkling Small · Jul 30, 2026 · openQwenQwen3.8 2.4T A95B · openMiniMaxMiniMax-M3.1-Flash · openStepFunStep 5 Preview · openLingLing 3.1 Flash · openNemotronNemotron 3.5 Super VL · openMistralMistral Medium 3.5 · openOpenAIGPT-6 Astra (Max) · Sep 3, 2026AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) · Sep 22, 2026Google GeminiGemini 4 Argon (High) · Sep 30, 2026MetaMuse Wonder Full (Max) · Oct 12, 2026
Intelligence Index45.155.144.846.316.725.739.942.743.741.126.514.252.757.652.655.8
Terminal-Bench 4.033.867.241.934.81.059.111.125.833.333.30.00.059.657.157.1
Terminal-Bench Science12.934.39.55.70.063.3·3.32.4·0.0·59.052.937.1
AutomationBench66.673.362.258.61.94.857.272.551.061.714.86.368.569.577.571.3
GDPval-AA (Elo)17461846164916835651124160714581587161711627611574186616241857
AA-Briefcase (Elo)157016781505151231591114331473142313979995231568180114861729
GDP.pdf17.231.411.219.211.231.015.620.814.810.08.02.826.221.832.6
Humanity's Last Exam43.352.542.349.419.333.342.448.046.539.430.713.854.761.457.153.6
SciCode55.960.859.060.940.049.754.153.458.954.147.840.256.566.961.862.6
CritPt24.024.619.126.60.08.320.022.320.918.010.60.031.731.727.132.9
AA-LCR (long context)82.786.379.786.365.775.780.379.788.383.069.069.380.784.779.783.7
MLCR26.717.212.87.841.727.830.616.718.312.213.310.013.9
AA-Omniscience4.729.514.38.4-50.8-8.94.315.616.42.2-4.2-36.843.446.442.430.1
MMMU-Pro80.683.969.274.086.987.7·79.176.4··64.9

4.2 Each lab's latest flagship, as reported by the lab

Lab-reported scores here and in 4.3 to 4.5 cover seven of the labs (DeepSeek, Kimi, GLM, MiMo, Gemma, Microsoft AI and Thinking Machines); Qwen, MiniMax, StepFun, Ling, Nemotron and Mistral appear in the independent comparison in 4.1. Each lab's current top models, with the scores the lab itself published. Where a release has several sizes or effort settings, the best reported score is shown; hover a value for the exact model, setting and table. A selection of the benchmarks that at least two of these models report is shown. Versions and metrics are kept apart (Terminal-Bench 2.0, 2.1 and 4.0 are different tests), even where that leaves one model in a row. DeepSeek's column is V4.1-Flash-1017, whose model card reports eight of these benchmarks; the rest are left empty rather than filled from the earlier V4.1-Flash. Note what is missing: the newest DeepSeek, Kimi, GLM and MiMo flagships no longer put SWE-bench Verified or SWE-bench Pro in their headline tables (DeepSeek V4.1 shows SWE-bench Pro only as RL training curves; MiMo V2.6 shows it as curves and, with SWE-bench Verified, for its distilled 9B model). They lead with DeepSWE v1.1, Terminal-Bench 2.1, ProgramBench, Toolathlon-Verified and Agents' Last Exam instead. Kimi's column stays on K3: K3.1 Pro (Oct 24) has no public weights yet (promised by Nov 4), and its post puts Terminal-Bench 4.0 at 65.7.

Lab-reportedDeepSeekV4.1-Flash-1017 · Oct 17, 2026DeepSeekV4-Pro-0813 · Aug 13, 2026KimiK3 · Jul 16, 2026GLMGLM-5.3 · Aug 14, 2026GLMGLM-5.3-Flash · Aug 26, 2026MiMoV2.6 · Sep 22, 2026GemmaGemma-4 · Apr 2, 2026Microsoft AIMAI-Thinking-1 · Jun 2, 2026Thinking MachinesInkling · Jul 15, 2026Thinking MachinesInkling-Small · Jul 30, 2026
Agentic coding
SWE-bench Verified·······73.577.680.2
SWE-bench Pro·······52.854.355.9
Terminal-Bench 2.1·87.988.388.284.389.9··63.864.7
Terminal-Bench 4.042.312.4···34.9····
DeepSWE v1.17762.767.566.963.471.9····
NL2Repo68.261.5·5856.3·····
ProgramBench (Almost@1)29.115.5·19·26.5····
ProgramBench (raw score)··77.8·······
FrontierSWE··81.278.1······
SWE-Marathon v1.1···42.5······
SWE-Marathon (pre-v1.1 H20 branch)··42·······
Search & browsing
BrowseComp··91.2·····77.177.4
HLE (w/ tools)·605662.555.3·26.5·4647.8
Tool use & agents
Agents' Last Exam35.425.728.328.526.331.6····
Toolathlon-Verified·74.176.57378.476.9··45.554.4
MCP-Atlas··84.2·····78.879.6
tau3-Bench (Banking)··33.4·····23.715.5
GDPval-AA v2··168617691773···12381269
AutomationBench (Public)·31.830.8·······
AutomationBench v1.0.660.543.2·48.248.853.1····
OSWorld-Verified··84.8··82····
Math
AIME 2026······89.294.597.195.5
HMMT Feb 2026·······84.986.390.2
Knowledge & reasoning
HLE (text)4442.7······29.731.6
HLE-Full42.6·43.5·······
GPQA-Diamond·92.493.5···84.384.287.289.5
SimpleQA Verified·······3143.920.6
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro··81.6···76.9·73.574
CharXiv (RQ)··91.3·····8281.3
Other
PostTrainBench··36.639.8······

4.3 Which benchmarks labs report

Each cell counts how many of the seven labs reported a benchmark family for models released in that half-year; the dots show which labs. A family groups versions and variants of one test, for example every Terminal-Bench version; hover a cell to see which versions were reported. Only families reported by at least three labs are shown.

Benchmark family2025 H12025 H22026 H12026 H2
Agentic coding
Terminal-Bench (any version)1465
SWE-bench Pro52
SWE-bench Verified2452
Cybergym33
DeepSWE (any version)24
FrontierSWE23
ProgramBench24
SWE-bench Multilingual143
Search & browsing
BrowseComp1432
BrowseComp-ZH131
Tool use & agents
tau-bench (any version)2432
GDPval (any version)44
Toolathlon25
Agents' Last Exam14
AutomationBench14
MCP-Atlas32
Math
AIME (any year)4442
HMMT (any)1441
MATH-50022
Code
LiveCodeBench445
SciCode222
Knowledge & reasoning
GPQA-Diamond3453
HLE (any variant)1454
MMLU-Pro344
SimpleQA (any)3331
MMLU22
DROP21
Long context
LongBench v2123
MRCR123
GraphWalks3
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro2132
AI2D31
MMMU311
MathVista31
CharXiv (RQ)122
Chat & instruction following
IFEval431
Arena-Hard21
IFBench21
Other
CritPt12
ExploitGym3

4.4 Progress on shared benchmarks

The best score each lab reported for each release, on the benchmarks most labs share, now including the agentic ones (DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Toolathlon, Agents' Last Exam, ProgramBench, NL2Repo). These are not head-to-head comparisons: harnesses, tool access, effort settings and subsets differ by lab. Hover a point for the exact setting and table. ProgramBench is plotted on one metric, Almost@1 ('Almost Solved'): Kimi's own raw scores (K2.6 48.3, K2.7-Code 53.6, K3 77.8) are left out, K3 is shown at the 17.5 that DeepSeek and GLM report for it on Almost@1, and GLM-5.2 at the 9.5 the GLM-5.3 card gives.

SWE-bench Verified
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoMicrosoftThinking
SWE-bench Pro
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoThinking
Terminal-Bench 2.0
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoMicrosoft
Terminal-Bench 2.1
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoThinking
DeepSWE v1.1
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMo
DeepSWE
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekGLM
Toolathlon-Verified
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMThinking
Agents' Last Exam
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMo
ProgramBench (Almost@1)
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMo
NL2Repo
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekGLM
BrowseComp
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %KimiGLMMiMoThinking
HLE (w/ tools)
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaThinking
HLE (text)
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoThinking
GPQA-Diamond
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaMicrosoftThinking
AIME 2025
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaMicrosoft
MMLU-Pro
2025AprJulOct2026AprJulOct020406080100lab-reported score, %DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaMicrosoft
DeepSeekKimiGLMMiMoGemmaMicrosoft AIThinking MachinesQwenMiniMaxStepFunLingNemotronMistral

