license: other
license_name: motif-license
license_link: LICENSE
language:
- en
Introduction
We announce Motif 2.6B, a 2.6 billion parameter language model trained from scratch on AMD Instinct™ MI250X GPUs. Motif 2.6B marks our very first step toward building helpful, reliable AI aligned with human values. With this initial release, our goal is for Motif 2.6B to match the performance of well-known open-source models such as Phi, Llama, and Qwen — particularly those in the sLLM regime.
Training information
- GPUs: 384 MI250X
- Training time: 42 days
- Training data: 2.4T tokens
A detailed technical report will be released at a later time.
Evaluation
When models are released, their accompanying technical reports or papers often present benchmark results based on evaluation settings chosen by the developers. While this is a common and understandable practice, it can lead to challenges when comparing models across different organizations. The same model may yield different scores depending on evaluation conditions, and details of these conditions are not always fully disclosed. This lack of standardization can make it difficult for the open-source community to interpret and trust reported results. We therefore reference performance scores based on the official numbers reported by each model’s developers in their respective publications.
To illustrate how much evaluation scores can vary across reports, we provide concrete examples of benchmark score differences for major models in the Evaluation Appendix.
Comparison to Mistral 7B by Mistral AI
The benchmarks and corresponding scores listed in the table below are taken directly from the Mistral 7B technical report.
| Benchmark | Metric | Mistral 7B | Motif 2.6B | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 5-shot | 60.1 | 57.93 | -3.61% |
| HellaSwag | 0-shot | 81.3 | 61.35 | -24.54% |
| WinoG | 0-shot | 75.3 | 59.91 | -20.44% |
| PIQA | 0-shot | 83 | 75.95 | -8.49% |
| Arc-e | 0-shot | 80 | 87.21 | +9.01% |
| Arc-c | 0-shot | 55.5 | 74.2 | +33.69% |
| NQ | 5-shot | 28.8 | 11.14 | -61.32% |
| TriviaQA | 5-shot | 69.9 | 54.97 | -21.36% |
| HumanEval | 0-shot | 30.5 | 68.3 | +123.93% |
| MBPP | 3-shot | 47.5 | 60.3 | +26.95% |
| MATH | 4-shot, maj@4 | 13.1 | 40.2* | +206.87% |
| GSM8K | 8-shot, maj@8 | 52.2 | 77.71 | +48.87% |
| Average | +33.77% |
* : We report the 4-shot score instead of the 4-shot, maj@4.
Comparison to the Gemma series by Google
Gemma 1 & 2
The benchmarks and corresponding scores listed in the table below are taken directly from the Gemma 2 technical report.
Note: Although referred to as "2B", Gemma 2 2B actually has 2.6 billion parameters.
| Benchmark | Metric | Gemma 1 2B | Gemma 1 7B | Gemma 2 2B | Gemma 2 9B | Motif 2.6B | Improvement(over 1 1B) | Improvement(over 1 7B) | Improvement(over 2 2B) | Improvement(over 2 9B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 5-shot | 42.3 | 64.4 | 52.2 | 71.3 | 57.93 | +36.95% | -10.05% | +10.98% | -18.75% |
| ARC-C | 25-shot | 48.5 | 61.1 | 55.7 | 68.4 | 75.08 | +54.80% | +22.88% | +34.79% | +9.77% |
| GSM8K | 5-shot | 15.1 | 51.8 | 24.3 | 68.6 | 67.85 | +349.34% | +30.98% | +179.22% | -1.09% |
| AGIEval* | 3-5-shot | 24.2 | 44.9 | 31.5 | 52.8 | - | - | - | - | - |
| DROP | 3-shot, F1 | 48.5 | 56.3 | 51.2 | 69.4 | 29.33 | -39.53% | -47.90% | -42.71% | -57.74% |
| BBH | 3-shot, CoT | 35.2 | 59 | 41.9 | 68.2 | 48.56 | 37.95% | -17.69% | +15.89% | -28.80% |
| Winogrande | 5-shot | 66.8 | 79 | 71.3 | 80.6 | 67.09 | +0.43% | -15.08% | -5.90% | -16.76% |
| HellaSwag | 10-shot | 71.7 | 82.3 | 72.9 | 81.9 | 69.89 | -2.52% | -15.08% | -4.13% | -14.66% |
| MATH | 4-shot | 11.8 | 24.3 | 16 | 36.6 | 40.2 | +240.88% | +65.43% | +151.25% | +9.84% |
| ARC-e | 0-shot | 73.2 | 81.5 | 80.6 | 88 | 87.21 | +19.14% | +7.01% | +8.20% | -0.90% |
| PIQA | 0-shot | 77.3 | 81.2 | 78.4 | 81.7 | 75.95 | -1.75% | -6.47% | -3.13% | -7.04% |
| SIQA | 0-shot | 49.7 | 51.8 | 51.9 | 53.4 | 61.97 | +24.69% | +19.63% | +19.40% | +16.05% |
| Boolq | 0-shot | 69.4 | 83.2 | 72.7 | 84.2 | 67.76 | -2.36% | -18.56% | -6.80% | -19.52% |
| TriviaQA | 5-shot | 53.2 | 63.4 | 60.4 | 76.6 | 54.97 | +3.33% | -13.30% | -8.99% | -28.24% |
| NQ | 5-shot | 12.5 | 23 | 17.1 | 29.2 | 10.91 | -12.72% | -52.57% | -36.20% | -62.64% |
| HumanEval | pass@1 | 22 | 32.3 | 20.1 | 40.2 | 68.3 | +210.45% | +111.46% | +239.80% | +69.90% |
| MBPP | 3-shot | 29.2 | 44.4 | 30.2 | 52.4 | 60.3 | +106.51% | +35.81% | +99.67% | +15.08% |
| Average | +84.76% | +1.69% | +42.42% | -14.78% |
*: We were unable to find an evaluation framework for this benchmark.
Gemma 3
The benchmarks and corresponding scores listed in the table below are taken directly from the Gemma 3 technical report.
| Benchmark | Metric | Gemma 3 1B | Gemma 3 4B | Motif 2.6B | Improvement(over 1B) | Improvement(over 4B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HellaS | 10-shot | 62.3 | 77.2 | 69.89 | +12.18% | -9.47% |
| BoolQ | 0-shot | 63.2 | 72.3 | 67.76 | +7.22% | -6.28% |
| PIQA | 0-shot | 73.8 | 79.6 | 75.59 | +2.43% | -5.04% |
| SIQA | 0-shot | 48.9 | 51.9 | 61.97 | +26.73% | +19.40% |
| TQA | 5-shot | 39.8 | 65.8 | 54.97 | +38.12% | -16.46% |
| NQ | 5-shot | 9.48 | 20 | 10.91 | +15.08% | -45.45% |
| ARC-C | 25-shot | 38.4 | 56.2 | 75.08 | +95.52% | +33.59% |
| ARC-E | 0-shot | 73 | 82.4 | 87.21 | +19.47% | +5.84% |
| WinoG | 5-shot | 58.2 | 64.7 | 67.09 | +15.27% | +3.69% |
| BBH | few-shot, CoT | 28.4 | 50.9 | 48.56 | +70.99% | -4.60% |
| Drop | 1-shot, F1 | 42.4 | 60.1 | 29.33 | -30.83% | -51.20% |
| MMLU | 5-shot | - | 59.6 | 57.93 | - | -2.80% |
| MMLUpro | 5-shot, CoT | - | 29.2 | - | - | - |
| AGIE | 3-5-shot | - | 42.1 | - | - | - |
| MATH | 4-shot, CoT | - | 24.2 | 40.2 | - | +66.12% |
| GSM8K | 8-shot, CoT | - | 38.4 | 77.71 | - | +102.37% |
| GPQA Diamond | 5-shot, CoT | - | 15 | 31.81 | - | +112.07% |
| MBPP | 3-shot | - | 46 | 60.3 | - | +31.09% |
| HumanE | 0-shot | - | 36 | 68.3 | - | +89.72% |
| IFEval | - | 80.2 | 90.2 | 74.02 | -7.71% | -17.94% |
| Average | +22.04% | +16.93% |
Comparison to the Llama series by Meta
Llama 3
The benchmarks and corresponding scores listed in the table below are taken directly from the Llama 3 technical report.