4.5 Every reported score, by lab

DeepSeek648 scores (600 shown; variants of one benchmark collapsed)
BenchmarkV3DeepSeek-V3-BaseV3DeepSeek-V3V3DeepSeek-V3 (as generative reward model)V3DeepSeek-V3 (as generative reward model…R1DeepSeek-R1R1DeepSeek-R1-ZeroR1DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5BR1DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7BR1DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14BR1DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32BR1DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8BR1DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70BV3-0324DeepSeek-V3-0324Prover-V2DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B (CoT)Prover-V2DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B (CoT)R1-0528DeepSeek-R1-0528R1-0528DeepSeek-R1-0528-Qwen3-8BV3.1DeepSeek-V3.1 (non-thinking)V3.1DeepSeek-V3.1 (thinking)V3.1-TerminusDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusV3.2-ExpDeepSeek-V3.2-ExpMath-V2DeepSeekMath-V2 (high-compute search)Math-V2DeepSeekMath-V2 (Heavy)Math-V2DeepSeekMath-V2V3.2DeepSeek-V3.2 (thinking)V3.2DeepSeek-V3.2 (non-thinking)V3.2DeepSeek-V3.2-SpecialeV4DeepSeek-V4-Flash BaseV4DeepSeek-V4-Pro BaseV4DeepSeek-V4-Flash (Non-think)V4DeepSeek-V4-Flash (High)V4DeepSeek-V4-Flash (Max)V4DeepSeek-V4-Pro (Non-think)V4DeepSeek-V4-Pro (High)V4DeepSeek-V4-Pro (Max)V4DeepSeek-V4V4DeepSeek-V4-Flash (Preview)V4DeepSeek-V4-Pro (Preview)V4-Flash-0731DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731V4-Flash-0731DeepSeek-V4-Flash ("DS-V4-Flash" column…V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813V4-Pro-0813DeepSeek-V4-Pro ("DS-V4-Pro" column of…V4-Flash-Vision-ExpDeepSeek-V4-Flash-Vision-ExpV4.1-FlashDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash BaseV4.1-FlashDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashV4.1-FlashDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash (Agent Team, multi-…V4.1-FlashDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash (single agent)V4.1-Flash-1017DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Agentic coding
Aider-Edit·79.7··············································
Aider-Polyglot·49.6··53.312.2······55.1··71.6·68.476.376.174.5···························
Cybergym····································38.752.776.776.783.383.375.3·88.1···
DeepSWE····································7.312.854.4·62.7·59.3·····
DeepSWE v1.1·······································54.4·62.7··74.2··77
FrontierSWE v2·············································32.928.2·
IMO-AnswerBench························78.3·84.5··41.985.188.435.38889.8·············
NL2Repo····································39.438.554.254.261.561.557.7·65.4··68.2
ProgramBench·········································15.5··20.330.0420.3929.1
SWE-bench Multilingual············29.3··30.5·54.5·57.857.9···70.268.9···69.770.273.369.874.176.2·············
SWE-bench Pro·····························49.152.352.652.154.455.4·············
SWE-bench Verified·42··49.243.2······45.4··57.6·66·68.467.8···73.172.1···73.778.67973.679.480.6·············
Terminal-Bench············13.3··5.7·31.3·36.737.7···························
Terminal-Bench 2.0························46.437.1···49.156.656.959.163.367.9·············
Terminal-Bench 2.1····································61.872.182.782.787.987.983.9·90.6···
Terminal-Bench 3.0·······································7.6·11.8··30···
Terminal-Bench 4.0·······································7·12.4··31.2··42.3
Search & browsing
ApexBench······································26.2···36.5·····
BrowseComp···············8.9··3038.540.1···51.4·····53.573.2·80.483.4·············
BrowseComp-ZH···············35.7··49.24547.9···65·······················
FRAMES·73.3··82.582.3·········83································
HLE (w/ tools)···············24.8··29.8·····40.8·····40.345.1·44.748.2···51.551.56060··63.9···
Tool use & agents
Agents' Last Exam····································15.816.525.225.225.725.727.3·31.8··35.4
Apex·····························119.1330.427.438.3·············
Apex Bench v1.1············································64.6··72.1
Apex Shortlist·····························9.372.185.79.285.590.2·············
AutomationBench (Public)····································10.812.825.1·31.8·25.7·····
AutomationBench v1.0.6·······································37.7·43.2··54.8··60.5
BFCL v3 MultiTurn···············37································
GDPval·······························1395··1554·············
MCP-Mark························3826.5······················
MCP-Universe························45.938.6······················
MCPAtlas (Public)·····························6467.46969.474.273.6·············
MathArena Apex·······································58.6·65.3··65.6···
MathArena Apex 2025············································25.3···
Tau-Bench (airline)···············53.5································
Tau-Bench (retail)···············63.9································
Toolathlon·····························40.743.547.846.34951.8·············
Toolathlon-Verified····································49.755.970.3·74.1·75.9·····
tau2-Bench (Airline)························63.8·······················
tau2-Bench (Retail)························81.1·······················
tau2-Bench (Telecom)························96.2·······················
tau2-Bench (average)························80.377.2······················
Math
AIME 2024·39.2··79.877.928.955.569.772.650.47059.4··91.48666.393.1·····························
AIME 2025····75·······51.3··87.576.349.888.488.489.3···93.1·96·····················
AIME 2026············································100···
CNMO 2024·43.2··78.888.1·········86.9································
HMMT Feb 2025············29.2··79.461.533.584.286.183.6···92.5·99.2·····················
HMMT Feb 2026·····························40.891.994.831.79495.2·············
HMMT Nov 2025························90.2·94.4·····················
IMO 2025·····················83.3····35·····················
IMO Shortlist 2024·······················0.27························
IMO-ProofBench (Advanced)······················61.9·························
IMO-ProofBench (Basic)······················99·························
MATH61.6··························57.464.5··············61.1····
MATH-500·90.2··97.395.983.992.893.994.389.194.5····································
ProverBench (AIME 24&25)·············6··································
Putnam 2024·····················98.3··························
Putnam 2025 (formal)···································120············
PutnamBench·············4711·································
PutnamBench (Putnam-200)·······························81················
miniF2F-test·············61.982·································
Code
BigCodeBench···························56.859.2··············60.6····
CRUXEval-I67.3···············································
CRUXEval-O69.8···············································
Codeforces (percentile)·51.6··96.380.4··········································
Codeforces (rating)····2029144495411891481169112051633···1930··209120462121···2386·2701···28163052·29193206····3289·3348··3471···
HumanEval65.2··························69.576.8··············79.4····
HumanEval-Mul·82.6··············································
LiveCodeBench············49.2······74.9····························
LiveCodeBench (2024-08 to 2024-11)·40.5··············································
LiveCodeBench (2024-08 – 2025-01)····65.95016.937.653.157.239.657.5····································
LiveCodeBench (2024-08 – 2025-05)···············73.360.5·······························
LiveCodeBench (2024.08-2025.04)························83.3·88.7·····················
LiveCodeBench (2408-2505)············43··73.3·56.474.874.974.1···························
LiveCodeBench (v6)·····························55.288.491.656.889.893.5·············
LiveCodeBench-Base (0801-1101)19.4···············································
MBPP75.4···············································
Knowledge & reasoning
ARC-Challenge95.3···············································
ARC-Easy98.9···············································
BBH87.5··························86.987.5··············86.1····
C-Eval90.186.5··91.892.8·····················92.193.1··············92.1····
C-SimpleQA·64.8··63.766.4··········································
CMMLU88.8··························90.490.8···················
Chinese-SimpleQA·····························71.573.278.975.877.784.4·············
DROP8991.6··92.289.1·····················88.688.7··············87.9····
GPQA-Diamond·59.1··71.575.833.849.159.162.14965.268.4··8161.174.980.180.779.9···82.4·85.7··71.287.488.172.989.190.1····89.9·92.4··90.9···
HLE (text)···············17.7··15.921.719.8···25.1·30.6··8.129.434.87.734.537.7···37.837.842.742.7··39.1··44
HLE-Full············································36.8··42.6
HellaSwag88.9··························85.788··············87.2····
MMLU87.188.5··90.888.8·····················88.790.1···················
MMLU-Pro64.475.9··8468.9······81.2··85·83.784.88585···85··68.373.58386.486.282.987.187.5········74.1····
MMLU-Redux86.289.1··92.985.6······90.5··93.4·91.893.7········89.490.8···················
MMMLU···························88.890.3···················
MMMLU (non-English)79.4···············································
SimpleQA·24.9··30.130.3·········27.8··93.496.897.1···························
SimpleQA Verified···························30.155.223.128.934.14546.257.9········42.3····
SuperGPQA···························46.553.9··············53.1····
TriviaQA82.9··························82.885.6···················
Long context
LongBench v2·48.7·························44.751.5··············45.2····
MRCR·····························37.576.978.744.783.383.5·············
Multimodal
BabyVision (w/ tools)············································89.6··92.5
DocVQA···········································95.6····
MMMU-Pro···········································56.5····
ZeroBench··········································35·····
ZeroBench-main (w/ tools)············································49··51
Chat & instruction following
AlpacaEval 2.0·70··87.624.7··········································
Arena-Hard·85.5··92.353.6··········································
IFEval·86.1··83.346.6··········································
Other
AGIEval79.6··························82.683.1··············83.4····
AMC 12 2024····143.7···········································
BBEH···························25.429.8··············27.2····
C378.6···············································
CCPM92···············································
CLUEWSC82.790.9··92.893.1·····················82.285.2···················
CMO 2024·····················73.8··························
CMO 2025··························102·····················
CMRC76.3···············································
CMath90.7··························93.690.9···················
CVBench···········································77.9····
Chartography··········································64.3·····
Chartography (w/ tools)············································78.9··83
CombiBench·············10··································
CorpusQA 1M·····························15.559.360.535.656.562·············
DSBench-FullStack····································3741.868.7·71.1·······
DSBench-Hard····································25.831.159.6·67.2·63.6·····
ExploitGym·······································1.8·5.4··15.3···
FACTS Parametric···························33.962.6···················
FormalMATH-All·············28.31··································
FormalMATH-Lite·············61.88··································
GSM8K89.3··························90.892.6··············93····
ICPC WF 2025··························10·····················
IOI 2025··························492·····················
Internal R&D coding benchmark··································67·············
MGSM79.8··························85.784.4··············80.2····
MultiLoKo···························42.251.1··············45.5····
NaturalQuestions40···············································
PIQA84.7···············································
Pile-test0.548···············································
ProofNet-test·············37.1··································
ProverBench (All)·············59.1··································
RACE-High51.3···············································
RACE-Middle67.1···············································
Reasoning-intensive average (8 benchmarks)············································67.1···
RefCOCO-avg···········································86····
RewardBench··96.996.9············································
SEC-Bench Pro·······································30.9·56.4··62.8···
Tool-Decathlon························35.225.6······················
WinoGrande84.9··························79.581.5···················
Kimi434 scores (406 shown; variants of one benchmark collapsed)
BenchmarkMoonlightMoonlight-16B-A3B Base (5.7T)MoonlightMoonlight@1.2T Base (Muon; intermediate…MoonlightMoonlight-A@1.2T Base (AdamW ablation;…Kimi-VLKimi-VL-A3B-InstructKimi-VLKimi-VL-A3B-ThinkingKimi-VLKimi-VL-A3B-Thinking-2506K2Kimi-K2-InstructK2Kimi-K2-BaseK2-0905Kimi-K2-Instruct-0905K2-0905Kimi-K2-Instruct-0905 (K2-Thinking-card…Kimi-LinearKimi-Linear-48B-A3B-Base (5.7T)Kimi-LinearKimi-Linear-48B-A3B-Instruct (5.7T)Kimi-LinearKimi Linear@1.4T Base (matched-recipe a…Kimi-LinearKimi Linear@1.4T SFT (matched-recipe ab…Kimi-LinearKimi Linear@1.4T (matched-recipe ablati…K2-ThinkingKimi-K2-Thinking (INT4)K2.5Kimi K2.5 (thinking)K2.5Kimi K2.5 Agent SwarmK2.5Kimi K2.5 (thinking; K2.6-card protocol)K2.6Kimi K2.6 (thinking)K2.6Kimi K2.6 Agent SwarmK2.6Kimi K2.6 (K2.7-Code-card protocol)K2.7-CodeKimi K2.7 Code (thinking)K3Kimi K3 (max)K3.1-ProKimi K3.1 Pro