| Benchmark | Metric | Llama 3 8B | Motif 2.6B | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 5-shot | 69.4 | 57.93 | -16.53% |
| MMLU | 0-shot, CoT | 73 | 57.95 | -20.62% |
| MMLU-Pro | 5-shot, CoT | 48.3 | - | - |
| IFEval | - | 80.4 | 74.02 | -7.94% |
| HumanEval | 0-shot | 72.6 | 68.3 | -5.92% |
| MBPP | 0-shot | 72.8 | 57.93 | -20.43% |
| GSM8K | 8-shot, CoT | 84.5 | 77.71 | -8.04% |
| MATH | 0-shot, CoT | 51.9 | 49.68 | -4.28% |
| ARC Challenge | 0-shot | 83.4 | 74.2 | -11.03% |
| GPQA | 0-shot, CoT | 32.8 | 18.53 | -43.51% |
| Average | -15.36% |
Llama 3.2
The benchmarks and corresponding scores listed in the table below are taken directly from the Llama 3.2 official blog.
| Benchmark | Metric | Llama 3.2 1B | Llama 3.2 1B | Motif 2.6B | Improvement(over 1B) | Improvement(over 3B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 0-shot | 49.3 | 63.4 | 57.6 | +16.75% | -9.21% |
| Open-rewrite eval* | 0-shot, rougeL | 41.6 | 40.1 | - | - | - |
| TLDR9+* | test, 1-shot, rougeL | 16.8 | 19 | - | - | - |
| IFEval | - | 59.5 | 77.4 | 74.02 | +24.40% | -4.37% |
| GSM9K | 8-shot, CoT | 44.4 | 77.7 | 74.9 | +68.69% | -3.60% |
| MATH | 0-shot, CoT | 30.6 | 48 | 49.68 | +62.35% | +3.50% |
| ARC Challenge | 0-shot | 59.4 | 78.6 | 74.2 | +24.92% | -5.6% |
| GPQA | 0-shot | 27.2 | 32.8 | 25.45 | -6.43% | -22.41% |
| Hellaswag | 0-shot | 41.2 | 69.8 | 61.35 | +48.91% | -12.11% |
| Average | +39.42% | -3.86% |
*: We were unable to find an evaluation framework for this benchmark.
Comparison to the Phi series by Microsoft
The benchmarks and corresponding scores listed in the table below are taken directly from the Phi-3 technical report.
| Benchmark | Metric | Phi-3 3.8B | Phi-3 7B | Phi-2 2.7B | Motif 2.6B | Improvement(over 3.8B) | Improvement(over 7B) | Improvement(over 2.7B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 5-shot | 68.8 | 75.7 | 56.3 | 57.93 | -15.80% | -23.47% | +2.90% |
| HellaSwag | 5-shot | 76.7 | 77 | 53.6 | 68.97 | -10.08% | -10.43% | +28.68% |
| ANLI | 7-shot | 52.8 | 58.1 | 42.5 | 47.99 | -9.11% | -17.40% | +12.92% |
| GSM-8K | 8-shot, CoT | 82.5 | 89.6 | 61.1 | 76.5 | -7.27% | -14.62% | +25.20% |
| MATH | 0-shot, CoT | 41.3 | 34.6 | - | 49.68 | +20.29% | +43.58% | - |
| MedQA | 2-shot | 53.8 | 65.4 | 40.9 | 42.1 | -21.75% | -35.63% | +2.93% |
| AGIEval* | 0-shot | 37.5 | 45.1 | 29.8 | - | - | - | - |
| TriviaQA | 5-shot | 64 | 58.1 | 45.2 | 54.97 | -14.11% | -5.39% | +21.62% |
| Arc-C | 10-shot | 84.9 | 90.7 | 75.9 | 75.17 | -11.46% | -17.12% | -0.96% |
| Arc-E | 10-shot | 94.6 | 97 | 88.5 | 88.64 | -6.30% | -8.62% | +0.16% |
| PIQA | 5-shot | 84.2 | 86.9 | 60.2 | 78.29 | -7.02% | -9.91% | +30.05% |
| SociQA | 5-shot | 76.6 | 79.2 | 68.3 | 66.73 | -12.89% | -15.74% | -2.3% |
| BigBench-Hard | 3-shot, CoT | 71.7 | 79.1 | 59.4 | 48.56 | -32.27% | -38.61% | -18.25% |