Agentic coding
Aider-Polyglot······60··················
Claw Eval··················52.362.3·····
Cybergym················41.3········
DeepSWE v1.1·······················67.5·
FrontierSWE·······················81.2·
IMO-AnswerBench·········45.8·····78.681.8··86·····
Kimi Claw 24/7 Bench·····················42.946.9··
Multi-SWE-bench······18.3·33.5······41.9·········
ProgramBench·····················48.353.677.8·
SWE-Dev········66.6················
SWE-Lancer······39.1··················
SWE-Marathon·······················42·
SWE-bench Multilingual······47.3·55.9······61.173··76.7·····
SWE-bench Pro················50.7··58.6·····
SWE-bench Verified······51.8·69.2······71.376.8··80.2·····
Terminal-Bench······30·44.5······47.1·········
Terminal-Bench 2.0················50.8··66.7·····
Terminal-Bench 2.1·······················88.3·
Terminal-Bench 4.0························65.7
Search & browsing
BrowseComp·········7.4·····60.260.678.4·83.286.3··91.2·
BrowseComp-ZH·········22.2·····62.3·········
DeepSearchQA················77.1·8992.5···95·
FRAMES······77.1··58.1····58.887·········
HLE (w/ tools)·········21.7·····44.951.8··55.5·····
Seal-0·········25.2·····56.357.4········
WideSearch················72.779·80.8·····
Tool use & agents
APEX-Agents··················11.527.9···41·
Agents' Last Exam·······················28.3·
AutomationBench (Public)·······················30.8·
Finance Agent v2·······················54.4·
GDPval················41········
GDPval-AA v2·······················1686·
MCP-Atlas·····················69.47684.2·
MCPMark··················29.555.9·····
MCPMark-Verified·····················72.881.194.5·
OSWorld···8.22·····················
OSWorld 2.0·······················58.3·
OSWorld-G·····52.5···················
OSWorld-Verified················63.3··73.1···84.8·
Toolathlon··················27.850·····
Toolathlon-Verified·······················76.5·
WindowsAgentArena···10.4·····················
tau2-Bench (Airline)······56.5··················
tau2-Bench (Retail)······70.6··················
tau2-Bench (Telecom)······65.8··················
tau2-Bench (micro-average)······66.1··················
tau3-Bench (Banking)·······················33.4·
Math
AIME 2024······69.6··················
AIME 2025······49.5··51·58.6·21.3·94.596.1········
AIME 2026··················95.896.4·····
CNMO 2024······74.3··················
HMMT 2025······38.8··38.8·44.5·12.5·89.4·········
HMMT Feb 2025················95.4········
HMMT Feb 2026··················87.192.7·····
HMMT Nov 2025················91.1········
MATH45.319.816.1····70.22··58.5·54.7············
MATH-500······97.4····94.6·81.2···········
Code
CRUXEval-I-cot·······74··61·56.6············
CRUXEval-O-cot·······83.5··67·62············
HumanEval48.137.229.3······················
HumanEval+···········70.9·············
Kimi Code Bench 2.0·····················50.96272.9·
LiveCodeBench (v6)·······26.29·56.12045.7·26·83.185··89.6·····
LiveCodeBench (v6, Aug 2024 - May 2025)······53.7··················
Long Code Arena (Commit)··············32.7··········
Long Code Arena (Lib)··············37.1··········
MBPP63.852.949.2······················
MBPP+···········72.4·············
OJBench······27.1··25.5·14.2···48.7·········
OJBench (cpp)················57.4········
OJBench (python)··················54.760.6·····
PaperBench (CodeDev)················63.5········
SciCode·········30.7·····44.848.7··52.2···58.7·
Knowledge & reasoning
ARC-Challenge·······95.73····67.3············
BBH65.243.245.3····88.71····72.969.4···········
C-Eval77.259.957.2····92.5··83.3·79.5············
C-SimpleQA·······77.57··53.5··············
CMMLU78.258.858.2····90.9····80.8············
DROP······93.5··················
FinSearchComp T2&T3················67.8········
FinSearchComp-T3·········10.4·····47.4·········
GPQA-Diamond······75.148.11·74.240.471.7·62.1·84.587.6··90.5···93.5·
HLE (text)······4.7··7.9·····23.931.5··36.4·····
HLE-Full················30.1··34.7···43.5·
HLE-Full (w/ tools)················50.2··54···56·
HellaSwag·······94.6····82.9············
Legal Research Bench·······················44.2·
MMLU7060.460.2···89.587.79····73.877···········
MMLU-Pro42.428.126.8···81.169.17·81.954.872.75167.4·84.687.1········
MMLU-Redux······92.790.17·92.779.786.9·80.3·94.4·········
ResearchRubrics·······················76.2·
SimpleQA······3135.25··10.1··············
SimpleQA Verified················36.9········
SuperGPQA······57.244.67·················
TriviaQA66.358.157.4····85.09··75.2·71.7············
ZebraLogic······89··················
Long context
HELMET-ICL··············90··········
LongBench v2······49.1·······35·61········
MMLongBench-Doc···35.1·42.1···················
MRCR······55·······29.6··········
RULER···········95.4··84.3··········
Multimodal
AI2D···84.9·····················
BLINK···57.3············78.9········
BabyVision················36.5·40.539.8···85.7·
CharXiv (RQ)················77.5·78.780.4···84.8·
InfoVQA···83.2············92.6········
LongVideoBench···64.5············79.8········
MMBench-EN-v1.1···83.1·84.4···················
MMMU···5761.764··········84.3········
MMMU-Pro····4346.3··········78.5·77.779.4···81.6·
MathVision···21.436.856.9··········84.2·8587.4···94.3·
MathVista···68.771.380.1···················
MathVista (mini)················90.1········
OCRBench···867·869··········92.3········
RealWorldQA···68.1·70···················
ScreenSpot-Pro···34.5·52.8···················
ScreenSpot-V2···92.8·91.4···················
SimpleVQA················71.2········
Video-MME···67.8·71.9··········87.4······90·
VideoMMMU···52.655.565.2··········86.6········
WorldVQA················46.3······51·
ZeroBench················9······23·
ZeroBench (w/ tools)················11········
Chat & instruction following
Arena-Hard (v2.0)······54.5··················
IFEval······89.8··················
Longform Writing·········62.8·····73.8·········
WebArena················58.9········
Other
AA-Briefcase·······················1548·
AA-LCR·······················74.7·
ACEBench······76.5··················
AGIEval·······84.23·················
AdvancedIF················75.6········
AutoLogi······89.5··················
CMath81.160.257.8····90.26··85.5··············
CorpFin v2·······················71.6·
CritPt·······················23.4·
EgoSchema···78.5·····················
EvalPlus·······80.33··64.9·60.261···········
FACTS Grounding······88.5··················
FaithJudge······92.6····64.2·············
GSM8K77.44543.8····92.12··86.3·83.9············
GSM8K-Platinum·······94.21··89.6··············
HHEM v2.1······98.9··················
Harvey Lab-AA·······················94.6·
HealthBench·········43.8·····58·········
In-house Swarm Bench················41.658.3·······
JobBench·······················54.3·
LVBench················75.9········
LiveBench······76.4······45.2···········
Long-context average··············54.5··········
MLS-Bench Lite·····················26.735.148.3·
MLVU···74.2·····················
MMStar···61.3·70.4···················
MMVP················87········
MMVU···52.2·57.5··········80.4······82.1·
MMVet···66.7·78.1···················
MotionBench················70.4········
Multi-Challenge······54.1··················
MultiPL-E······85.7··················
OfficeQA Pro·······················63.3·
OmniDocBench·······················91.1·
OmniDocBench 1.5················88.8········
PaperBench······27.8··················
PerceptionBench·······················58.5·
PolyMath-en······65.1······43.6···········
PostTrainBench·······················36.6·
RepoQA··············68.5··········
SaaS-Bench·······················60.1·
SpreadsheetBench 2·······················34.8·
TOMATO···31.7·····················
V*··················86.996.9·····
VSI-Bench···37.4·····················
WinoGrande·······85.32··81.5·78.6············
GLM392 scores (372 shown; variants of one benchmark collapsed)
BenchmarkGLM-4-0414GLM-4-32B-0414GLM-Z1-0414GLM-Z1-32B-0414GLM-Z1-0414GLM-Z1-9B-0414GLM-4.1V-ThinkingGLM-4.1V-9B-ThinkingGLM-4.5GLM-4.5GLM-4.5GLM-4.5-AirGLM-4.5GLM-4.5 BaseGLM-4.5VGLM-4.5V (thinking)GLM-4.6GLM-4.6GLM-4.6VGLM-4.6V (thinking)GLM-4.7GLM-4.7GLM-4.7-FlashGLM-4.7-FlashGLM-5GLM-5 (thinking)GLM-5GLM-5GLM-5GLM-5 BaseGLM-5.1GLM-5.1 (thinking)GLM-5.1GLM-5.1GLM-5.2GLM-5.2 (thinking)GLM-5.3GLM-5.3 (max effort)GLM-5.3GLM-5.3GLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3-Flash Base
Agentic coding
Coding average (SWE-bench Verified, Terminal-Bench)····50.943.8················
Cybergym············43.2··68.7··84.5···
DeepSWE·················46.2····
DeepSWE v1.1··················66.9·63.4·
FrontierSWE·················74.478.1···
IMO-AnswerBench··········82·82.5··83.8·91····
NL2Repo···············42.7·48.958·56.3·
ProgramBench·················63.719···
SWE-Marathon·················1342.5···
SWE-bench Multilingual··········66.7·73.3·········
SWE-bench Pro···············58.4·62.1····
SWE-bench Verified33.8···64.257.6··68·73.859.277.8·········
SWE-bench Verified mini38·····················
SWE-rebench·············42.1········
Terminal-Bench····37.530··40.5·············
Terminal-Bench 2.0··········41·56.2··63.5······
Terminal-Bench 2.1·················8188.2·84.3·
Terminal-Bench 3.0··················28.3···
Terminal-Bench Hard··········33.3···········
Search & browsing
Agentic average (TAU-Retail, TAU-Airline, BFCL V3, BrowseComp)····58.155.7················
BrowseComp····26.421.3··45.1·5242.862··68······
BrowseComp-ZH··········66.6·72.7·········
HLE (w/ tools)········30.4·42.8·50.4··52.3·54.762.5·55.3·
Tool use & agents
Agents' Last Exam··················28.5·26.3·
AutomationBench v1.0.6··················48.2·48.8·
BFCL v3·70.566.6·77.876.4················
BFCL-v3 (MultiTurn)41.5·····················
BFCL-v3 (Overall)69.6·····················
GDPval············1409·····1769·1773·
MCP-Atlas············67.8··71.8·76.8····
OSWorld···14.9···35.8·37.2············
OSWorld 2.0····················59.1·
Tau-Bench (airline)51.2···60.460.8················
Tau-Bench (retail)68.7···79.777.9················
Toolathlon-Verified··················73·78.4·
Vending-Bench 2············4432··5634.41······
tau2-Bench········75.9·87.479.589.7·········
tau3-Bench···············70.6······
Math
AIME 2024·80.876.4·9189.4················
AIME 2025·63.656.6·····93.9·95.791.6··········
AIME 2026············92.7··95.3·99.2····
HMMT Feb 2025··········97.1·97.9·········
HMMT Feb 2026···············82.6·92.5····
HMMT Nov 2025··········93.5·96.9··94·94.4····
MATH······61·······56.4·······
MATH-500····98.298.1················
Code
CC-Bench head-to-head win rate vs Qwen3-Coder····80.8·················
Design2Code···64.7···82.2·88.6············
LiveCodeBench (2407-2501)····72.970.7················
LiveCodeBench (2408-2501)·59.151.8···················
LiveCodeBench (v6)········82.8·84.964··········
LiveCodeBench-Base······28.1·······34.4······37.6
SciCode····41.737.3················
Z.ai Code Bench···················34.529·
Knowledge & reasoning
ARC 12-benchmark average····63.259.8················
BBH······86.2·······87.4······86.6
C-Eval······86.9·······88.8·······
Chinese-SimpleQA······70.1·······74.6·······
GPQA·66.158.5·79.175··81··75.2··········
GPQA-Diamond··········85.7·86··86.2·91.2····
HLE········17.2·24.814.4··········
HLE (text)····14.410.6······30.5··31·40.5····
HellaSwag······87.1·······88.1······87.1
MMLU····9087.486.1·······88.3······88.1
MMLU-Pro····84.681.4····84.3···········
SimpleQA88.1···26.414.530·······36······33.5
SuperGPQA·52.643.6···················
TriviaQA······80·······80.9·······
Long context
LongBench v2············64.5·········
MMLongBench-Doc···42.4···44.7·54.9············
Multimodal
AI2D···87.9···88.1·88.8············
BLINK (Val)···65.1···65.3·65.5············
BabyVision····················53.4·
CharXiv Reasoning (w/ tools)····················89.4·
ChartQAPro···59.5···64·65.5············
MMBench V1.1···85.8···88.2·88.8············
MMBench V1.1 (CN)···84.7···88.3·88.2············
MMMU···68···75.4·76············
MMMU-Pro···57.1···65.2·66············
MathVision···54.4···65.6·63.5············
MathVista···80.7···84.6·85.2············
OCRBench···84.2···86.5·86.5············
VideoMME (w/o sub)···68.2···74.6·74.8············
VideoMME (w/sub)···73.6···80.7·81.8············
VideoMMMU···61···72.4·74.7············
Vision2Web····················77.8·
ZeroBench (sub)···19.2···23.4·25.8············
Chat & instruction following
Arena-Hard·90.667.4···················
IFEval87.684.581.9·86.186.3················
Other
All-Angles Bench···52.7···56.9·56.2············
AndroidWorld···41.7···57·57············
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (est., 7 reasoning benchmarks)····67.764.8················
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.0·············50········
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.1.1····················57·
C3······83.1·······80.3·······
CC-Bench head-to-head win rate vs Claude Sonnet 4····40.4·················
CC-Bench head-to-head win rate vs Kimi K2····53.9·················
CC-Bench tool-calling success rate····90.6·················
CC-Bench win rate vs Claude Sonnet 4········48.6·············
CC-Bench-V2 Backend·············25.8········
CC-Bench-V2 Build Next.js·············95········
CC-Bench-V2 Build React·············100········
CC-Bench-V2 Build Svelte·············100········
CC-Bench-V2 Build Vue·············100········
CC-Bench-V2 Chained Tasks·············52.3········
CC-Bench-V2 Frontend HTML·············38.9········
CC-Bench-V2 Frontend React·············34.6········
CC-Bench-V2 Frontend Vue·············32.7········
CC-Bench-V2 Repo Exploration·············65.6········
CLUEWSC······83.5·······84.2·······
CV-Bench···85···87.3·87.6············
ChartMuseum···48.8···55.3·58.4············
Chartography (w/ tools)····················78·
CritPt·················20.9····
DynaMath···42.5···53.9·54.5············
ERQA···45.8···50·47.8············
EvalPlus······78.1·······87·······
ExploitBench··················54.4···
ExploitGym··················105···
Flame-React-Eval···72.5···82.5·86.3············
GSM8K······79.4·······68.8·······
GeoBench···76···79.7··············
HallusionBench···63.2···65.4·62.3············
HotpotQA63.8·····················
KernelBench Level 3················3.6·····
LVBench···44···53.8·59.5············
LogicVista···60.4···62.4·62.1············
MMStar···72.9···75.3·75.9············
MMVU···59.4···68.7·68.4··········80.5·
MUIRBENCH···74.7···75.3·77.1············
MVBench···68.4···73·74.9··········77.8·
MathVerse···68.4···72.1·75.4············
MotionBench···59···62.4·63.6············
MultiChallenge····52.842.5················
OfficeQA Pro····················62.4·
Omni-MATH·68.464.4···················
OmniSpatial···47.7···51·52············
PIQA······85.3·······84.6·······
PostTrainBench·················34.339.8···
Ref-L4-test···86.8···89.5·88.9············
RefCOCO-avg (val)···85.3···91.3·88.6············
SafetyBench····89.987.8················
SysBench····8177.4················
SysBench (ISR)·81.277.3···················
Tool-Decathlon············39.2··40.7·48.2····
TreeBench···37.5···50.1·51.4············
VectorDBBench (SIFT-1M, Recall>=95%)················21500·····
WeMath···63.8···68.8·65.9············
WebVoyager···69···84.4·81············
Webquest-MultiQA···54.7···60.6·59············
Webquest-SingleQA···72.1···76.9·79.5············
MiMo296 scores (284 shown; variants of one benchmark collapsed)
BenchmarkMiMo-7BMiMo-7B BaseMiMo-7BMiMo-7B-RLMiMo-7BMiMo-7B-RL-ZeroMiMo-7BMiMo-7B-SFTMiMo-7BMiMo-7B-SFT-6MMiMo-7BMiMo-7B-RL-0530MiMo-VL-7BMiMo-VL-7B-RLMiMo-VL-7BMiMo-VL-7B-RL-2508V2-FlashMiMo-V2-Flash BaseV2-FlashMiMo-V2-FlashV2.5MiMo-V2.5V2.5MiMo-V2.5 BaseV2.5-ProMiMo-V2.5-Pro BaseV2.5-ProMiMo-V2.5-ProV2.6MiMo-V2.6-Pro (RL)V2.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash (RL)V2.6-Distill-Qwen-9BMiMo-V2.6-Distill-Qwen-9B (SFT)V2.6-Distill-Qwen-9BMiMo-V2.6-Distill-Qwen-9B (RL, per-doma…
Agentic coding
Claw-Eval··········62.3··63.8····
Claw-Eval (multimodal)··········23.8·······
Cybergym··············9495.1··
DeepSWE v1.1··············71.967.9··
FrontierSWE (Impl.)·············3.4····
ProgramBench··············26.526··
SWE-bench (Agentless, base)········30.8··30.835.7·····
SWE-bench Multilingual·········71.7········
SWE-bench Pro··········56.1··57.2··44.647.6
SWE-bench Verified·········73.4···78.9··61.166.2
Terminal-Bench 2.0·········38.565.8··68.4····
Terminal-Bench 2.1··············89.987.637.152.8
Terminal-Bench 4.0··············34.928.8··
Terminal-Bench Hard·········30.5········
Search & browsing
BrowseComp·········45.4········
HLE (w/ tools)·············48····
Tool use & agents
Agents' Last Exam··············31.627.6··
AutomationBench v1.0.6··············53.152.330.333.1
GDPval-AA·············15811673···
OSWorld-G······56.1···········
OSWorld-Verified··············8280.8··
Toolathlon-Verified··············76.973.635.238
tau2-Bench (Airline)·········66········
tau2-Bench (Retail)·········79.5········
tau2-Bench (Telecom)·········95.3········
tau2-Bench (average)·········80.3········
τ3-bench··········69.5··72.9····
Math
AIME 202432.968.256.458.768.380.167.5···········
AIME 2024 & 2025········35.3··36.937.3·····
AIME 202524.355.446.344.350.970.252.5··94.1········
HMMT Feb 2025·········84.4········
MATH37.4·······71··67.786.2·····
MATH-500·95.893.69394.897.295.4···········
MiMo Code Bench··············63.261.2··
MiMo Code Bench (mini)················51.659.9
MiMo Coding Bench··········71.8··73.7····
MiMo Cyber Bench··············80.277.2··
MiMo Cyber Bench (mini)················31.347
MiMo General Bench (mini)················62.270.6
MiMo Visual Coding··············72.371.5··
MiMo Visual Coding (mini)················6472.4
OlympiadBench······59.4···········
Code
BigCodeBench········70.1·········
CRUXEval-I47.6·······67.5·········
CRUXEval-O56.3·······79.1·········
HumanEval51.8·················
HumanEval+44.5·······70.7··71.375.6·····
LiveCodeBench (v5)32.957.849.152.353.460.9············
LiveCodeBench (v6)·49.342.945.5·52.2··30.885.1·35.539.6·····
MBPP69.2·················
MBPP+56.6·······71.4··70.974.1·····
MultiPL-E HumanEval········59.5·········
MultiPL-E MBPP········56.7·········
Knowledge & reasoning
ARC-Challenge62.3·······95.9··96.597.2·····
ARC-Easy85.2·················
BBH75.2·······88.5··87.288.4·····
C-Eval68.7·······87.9··88.691.5·····
C-SimpleQA········61.5·········
CMMLU70.9·······87.4··88.290.2·····
DROP69.278.7····85.1·84.7··83.786.3·····
GPQA-Diamond25.854.4·50.754.160.658.3·55.184.3·58.166.7·····
GlobalMMLU········76.6··77.483.6·····
HLE (text)·········22.1···34····
HellaSwag80·······88.5··88.689.8·····
MMLU71.2·······86.7··86.389.4·····
MMLU-Pro41.958.6····64.8·73.284.9·65.868.5·····
MMLU-Redux65.3·······90.6··89.892.8·····
SimpleQA········20.6·········
SuperGPQA25.140.5····44.3·41.1·········
TriviaQA60.8·······80.3··80.781.3·····
Long context
GraphWalks·············0.56····
LongBench v2·········60.6········
MRCR·········45.7········
NIAH-Multi········99.3·········
Multimodal
AI2D······83.5···········
BLINK······62.4···········
CharXiv (DQ)······86.8···········
CharXiv (RQ)······56.5···81·······
ChartQA······91.7···········
DocVQA······95.7···········
InfoVQA······88···········
MMBench-CN······82···········
MMBench-EN······84.4···········
MME-RealWorld (cn)······55.5···········
MME-RealWorld (en)······59.1···········
MMMU······66.770.6··········
MMMU-Pro······46.2···77.9·······
MathVision······60.4···········
MathVista······81.5···········
OCRBench······86.6···········
ScreenSpot······87.2···········
ScreenSpot-Pro······41.9···········
ScreenSpot-V2······90.5···········
Video-MME······67.470.8··87.7·······
Video-MMMU······43.3···········
VideoHolmes··········64·······
Chat & instruction following
Arena-Hard·········54.1········
IFEval·61····75.9···········
Other
AGIEval48.3·················
AlignBench v1.1·6.9·6.77.17.4············
CV-Bench······82.3···········
Charades-STA······50···········
CountBench······90.4···········
DailyOmni··········83.5·······
DynaMath······45.9···········
EgoSchema······59.6···········
ExploitBench··············47.925.3··
ExploitGym··············17.86··
GSM-Infinite Hard········37.7·········
GSM8K75.2·······92.3··83.399.6·····
HR-Bench (4K)··········88.5·······
INCLUDE········71.4·········
JobBench··············6261.218.325.2
LogicVista······61.4···········
Mantis······78.3···········
MathVerse······71.5···········
NaturalQuestions24.5·················
OfficeQA Pro················19.524.8
OmniDocBench··········87.2·······
PIQA79.4·················
PixmoCount······79.4···········
RACE-High44.1·················
RefCOCO······89.6···········
SEC Bench Pro··············66.347.5··
SEED-Bench-2-Plus······72.4···········
V*······81.7···········
VL-RewardBench······62.7···········
VLMs are Blind······79.4···········
VibeEval······54.7···········
VisualWebBench······80.2···········
WeMath······66.3···········
WebSrc······95.3···········
WinoGrande78·······83.8··84.785.6·····
Gemma350 scores (331 shown; variants of one benchmark collapsed)
BenchmarkGemma-3Gemma 3 1B ITGemma-3Gemma 3 4B ITGemma-3Gemma 3 12B ITGemma-3Gemma 3 27B ITGemma-3Gemma 3 27B BaseGemma-3nGemma 3n E2B BaseGemma-3nGemma 3n E4B BaseGemma-3nGemma 3n E2B ITGemma-3nGemma 3n E4B ITGemma-3-270MGemma 3 270M BaseGemma-3-270MGemma 3 270M ITGemma-4Gemma 4 31B ITGemma-4Gemma 4 26B-A4B ITGemma-4Gemma 4 E4B ITGemma-4Gemma 4 E2B ITGemma-4-12BGemma 4 12B IT
Agentic coding
Terminal-Bench Hard···········36148318
Search & browsing
HLE (w/ tools)···········26.517.2···
Tool use & agents
tau2-Bench (Airline)···········7576523175
tau2-Bench (Retail)···········86.485.567.134.677.6
tau2-Bench (Telecom)···········69.34318.419.754.4
tau2-Bench (average)···········76.968.242.224.569
Math
AIME 2025·······6.711.6·······
AIME 2026···········89.288.342.537.577.5
MATH4875.683.88950···········
MATH-Vision···········85.682.459.552.479.7
Code
Codeforces (rating)···········215017189406331659
Codegolf v2.2·······1116.8·······
HumanEval41.571.385.487.848.8··66.575·······
LiveCodeBench1.912.624.629.7···13.213.2·······
LiveCodeBench (v5)·······18.625.7·······
LiveCodeBench (v6)···········8077.1524472
MBPP35.263.27374.465.6··56.663.6·······
Natural2Code5670.380.784.5············
SciCode···········4340242138
Knowledge & reasoning
ARC-C····70.651.761.6··2928.2·····
ARC-E····8975.881.6··57.7······
DROP····77.253.960.8·········
GPQA-Diamond19.230.840.942.424.3··24.823.7··84.382.358.643.478.8
Global MMLU-Lite34.254.569.575.175.7···········
Global-MMLU·······55.160.3·······
Global-MMLU-Lite·······5964.5·······
HLE···········19.58.7··5.2
HellaSwag····85.672.278.6··40.937.7·····
MMLU38.858.171.976.978.6··60.164.9·······
MMLU (ProX)·······8.119.9·······
MMLU-Pro14.743.660.667.552.2··40.550.6··85.282.669.46077.2
MMMLU···········88.486.376.667.483.4
OpenAI MMLU·······22.335.6·······
SimpleQA2.246.310············
TriviaQA····85.560.870.2··15.4······
Long context
GraphWalks···········82.372.650.94.171
MRCR···63.263.2······66.444.125.419.143.4
RULER···91.185.9······96.897.395.28396.4
Multimodal
AI2D···84.5············
ChartQA···78············
DocVQA···86.6············
InfoVQA···70.6············
InfographicVQA···········9289.37063.988.4
MMMU·48.859.664.9············
MMMU-Pro···········76.973.852.644.269.1
MathVista···67.6············
TextVQA···65.1············
VQAv2···71············
Chat & instruction following
Arena Text Elo···········14511438···
IFBench···········7672443874
IFEval80.290.288.990.4······51.298.998.596.794.697.2
LMArena (Chatbot Arena) Elo···1338············
Other
AGIEval····66.2···········
BIG-Bench Extra Hard7.21116.319.3·······74.464.833.121.953
BIG-Bench Hard39.172.285.787.677.744.352.9···26.7·····
Bird-SQL (dev)6.436.347.954.4············
BoolQ····82.476.481.6··61.4······
CoVoST·············38.235.438.5
ECLeKTic1.44.610.316.724.4··2.51.9·······
FACTS Grounding36.470.175.874.9············
FLEURS ASR·············0.0750.090.069
FLoRes····48.8···········
GSM8K62.889.294.495.982.6···········
HiddenMath15.84354.560.3···27.737.7·······
INCLUDE·······38.657.2·······
IndicGenBench····63.4···········
LOFT Text Retrieval···········79.566.358.550.566.4
MGSM····74.3··53.160.7·······
MTOB (eng->kgv)···········52.95037.815.445.1
MTOB (kgv->eng)···········48.64534.628.237.3
MedXPertQA MM···········61.358.128.723.548.7
Natural Questions····36.115.520.9·········
OmniDocBench 1.5···········0.1310.1490.1810.290.164
PIQA····83.378.981··67.766.2·····
SIQA····54.9···········
SocialIQA·····48.850·········
WMT24++35.946.851.653.455.7···········
WMT24++ (ChrF)·······42.750.1·······
WinoGrande····78.866.871.7··5252.3·····
XQuAD····76.8···········
Microsoft AI54 scores (45 shown; variants of one benchmark collapsed)
BenchmarkMAI-DS-R1MAI-DS-R1MAI-Thinking-1MAI-Thinking-1MAI-Thinking-1MAI-Base-1 BaseMAI-Thinking-1MAI L66 Base (prior-gen 23B/612B, 30T t…MAI-Base-2MAI-Base-2 BaseMAI-Base-2MAI-Base-1 Base (as re-evaluated in MAI…
Agentic coding
SWE-bench Pro·52.8····
SWE-bench Verified·73.5····
Terminal-Bench 2.0·46····
Tool use & agents
BFCL v3·72····
Math
AIME 2025·97····
AIME 2026·94.5····
HMMT Feb 2026·84.9····
Code
LiveCodeBench (v6, May 2023-Apr 2025)·87.7····
MAI held-out Code BPB··0.24410.24830.22030.2401
Knowledge & reasoning
GPQA-Diamond·84.2····
MMLU-Pro·85····
SimpleQA Verified·31····
Long context
GraphWalks·90····
LongBench v2·61····
MRCR·60····
Chat & instruction following
IFBench·69····
Other
AIR-Bench·88····
AdvancedIF·85····
Blocking Test Set (internal)99.3·····
CorpusQA·82····
CyberSecEval 4 (Autocomplete)·63····
CyberSecEval 4 (Instruct)·63····
HealthBench Professional·35····
Human side-by-side vs Claude Opus 4.6·-0.07····
Human side-by-side vs Claude Sonnet 4.6·0.07····
Internal jailbreak suite (~9.5K prompts)·4.4····
LongFact·98····
MAI held-out Math BPB··0.38440.39370.35610.3939
MAI held-out QA BPB··0.44210.45110.41620.444
MAI held-out STEM BPB··0.39780.41330.36530.4026
MedXpertQA·43····
MultiChallenge·53····
TruthfulQA·88····
Thinking Machines121 scores (87 shown; variants of one benchmark collapsed)
BenchmarkInklingInklingInkling-SmallInkling-Small (Preview)Inkling-SmallInkling-Small
Agentic coding
SWE-bench Pro54.353.255.9
SWE-bench Verified77.677.480.2
Terminal-Bench 2.163.852.764.7
Search & browsing
BrowseComp77.1·77.4
HLE (w/ tools)4646.647.8
Tool use & agents
Design Arena Agentic Web Dev1257··
GDPval1238·1269
MCP-Atlas7674.979.6
Toolathlon-Verified45.5·54.4
tau3-Bench (Banking)23.713.615.5
Math
AIME 202697.195.195.5
HMMT Feb 202686.3·90.2
Code
SciCode46.1·48.7
Knowledge & reasoning
AA Omniscience2.1·-9
ARC-AGI-179.5·84
ARC-AGI-236.5·40.1
GPQA-Diamond87.288.389.5
Global-MMLU-Lite88.786.886.7
HLE (text)29.729.631.6
SimpleQA Verified43.920.920.6
Multimodal
CharXiv (RQ)78.176.777.4
MMMU-Pro73.573.174
Chat & instruction following
IFBench79.883.482.2
Prophet Arena0.1617·0.1238
Other
AA Index v4.141·40
AA-Briefcase839·917
Audio MC56.649.654.9
CritPt5.4·8.3
FORTRESS (Adversarial)7875.671.6
FORTRESS (Benign)95.994.196.9
ForecastBench61.1·61.3
MMAU77.277.577
StrongREJECT98.698.898.4
VoiceBench91.49090.1