| WinoGrande | 5-shot | 70.8 | 81.5 | 54.7 | 67.09 | -5.24% | -17.68% | +22.65% |
| OpenBookQA | 10-shot | 83.2 | 88 | 73.6 | 87.8 | +5.53% | -0.23% | +19.29% |
| BoolQ | 2-shot | 77.2 | 84.8 | - | 70.7 | -8.42% | -16.63% | - |
| CommonSenseQA | 10-shot | 80.2 | 80 | 69.3 | 71.25 | -11.16% | -10.94% | 2.81% |
| TruthfulQA | 10-shot | 65 | 70.2 | - | 52.07 | -19.89% | -25.83% | - |
| HumanEval | 0-shot | 58.5 | 61 | 59 | 68.29 | +16.74% | +11.95% | +15.75% |
| MBPP | 3-shot | 70 | 71.7 | 60.6 | 60.3 | -13.86% | -15.90% | -0.50% |
| GPQA | 2-shot, CoT | 32.8 | 34.3 | - | 23.44 | -28.54% | -31.66% | - |
| MT Bench | 2R. Avg. | 8.38 | 8.7 | - | 6.77 | -19.21% | -22.18% | - |
| Average | -10.09% | -13.45% | +10.18% |
*: We were unable to find an evaluation framework for this benchmark.
Evaluation Appendix
In the comparisons presented above, Motif 2.6B showed average performance improvements of -15.36% and -14.78% over Llama 3 8B and Gemma 2 9B, respectively, based on the benchmark scores reported in their original technical reports. However, when compared to the benchmarks and scores reported in the Qwen 2.5 technical report, Motif 2.6B shows an average improvement of +18.55% over Llama 3 8B and +1.12% over Gemma 2 9B. See the table below for details.
Comparison to Llama 3 8B and Gemma 2 9B based on scores from the Qwen2.5 technical report
The benchmarks and corresponding scores listed in the table below are taken directly from the Qwen2.5 technical report.
| Benchmark | Metric | Llama 3 8B | Gemma 2 9B | Motif 2.6B | Improvement(over Llama 3 8B) | Improvement(over Gemma 2 9B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 5-shot | 66.6 | 71.3 | 57.93 | -13.02% | -18.75% |
| MMLU-pro | 5-shot | 35.4 | 44.7 | 28.4 | -19.77% | -36.47% |
| MMLU-redux | 5-shot | 61.6 | 67.9 | 59.54 | -3.34% | -12.31% |
| BBH | 3-shot | 57.7 | 68.2 | 39.28 | -31.92% | -42.40% |
| ARC-C | 25-shot | 59.3 | 68.2 | 75.08 | +26.61% | +10.09% |
| TruthfulQA | 0-shot | 44 | 45.3 | 41.55 | -5.56% | -8.27% |
| Winogrande | 5-shot | 77.4 | 79.5 | 67.09 | -13.32% | -15.61% |
| HellaSwag | 10-shot | 82.1 | 81.9 | 69.88 | -14.88% | -14.68% |
| GPQA | 5-shot | 25.8 | 32.8 | 29.24 | +13.33% | -10.85% |
| TheoremQA | 5-shot | 22.1 | 28.9 | - | - | - |
| MATH | 4-shot | 20.5 | 37.7 | 40.2 | +96.10% | +6.63% |
| MMLU-stem | 5-shot | 55.3 | 65.1 | 52.9 | -4.34% | -18.74% |
| GSM8K | 4-shot | 55.3 | 70.7 | 68.84 | +24.48% | -2.63% |
| HumanEval | 0-shot | 33.5 | 37.8 | 68.3 | +103.88% | +80.69% |
| HumanEval+ | 0-shot | 29.3 | 30.5 | 62.2 | +112.29% | +103.93% |
| MBPP | 0-shot | 53.9 | 62.2 | 60.3 | +11.87% | -3.05% |
| MBPP+ | 0-shot | 44.4 | 50.6 | 50.8 | +14.41% | +0.40% |
| MultiPL-E | 0-shot | 22.6 | 34.9 | - | - | - |
| Average | +18.55% | +1.12% |