Method and caveats

Sources. 414 public documents: model cards, technical reports, lab blogs and announcement pages, saved on Oct 24 and 25, 2026. Pages that only render in a browser were captured with a headless browser. A few facts come from Hugging Face config files or official pages fetched later; those cite their own URL.

Extraction. One reader per lab extracted every fact into a common format: value, stage, source link, page or section, and a quote of up to 200 characters. Values a source does not state are marked not disclosed rather than filled in. Values derived from stated ones are marked calc.

Checking. A second, independent reader re-opened the source for every release record, every fact that feeds a chart or the summary, every recorded change, a random sample of other facts and up to 40 eval scores per lab. Of 1,114 items re-checked, 25 were corrected: 11 release records (mostly dates and their sources), 7 descriptions of what changed, 6 facts and 1 eval label. None were unsupported. One value is marked inferred: DeepSeek V4's FP8 pretraining, which the report implies but never states. The six labs added later (Qwen, MiniMax, StepFun, Ling, Nemotron and Mistral) went through the same check: every release record, every fact that feeds a chart or the summary table, every recorded change and stage row, every Artificial Analysis value and a random sample of 30 other facts per lab. Their files mark more values inferred, such as Nemotron 3 Ultra's optimizer and Ling 3.0's token count.

Scope. A model a lab built on another lab's base (for example NVIDIA's and MiniMax's research models on Qwen) is included only when the lab's own flagship report builds on its recipe or data, and one-off research checkpoints are left out. Llama-Nemotron, NVIDIA's post-trained line on Meta's Llama, is kept as part of NVIDIA's own lineage.

Dates. Official announcement or report dates. Where a lab has no announcement page, the Hugging Face upload date is used and noted in the release record.

Known limits. Lab-reported scores are not comparable across labs without matching harnesses. Several releases have only a model card. Re-reported numbers for older models sometimes drift between a lab's reports; the newer report is used for the newer release. Microsoft AI's models other than MAI-DS-R1 are closed-weight. Every lab is described only from what it has published; where a source is silent, the value is marked not disclosed.

A

Sources

Every document the facts were read from. Dates on this page are official announcement or report dates; Hugging Face upload dates can run weeks earlier.

LabReleaseKindSizeLink
DeepSeekV3report53 pparxiv.org/pdf/2412.19437
DeepSeekR1report86 pparxiv.org/pdf/2501.12948
DeepSeekV3-0324model cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3-0324
DeepSeekProver-V2report39 pparxiv.org/pdf/2504.21801
DeepSeekR1-0528model cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1-0528
DeepSeekV3.1model cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.1
DeepSeekV3.1-Terminusmodel cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
DeepSeekV3.2-Expmodel cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
DeepSeekV3.2-Expreport6 ppraw.githubusercontent.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp/main/DeepSeek_V3_2.pdf
DeepSeekMath-V2report19 ppraw.githubusercontent.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-Math-V2/main/DeepSeekMath_V2.pdf
DeepSeekV3.2model cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.2
DeepSeekV3.2report23 pparxiv.org/pdf/2512.02556
DeepSeekV4model cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Pro
DeepSeekV4-Flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Flash
DeepSeekV4report58 pparxiv.org/pdf/2606.19348
DeepSeekV4-DSparkmodel cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Pro-DSpark
DeepSeekV4-DSparkreporaw.githubusercontent.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSpec/main/README.md
DeepSeekV4-Flash-0731model cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
DeepSeekV4-Pro-0813model cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813
DeepSeekV4-Flash-Vision-Expmodel cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Vision-Exp
DeepSeekV4.1-Flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
DeepSeekV4.1-Flashreport51 pphuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash/resolve/main/DeepSeek_V41_Tech_Report.pdf
DeepSeekV4.1-Flash-1017model cardhuggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
KimiMoonlightreport19 pparxiv.org/pdf/2502.16982
KimiKimi-VLreport24 pparxiv.org/pdf/2504.07491
KimiK2model cardhuggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2-Instruct
KimiK2report32 pparxiv.org/pdf/2507.20534
KimiK2-0905model cardhuggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2-Instruct-0905
KimiKimi-Linearmodel cardhuggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-Linear-48B-A3B-Instruct
KimiKimi-Linearreport28 pparxiv.org/pdf/2510.26692
KimiK2-Thinkingmodel cardhuggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2-Thinking
KimiK2-Thinkingblogmoonshotai.github.io/Kimi-K2/thinking.html
KimiK2.5model cardhuggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.5
KimiK2.5report31 pparxiv.org/pdf/2602.02276
KimiK2.6model cardhuggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.6
KimiK2.6blogwww.kimi.com/blog/kimi-k2-6.html
KimiK2.7-Codemodel cardhuggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.7-Code
KimiK3model cardhuggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K3
KimiK3report47 ppraw.githubusercontent.com/MoonshotAI/Kimi-K3/main/k3_tech_report.pdf
KimiK3blogwww.kimi.com/blog/kimi-k3
KimiK3.1-Problogwww.kimi.com/blog/kimi-k3-1-pro
GLMGLM-4-0414model cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-4-32B-0414
GLMGLM-Z1-0414model cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-Z1-32B-0414
GLMGLM-4.5Vreport42 pparxiv.org/pdf/2507.01006
GLMGLM-4.5model cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-4.5
GLMGLM-4.5report26 pparxiv.org/pdf/2508.06471
GLMGLM-4.5blogz.ai/blog/glm-4.5
GLMGLM-4.6model cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-4.6
GLMGLM-4.6blogz.ai/blog/glm-4.6
GLMGLM-4.6Vmodel cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-4.6V
GLMGLM-4.6Vblogz.ai/blog/glm-4.6v
GLMGLM-4.7model cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-4.7
GLMGLM-4.7blogz.ai/blog/glm-4.7
GLMGLM-4.7-Flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash
GLMGLM-5model cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-5
GLMGLM-5report40 pparxiv.org/pdf/2602.15763
GLMGLM-5blogz.ai/blog/glm-5
GLMGLM-5.1model cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-5.1
GLMGLM-5.1blogz.ai/blog/glm-5.1
GLMGLM-5.2model cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-5.2
GLMGLM-5.2blogz.ai/blog/glm-5.2
GLMGLM-5.2report18 pparxiv.org/pdf/2603.12201
GLMGLM-5.3model cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-5.3
GLMGLM-5.3blogz.ai/blog/glm-5.3
GLMGLM-5.3-Flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-5.3-Flash
GLMGLM-5.3-Flashblogz.ai/blog/glm-5.3-flash
MiMoMiMo-7Bmodel cardhuggingface.co/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-7B-RL
MiMoMiMo-7Breport28 pparxiv.org/pdf/2505.07608
MiMoMiMo-VLreport32 pparxiv.org/pdf/2506.03569
MiMoMiMo-V2-Flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2-Flash
MiMoMiMo-V2-Flashreport31 ppraw.githubusercontent.com/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2-Flash/main/paper.pdf
MiMoMiMo-V2-Flashblogmimo.xiaomi.com/blog/mimo-v2-flash
MiMoMiMo-V2.5model cardhuggingface.co/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.5
MiMoMiMo-V2.5blogmimo.xiaomi.com/mimo-v2-5
MiMoMiMo-V2.5-Promodel cardhuggingface.co/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.5-Pro
MiMoMiMo-V2.5-Problogmimo.xiaomi.com/mimo-v2-5-pro
MiMoMiMo-V2.6model cardhuggingface.co/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Pro-RL
MiMoMiMo-V2.6-Flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
MiMoMiMo-V2.6-MOPDmodel cardhuggingface.co/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Pro-MOPD
MiMoMiMo-V2.6report44 pphuggingface.co/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Pro-RL/resolve/main/MiMo_V2_6_technical_report.pdf
MiMoMiMo-V2.6blogmimo.xiaomi.com/mimo-v2-6
MiMoMiMo-V2.6-MOPDblogmimo.xiaomi.com/blog/mimo-v2-6-tool-call-repetition
GemmaGemma-3report25 pparxiv.org/pdf/2503.19786
GemmaGemma-3model cardai.google.dev/gemma/docs/core/model_card_3
GemmaGemma-3blogblog.google/technology/developers/gemma-3/
GemmaGemma-3nmodel cardai.google.dev/gemma/docs/gemma-3n/model_card
GemmaGemma-3nblogdevelopers.googleblog.com/en/introducing-gemma-3n-developer-guide/
GemmaGemma-3-270Mblogdevelopers.googleblog.com/en/introducing-gemma-3-270m/
GemmaGemma-4report17 pparxiv.org/pdf/2607.02770
GemmaGemma-4model cardhuggingface.co/google/gemma-4-31B-it
GemmaGemma-4model cardai.google.dev/gemma/docs/core/model_card_4
GemmaGemma-4blogblog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/developers-tools/gemma-4/
GemmaGemma-4-assistantmodel cardhuggingface.co/google/gemma-4-31B-it-assistant
GemmaGemma-4-12Bmodel cardhuggingface.co/google/gemma-4-12B-it
GemmaGemma-4-12Bblogblog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/developers-tools/introducing-gemma-4-12B/
Microsoft AIMAI-DS-R1model cardhuggingface.co/microsoft/MAI-DS-R1
Microsoft AIMAI-DS-R1data dochuggingface.co/microsoft/MAI-DS-R1/raw/main/data_summary_card.md
Microsoft AIMAI-1-previewblogmicrosoft.ai/news/two-new-in-house-models/
Microsoft AIMAI-Thinking-1report109 ppmicrosoft.ai/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/main_20260602_2.pdf
Microsoft AIMAI-Thinking-1blogmicrosoft.ai/news/introducing-mai-thinking-1/
Microsoft AIMAI-Thinking-1blogmicrosoft.ai/news/building-a-hillclimbing-machine-launching-seven-new-mai-models/
Microsoft AIMAI-Base-2blogmicrosoft.ai/news/frontier-pre-training-at-microsoft-ai/
Microsoft AIMAI-Base-2report13 ppmicrosoft.ai/pdf/Frontier-Pre-training-at-Microsoft-AI.pdf?v=2
Thinking MachinesInklingmodel cardhuggingface.co/thinkingmachines/Inkling
Thinking MachinesInklingblogthinkingmachines.ai/news/introducing-inkling/
Thinking MachinesInklingbloghuggingface.co/blog/thinkingmachines-inkling
Thinking MachinesInkling-Smallmodel cardhuggingface.co/thinkingmachines/Inkling-Small
Thinking MachinesInkling-Smallblogthinkingmachines.ai/news/inkling-small/
Thinking MachinesInkling-Smalldata docthinkingmachines.ai/training-data-documentation/
Thinking MachinesOpen-weights-policyblogthinkingmachines.ai/blog/a-safe-path-to-open-weights/
Thinking MachinesOPD-researchblogthinkingmachines.ai/blog/on-policy-distillation/
QwenQVQ-72B-Previewblogqwenlm.github.io/blog/qvq-72b-preview/
QwenQVQ-72B-Previewmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/QVQ-72B-Preview
QwenQwen2.5-1Mreport19 pparxiv.org/pdf/2501.15383
QwenQwen2.5-1Mblogqwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5-1m/
QwenQwen2.5-VLreport23 pparxiv.org/pdf/2502.13923
QwenQwen2.5-VLblogqwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5-vl/
QwenQwQ-32Bblogqwenlm.github.io/blog/qwq-32b/
QwenQwQ-32Bmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/QwQ-32B
QwenQwen2.5-VL-32Bblogqwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5-vl-32b/
QwenQwen2.5-VL-32Bmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct
QwenQwen2.5-Omnireport20 pparxiv.org/pdf/2503.20215
QwenQwen2.5-Omnicodegithub.com/QwenLM/Qwen2.5-Omni
QwenQwen3report35 pparxiv.org/pdf/2505.09388
QwenQwen3blogqwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen3/
QwenQwen3model cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-235B-A22B
QwenQwen3confighuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-235B-A22B/blob/main/config.json
QwenQwen3-2507codegithub.com/QwenLM/Qwen3
QwenQwen3-2507model cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507
QwenQwen3-2507model cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507
QwenQwen3-2507report7 pparxiv.org/pdf/2507.18071
QwenQwen3-2507blogqwenlm.github.io/blog/gspo/
QwenQwen3-Coderblogqwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen3-coder/
QwenQwen3-Codermodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B-Instruct
QwenQwen3-Coderconfighuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B-Instruct/blob/main/config.json
QwenQwen3-Codermodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
QwenQwen3-Nextblogqwen.ai/blog?id=4074cca80393150c248e508aa62983f9cb7d27cd&from=research.latest-advancements-list
QwenQwen3-Nextmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct
QwenQwen3-Nextmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking
QwenQwen3-Nextconfighuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct/blob/main/config.json
QwenQwen3-Omnireport25 pparxiv.org/pdf/2509.17765
QwenQwen3-VLreport42 pparxiv.org/pdf/2511.21631
QwenQwen3-VLmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B-Instruct
QwenQwen3-VLcodegithub.com/QwenLM/Qwen3-VL
QwenQVQ-72B-Previewmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/QVQ-72B-Preview/blob/main/LICENSE
QwenQwen2.5-VLmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct/blob/main/LICENSE
QwenQwen2.5-VLmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct/blob/main/LICENSE
QwenQwen2.5-Omnimodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen2.5-Omni-7B/blob/main/LICENSE
QwenQwen3-Coder-Nextreport23 pparxiv.org/pdf/2603.00729
QwenQwen3-Coder-Nextblogqwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3-coder-next
QwenQwen3-Coder-Nextmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-Next
QwenQwen3-Coder-Nextconfighuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-Next/blob/main/config.json
QwenQwen3.5blogqwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.5
QwenQwen3.5model cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
QwenQwen3.5confighuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.5-397B-A17B/blob/main/config.json
QwenQwen3.5codegithub.com/QwenLM/Qwen3.8
QwenQwen3.5-Mediummodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
QwenQwen3.5-Mediummodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B-Base
QwenQwen3.5-Mediummodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.5-27B
QwenQwen3.5-Smallmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.5-9B
QwenQwen3.5-Smallmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.5-0.8B
QwenQwen3.5-Smallconfighuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.5-0.8B/blob/main/config.json
QwenQwen3.5-Smallmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.5-0.8B-Base
QwenQwen3.6-35B-A3Bblogqwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.6-35b-a3b
QwenQwen3.6-35B-A3Bmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
QwenQwen3.6-27Bblogqwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.6-27b
QwenQwen3.6-27Bmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.6-27B
QwenQwen3.8blogqwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.8
QwenQwen3.8model cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B
QwenQwen3.8model cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B/blob/main/LICENSE
QwenQwen3.8-27Bmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B
QwenQwen3.5report28 pparxiv.org/pdf/2608.30320
QwenQwen3.5blogqwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.8-flash-next
QwenQwen3.8-Flash-Nextmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
QwenQwen3.8-Flash-Nextmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.8-Flash-Next/blob/main/LICENSE
QwenWebWorldreport27 pparxiv.org/pdf/2602.14721
QwenWebWorldmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/WebWorld-32B
QwenWebWorldconfighuggingface.co/Qwen/WebWorld-32B/blob/main/config.json
QwenQwen-AgentWorldreport47 pparxiv.org/pdf/2606.24597
QwenQwen-AgentWorldmodel cardhuggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
QwenQwen-AgentWorldblogqwen.ai/blog?id=qwen-agentworld
MiniMaxText-01report68 pparxiv.org/pdf/2501.08313
MiniMaxText-01model cardhuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-Text-01
MiniMaxVL-01model cardhuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-VL-01
MiniMaxText-01blogwww.minimax.io/news/minimax-01-series-2
MiniMaxText-01codegithub.com/MiniMax-AI/MiniMax-01/blob/main/LICENSE-MODEL
MiniMaxSynLogicmodel cardhuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/SynLogic-32B
MiniMaxSynLogicmodel cardhuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/SynLogic-Mix-3-32B
MiniMaxSynLogicconfighuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/SynLogic-32B/blob/main/config.json
MiniMaxM1report22 pparxiv.org/pdf/2506.13585
MiniMaxM1model cardhuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M1-80k
MiniMaxM1blogwww.minimax.io/news/minimaxm1
MiniMaxM2model cardhuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2
MiniMaxM2confighuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2/blob/main/config.json
MiniMaxM2blogwww.minimax.io/news/minimax-m2
MiniMaxM2codegithub.com/MiniMax-AI/MiniMax-M2/blob/main/LICENSE
MiniMax—blogwww.minimax.io/news/why-did-m2-end-up-as-a-full-attention-model
MiniMaxM2bloghuggingface.co/blog/MiniMax-AI/aligning-to-what
MiniMaxM2bloghuggingface.co/blog/MiniMax-AI/what-makes-good-reasoning-data
MiniMaxM2.1model cardhuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.1
MiniMaxM2.1blogwww.minimax.io/news/minimax-m21
MiniMaxM2.1codegithub.com/MiniMax-AI/MiniMax-M2.1/blob/main/LICENSE
MiniMaxM2.1confighuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.1/blob/main/config.json
MiniMaxM2.5model cardhuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.5
MiniMaxM2.5blogwww.minimax.io/news/minimax-m25
MiniMaxM2.5codehuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.5/blob/main/LICENSE-MODEL
MiniMaxM2.5confighuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.5/blob/main/config.json
MiniMaxM2.7model cardhuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.7
MiniMaxM2.7blogwww.minimax.io/news/minimax-m27-en
MiniMaxM2.7codegithub.com/MiniMax-AI/MiniMax-M2.7/blob/main/LICENSE
MiniMaxM2.7confighuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.7/blob/main/config.json
MiniMaxM2report35 pparxiv.org/pdf/2605.26494
MiniMaxM3blogwww.minimax.io/blog/minimax-m3
MiniMaxM3blogwww.minimax.io/models/text/m3
MiniMaxM3model cardhuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M3
MiniMaxM3confighuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M3/blob/main/config.json
MiniMaxM3codehuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M3/blob/main/LICENSE
MiniMaxM3report30 pparxiv.org/pdf/2606.13392
MiniMaxM3.1-Flashblogwww.minimax.io/blog/minimax-m31f
MiniMaxM3.1-Flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
MiniMaxM3.1-Flashconfighuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M3.1-Flash/blob/main/config.json
MiniMaxM3.1-Flashcodehuggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M3.1-Flash/blob/main/LICENSE
MiniMaxM3.1-Flashmodel cardplatform.minimax.io/docs/guides/text-generation
StepFunORZreport21 pparxiv.org/pdf/2503.24290
StepFunORZmodel cardhuggingface.co/Open-Reasoner-Zero/Open-Reasoner-Zero-32B
StepFunStep-3report18 pparxiv.org/pdf/2507.19427
StepFunStep-3blogweb.archive.org/web/20250731153741/https://stepfun.ai/research/en/step3
StepFunStep-3model cardhuggingface.co/stepfun-ai/step3
StepFunStep-3confighuggingface.co/stepfun-ai/step3/blob/main/config.json
StepFunPaCoRe-8Breport22 pparxiv.org/pdf/2601.05593
StepFunPaCoRe-8Bmodel cardhuggingface.co/stepfun-ai/PaCoRe-8B
StepFunStep-3.5-Flashreport67 pparxiv.org/pdf/2602.10604
StepFunStep-3.5-Flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/stepfun-ai/Step-3.5-Flash
StepFunStep-3.5-Flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/stepfun-ai/Step-3.5-Flash-Base
StepFunStep-3.7-Flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/stepfun-ai/Step-3.7-Flash
StepFunStep-3.7-Flashconfighuggingface.co/stepfun-ai/Step-3.7-Flash/blob/main/config.json
StepFunStep-3.7-Flashblogstatic.stepfun.com/blog/step-3.7-flash/
StepFun—model cardplatform.stepfun.ai/docs/en/guides/models/overview.md
StepFunStep-5-Previewmodel cardhuggingface.co/stepfun-ai/Step-5-Preview
StepFunStep-5-Previewconfighuggingface.co/stepfun-ai/Step-5-Preview/blob/main/config.json
StepFunStep-5-Previewblogplatform.stepfun.ai/blog/inside-step-5-preview
StepFunStep-5-Previewmodel cardplatform.stepfun.ai/docs/en/guides/models/step-5-preview.md
LingLing-plusreport34 pparxiv.org/pdf/2503.05139
LingLing-Coder-litereport19 pparxiv.org/pdf/2503.17793
LingRing-lite-distill-previewreport10 ppraw.githubusercontent.com/inclusionAI/Ring/main/Ring_Lite_Distill_Preview.pdf
LingRing-litereport21 pparxiv.org/pdf/2506.14731
LingRing-linear-2.0report20 pparxiv.org/pdf/2510.19338
LingRing-1Treport31 pparxiv.org/pdf/2510.18855
LingLing-mini-2.0report58 pparxiv.org/pdf/2510.22115
LingLing-2.6-1Treport43 pparxiv.org/pdf/2606.15079
LingLing-mini-2.0report6 pphuggingface.co/inclusionAI/AI-Transparency/resolve/main/Ling-2.0_TDS-Summary.pdf
LingRing-1Treport6 pphuggingface.co/inclusionAI/AI-Transparency/resolve/main/Ring-2.0_TDS-Summary.pdf
LingLing-2.5-1Treport6 pphuggingface.co/inclusionAI/AI-Transparency/resolve/main/Ling-2.5_TDS-Summary.pdf
LingRing-2.5-1Treport6 pphuggingface.co/inclusionAI/AI-Transparency/resolve/main/Ring-2.5_TDS-Summary.pdf
LingLing-2.6-1Treport6 pphuggingface.co/inclusionAI/AI-Transparency/resolve/main/Ling-2.6_TDS-Summary.pdf
LingRing-2.6-1Treport6 pphuggingface.co/inclusionAI/AI-Transparency/resolve/main/Ring-2.6_TDS-Summary.pdf
LingLing-3.0-flashreport6 pphuggingface.co/inclusionAI/AI-Transparency/resolve/main/Ling-3.0-LLM_TDS-Summary.pdf
LingLing-3.0-flash-VLreport7 pphuggingface.co/inclusionAI/AI-Transparency/resolve/main/Ling-3.0-VL_TDS-Summary.pdf
LingLing-3.1-flashreport6 pphuggingface.co/inclusionAI/AI-Transparency/resolve/main/Ling-3.1_TDS-Summary.pdf
LingLing-plusmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-lite
LingLing-plusmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-plus
LingLing-plusconfighuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-plus/blob/main/config.json
LingLing-Coder-litemodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-Coder-lite
LingRing-lite-distill-previewmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-lite-distill-preview
LingRing-lite-linear-previewmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-lite-linear-preview
LingLing-lite-1.5codegithub.com/inclusionAI/Ling
LingLing-lite-1.5model cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-lite-1.5
LingRing-litemodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-lite
LingLing-lite-1.5-2506model cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-lite-1.5-2506
LingRing-lite-2507bloginclusionai.github.io/blog/ring-lite-2507/
LingRing-lite-2507model cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-lite-2507
LingLing-lite-1.5-2507model cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-lite-1.5-2507
LingLing-mini-2.0model cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-mini-2.0
LingLing-mini-2.0confighuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-mini-2.0/blob/main/config.json
LingRing-mini-2.0model cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-mini-2.0
LingLing-flash-2.0model cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-flash-2.0
LingLing-flash-2.0confighuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-flash-2.0/blob/main/config.json
LingRing-flash-2.0model cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-flash-2.0
LingRing-linear-2.0model cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-flash-linear-2.0
LingLing-1Tmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-1T
LingLing-1Tconfighuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-1T/blob/main/config.json
LingRing-1Tmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-1T
LingRing-mini-sparse-2.0-expmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-mini-sparse-2.0-exp
LingRing-mini-sparse-2.0-expconfighuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-mini-sparse-2.0-exp/blob/main/config.json
LingRing-flash-linear-2.0-128kmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-flash-linear-2.0-128k
LingRing-2.5-1Tmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-2.5-1T
LingRing-2.5-1Tmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-2.5-1T
LingLing-2.6-flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-2.6-flash
LingLing-2.6-1Tmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-2.6-1T
LingLing-2.6-1Tmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-2.6-1T-base
LingRing-2.6-1Tmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ring-2.6-1T
LingLing-3.0-flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-flash
LingLing-3.0-flashconfighuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-flash/blob/main/config.json
LingLing-3.0-flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-flash-base
LingLing-3.0-tinymodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-tiny
LingLing-3.0-tinymodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-tiny-base
LingLing-3.0-tinyconfighuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-tiny/blob/main/config.json
LingLing-3.0-flash-Finmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-flash-Fin
LingLing-3.0-flash-VLmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-flash-VL
LingLing-3.1-flashmodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.1-flash
LingLing-3.1-flashconfighuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.1-flash/blob/main/config.json
LingLing-3.0-flash-Santemodel cardhuggingface.co/inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-flash-Sante
LingLing-3.0-flashblogdeveloper.ant-ling.com/en/docs/models/ling/
Ling—blogdeveloper.ant-ling.com/en/docs/getting-started/changelog/
NemotronOpenCodeReasoning-Nemotronreport15 pparxiv.org/pdf/2504.01943
NemotronNemotron-Hreport35 pparxiv.org/pdf/2504.03624
NemotronLlama-Nemotronmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/Llama-3_1-Nemotron-Ultra-253B-v1
NemotronLlama-Nemotronconfighuggingface.co/nvidia/Llama-3_1-Nemotron-Ultra-253B-v1/blob/main/config.json
NemotronNemotron-Hmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/Nemotron-H-56B-Base-8K
NemotronNemotron-Hconfighuggingface.co/nvidia/Nemotron-H-56B-Base-8K/blob/main/config.json
NemotronOpenCodeReasoning-Nemotronmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/OpenCodeReasoning-Nemotron-32B
NemotronOpenMath-Nemotronmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/OpenMath-Nemotron-32B
NemotronOpenMath-Nemotronreport39 pparxiv.org/pdf/2504.16891
NemotronLlama-Nemotronreport24 pparxiv.org/pdf/2505.00949
NemotronLN-Nano-4B-v1.1model cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/Llama-3.1-Nemotron-Nano-4B-v1.1
NemotronAceReason-Nemotronmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/AceReason-Nemotron-14B
NemotronAceReason-Nemotronreport23 pparxiv.org/pdf/2505.16400
NemotronLN-Nano-4B-v1.1blogforums.developer.nvidia.com/t/meet-nvidia-llama-nemotron-nano-4b/334126
NemotronLN-Nano-VLmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/Llama-3.1-Nemotron-Nano-VL-8B-V1
NemotronLN-Nano-VLblogdeveloper.nvidia.com/blog/new-nvidia-llama-nemotron-nano-vision-language-model-tops-ocr-benchmark-for-accuracy/
NemotronNemotron-H-Reasoningmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/Nemotron-H-47B-Reasoning-128K
NemotronNemotron-H-Reasoningblogdeveloper.nvidia.com/blog/nemotron-h-reasoning-enabling-throughput-gains-with-no-compromises/
NemotronLN-Nano-4B-v1.1bloghuggingface.co/blog/nvidia/supercharge-edge-ai-with-llama-nemotron-nano
NemotronOpenCodeReasoning-Nemotronmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/OpenCodeReasoning-Nemotron-1.1-32B
NemotronAceReason-Nemotronreport23 pparxiv.org/pdf/2506.13284
Nemotron—model cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/AceReason-Nemotron-1.1-7B
NemotronLN-Super-v1.5model cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/Llama-3_3-Nemotron-Super-49B-v1_5
NemotronLN-Super-v1.5blogdeveloper.nvidia.com/blog/build-more-accurate-and-efficient-ai-agents-with-the-new-nvidia-llama-nemotron-super-v1-5/
NemotronNano-2model cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-Nano-9B-v2
NemotronNano-2model cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-Nano-12B-v2-Base
NemotronNano-2confighuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-Nano-12B-v2-Base/blob/main/config.json
NemotronNano-2report43 pparxiv.org/pdf/2508.14444
NemotronNano-2-VLmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-Nano-12B-v2-VL-BF16
NemotronNano-2-VLreport29 pparxiv.org/pdf/2511.03929
NemotronNemotron-Cascademodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/Nemotron-Cascade-14B-Thinking
NemotronNemotron-3-Nanomodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16
NemotronNemotron-3-Nanoconfighuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B-BF16/blob/main/config.json
NemotronNemotron-3-Nanoblognvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-debuts-nemotron-3-family-of-open-models
NemotronNemotron-Cascadereport60 pparxiv.org/pdf/2512.13607
NemotronNemotron-3-Nanoreport40 pparxiv.org/pdf/2512.20848
NemotronNemotron-3-Nanoreport13 pparxiv.org/pdf/2512.20856
NemotronNemotron-Terminalmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/Nemotron-Terminal-32B
NemotronNemotron-Terminalreport24 pparxiv.org/pdf/2602.21193
NemotronNemotron-3-Supermodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Super-120B-A12B-BF16
NemotronNemotron-3-Superconfighuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Super-120B-A12B-BF16/blob/main/config.json
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-4Bmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-4B-BF16
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-4Bbloghuggingface.co/blog/nvidia/nemotron-3-nano-4b
NemotronCascade-2model cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/Nemotron-Cascade-2-30B-A3B
NemotronCascade-2report63 pparxiv.org/pdf/2603.19220
NemotronNemotron-3-Nanoreport51 pparxiv.org/pdf/2604.12374
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-Omnireport27 pparxiv.org/pdf/2604.24954
NemotronNemotron-3-Nano-Omnimodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/Nemotron-3-Nano-Omni-30B-A3B-Reasoning-BF16
NemotronNemotron-3-Ultramodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Ultra-550B-A55B-BF16
NemotronNemotron-3-Ultraconfighuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Ultra-550B-A55B-BF16/blob/main/config.json
NemotronNemotron-3-Ultrareport65 pparxiv.org/pdf/2606.15007
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Lightningmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3.5-Lightning-30B-A3B-BF16
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Lightningconfighuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3.5-Lightning-30B-A3B-BF16/blob/main/config.json
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Lightningblogdeveloper.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-nemotron-3-5-lightning-delivers-fast-accurate-specialized-task-execution-for-long-running-agents/
NemotronLabs-Competitive-Codingmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-Labs-3-Competitive-Coding-550B-A55B-NVFP4
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Supermodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3.5-Super-VL-120B-A12B-BF16
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Superconfighuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3.5-Super-VL-120B-A12B-BF16/blob/main/config.json
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Superblogblogs.nvidia.com/blog/nemotron-3-5-super-vl/
NemotronBolt-74Breport19 ppresearch.nvidia.com/labs/nemotron/files/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3.5-Bolt-74B-A9B-24GB-Technical-Report.pdf
NemotronBolt-74Bmodel cardhuggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3.5-Bolt-74B-A9B-BF16
NemotronBolt-74Bblogresearch.nvidia.com/labs/nemotron/Nemotron-3.5-Bolt-24GB/
NemotronNemotron-3.5-Lightningreport79 ppresearch.nvidia.com/labs/nemotron/files/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3.5-Super-and-Lightning-Technical-Report.pdf
MistralSmall-3blogmistral.ai/news/mistral-small-3
MistralSmall-3model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct-2501
MistralSmall-3model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-24B-Base-2501
MistralSmall-3confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-24B-Base-2501/blob/main/params.json
MistralSmall-3confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-24B-Base-2501/blob/main/config.json
MistralSmall-3.1blogmistral.ai/news/mistral-small-3-1
MistralSmall-3.1model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instruct-2503
MistralSmall-3.1confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Base-2503/blob/main/params.json
MistralSmall-3.1confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instruct-2503/blob/main/SYSTEM_PROMPT.txt
MistralDevstral-Small-1.0blogmistral.ai/news/devstral
MistralDevstral-Small-1.0model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Devstral-Small-2505
MistralDevstral-Small-1.0report10 pparxiv.org/pdf/2509.25193
MistralMagistral-Small-1.0blogmistral.ai/news/magistral
MistralMagistral-Small-1.0report23 pparxiv.org/pdf/2506.10910
MistralMagistral-Small-1.0model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Magistral-Small-2506
MistralSmall-3.2model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-3.2-24B-Instruct-2506
MistralSmall-3.2blogdocs.mistral.ai/resources/changelogs
MistralDevstral-Small-1.1blogmistral.ai/news/devstral-2507
MistralDevstral-Small-1.1model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Devstral-Small-2507
Mistral—blogmistral.ai/news/voxtral
MistralVoxtralreport17 pparxiv.org/pdf/2507.13264
MistralMagistral-Small-1.1model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Magistral-Small-2507
MistralMagistral-Small-1.2model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Magistral-Small-2509
MistralLarge-3blogmistral.ai/news/mistral-3
MistralLarge-3model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Large-3-675B-Instruct-2512
MistralLarge-3model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Large-3-675B-Base-2512
MistralLarge-3confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Large-3-675B-Base-2512/blob/main/params.json
MistralLarge-3confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Large-3-675B-Instruct-2512/blob/main/SYSTEM_PROMPT.txt
MistralMinistral-3report14 pparxiv.org/pdf/2601.08584
MistralMinistral-3confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Ministral-3-14B-Instruct-2512/blob/main/SYSTEM_PROMPT.txt
MistralDevstral-2blogmistral.ai/news/devstral-2-vibe-cli
MistralDevstral-2model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Devstral-2-123B-Instruct-2512
MistralDevstral-2confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Devstral-2-123B-Instruct-2512/blob/main/params.json
MistralDevstral-2model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Devstral-Small-2-24B-Instruct-2512
MistralDevstral-2confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Large-Instruct-2411/blob/main/params.json
MistralSmall-4blogmistral.ai/news/mistral-small-4
MistralSmall-4model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-4-119B-2603
MistralSmall-4confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-4-119B-2603/blob/main/params.json
MistralSmall-4confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Small-4-119B-2603/blob/main/SYSTEM_PROMPT.txt
MistralLeanstralblogmistral.ai/news/leanstral
MistralLeanstralmodel cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Leanstral-2603
MistralMedium-3.5blogmistral.ai/news/vibe-remote-agents-mistral-medium-3-5
MistralMedium-3.5model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B
MistralMedium-3.5confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B/blob/main/params.json
MistralMedium-3.5confighuggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B/blob/main/SYSTEM_PROMPT.txt
MistralLeanstral-1.5blogmistral.ai/news/leanstral-1-5
MistralLeanstral-1.5model cardhuggingface.co/mistralai/Leanstral-1.5-119B-A6B
MistralLarge-4blogmistral.ai/news/mistral-large-4
MistralLarge-4model carddocs.mistral.ai/models/mistral-large-4-0
B

All facts

Search every extracted fact. Each row has the value, where in the source it appears, and the quote it came from.

LabReleaseStageFieldValueWhere
C

Citation

To give credit if you find this work useful, please cite:

@misc{ma2026openrecipes,
  title={Reading Open-Weight Recipes: A Lab-by-Lab Atlas of 2025--26 Model Reports},
  author={Ma, Ziqiao},
  howpublished={\url{https://mars-tin.github.io/blogs/posts/open_recipes_atlas}},
  note={Blog post},
  year={2026}
}