Inkling 2 Small Model Card

1. General information

Model name

Inkling 2 Small

Thinking Machines Lab, Inc.

Date of release

Nov 5, 2026

License

Tinker Terms of Use

Intended uses

Inkling 2 Small is a general-purpose multimodal model that accepts text and image inputs and generates text outputs. It is intended for use in English and other languages, and across multiple coding languages. The model is designed to be used by developers building AI-powered applications, including agentic and tool-use systems, coding assistants, chatbots, and retrieval-augmented generation systems, and is suitable for general-purpose conversational use, instruction-following, and other natural language and visual tasks.

Model Acceptable Use Policy

Languages

English, general multilingual support

2. Model properties

Model type

Multimodal autoregressive transformer

Architecture type

A 48 layer decoder-only transformer with a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) feed-forward backbone: each token is routed to 8 of 384 experts. Attention is a hybrid of local and global layers. The model is natively multimodal – images are encoded via a vision transformer – with image and text inputs projected into a shared hidden space and processed jointly by the decoder.

Parameters

594B total parameters, 17B active

Numerics support

MXFP8 and NVFP4

Input modalities

  • Text: UTF-8 encoded text
  • Image: Any pixel-based image input. For optimal performance, each image dimension should be between 40px to 4096px.

Inkling 2 Small supports a context window of up to 1M tokens.

Output modalities

Text: UTF-8 encoded text

3. Methods of distribution

Developers can access the model using the Tinker platform, which provides API access for fine-tuning and inference.

  • For fine-tuning our model via Tinker, you can get started by referring to the Tinker Cookbook here, and installing the tml-renderers package here.
  • Tinker playground also provides inference-only access to the model here.

4. Training

Data types

Training data includes a broad variety of content types, including text, images, video.

Data provenance

Training data for the model was drawn from publicly available sources, acquired from third-parties, generated internally, or synthetically generated or augmented. Publicly available data includes content from the public internet and publicly accessible repositories.

Curation methodologies

Data curation includes cleaning, processing, and modifying datasets. These processing steps, which vary by data type, may include deduplication and filtering to remove junk or other low-quality data, or to advance safety or other objectives.

5. Evaluations

Open Weights FlashOpen Weights ProClosed Weights Flash
Inkling 2 SmallGLM-5.3-FlashMiMo V2.6 FlashMiniMax-M3.1-FlashDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Spark OpenGLM 5.3MiMo V2.6 ProMistral Large 4Kimi K3GPT-6 LunaGemini 3.8 FlashClaude Haiku 5.5
Third Party Index
AA Index (v5.0)27.826.729.132.6 (Second-highest reported score in this row)24.931.729.926.1–27.930.836.5 (Highest reported score in this row)
Vals Index (v2.2)50.9%54.8%53.8%61.3% (Highest reported score in this row)48.6%59.7% (Second-highest reported score in this row)57.8%56.5%53.0%52.3%56.0%58.7%
Coding
FrontierCode v2.014.2%21.6%20.8%28.5% (Second-highest reported score in this row)7.6%21.6%24.0%15.0%17.3%25.2%18.7%34.9% (Highest reported score in this row)
DeepSWE v1.163.4%67.9%73.7%77.0% (Highest reported score in this row)60.0%69.0%71.9%61.7%68.5%66.6%73.8% (Second-highest reported score in this row)59.9%
Terminal Bench Science v0.14.8%4.3%3.3%12.9% (Second-highest reported score in this row)1.9%9.5%5.7%4.3%8.1%8.6%10.0%20.0% (Highest reported score in this row)
Terminal Bench v4.032.8%22.7%25.8%33.8%8.1%41.9% (Highest reported score in this row)34.9% (Second-highest reported score in this row)24.8%12.6%12.6%19.7%32.8%
Terminal Bench 2.1Inkling 2 Small: Pi harness84.3%87.6%81.7%78.4%76.4%88.2%89.9% (Highest reported score in this row)–88.3%–89.4% (Second-highest reported score in this row)–
Terminal Bench v2.1 (Terminus)84.3%–––76.4%83.9%––85.0% (Second-highest reported score in this row)–87.6% (Highest reported score in this row)–
Vibe Code Bench v1.130.8%79.0%73.9%87.7% (Second-highest reported score in this row)76.2%78.1%85.2%81.6%85.0%81.7%78.7%90.4% (Highest reported score in this row)
Sudo L7–––––15.0% (Highest reported score in this row)–13.9%13.9%–10.6%–
SWE-Marathon v1.138.8%––40.0%–42.5%––48.1% (Second-highest reported score in this row)28.1%–50.0% (Highest reported score in this row)
SWEBench Multilingual88.9% (Second-highest reported score in this row)–79.9%82.9%77.5%87.6%–79.7%91.4% (Highest reported score in this row)78.2%85.8%83.7%
SWEBench Multimodal v2––––––41.3%–44.2% (Highest reported score in this row)37.5%40.8%44.0% (Second-highest reported score in this row)
SWEBench Pro v2 (Hard)––84.3%–82.4%84.3%––88.2% (Highest reported score in this row)–58.8%52.9%
SWEBench Pro v2 (Full)––96.6%–95.0%95.6%––97.7% (Highest reported score in this row)–94.9%87.2%
SWEBench Verified92.0%–81.1%84.6%80.0%95.4% (Highest reported score in this row)–80.0%93.4% (Second-highest reported score in this row)76.1%80.0%88.9%
Autoresearch
PostTrainBench v1.236.8% (Highest reported score in this row)––30.5%–34.5% (Second-highest reported score in this row)––31.5%–––
PMPP-HardAUC (task-hours, 0–10h)–––497.36 (Highest reported score in this row)–430.96–478.39453.58–––
BioMysteryBench–69.3%––––––72.6% (Highest reported score in this row)61.5%62.2%70.4% (Second-highest reported score in this row)
Search and Tools
BrowseCompwith context management–––––––84.5% (Second-highest reported score in this row)––––
DeepSearchQA––––––––95.0% (Highest reported score in this row)–––
MCP AtlasFull / Public–/82.0%–/62.9%–/80.4%–/83.2%89.2/87.5% (Highest reported score in this row)84.2/83.6%–/84.4%–/84.5%82.3/84.2%–/77.8%–/87.5%–/81.0%
Knowledge Work
AA-Briefcase v1.11451148714761570 (Second-highest reported score in this row)12791503151213481497133712031574 (Highest reported score in this row)
GDPVal-AA v2.11649161414651746 (Highest reported score in this row)140116571689 (Second-highest reported score in this row)–1543144414451631
JobBench60.7%61.2%67.5% (Second-highest reported score in this row)–61.8%61.4%62.0%55.2%54.3%49.0%–39.2%
Enterprise Operations
AutomationBench v1.0.660.4%52.3%–66.6% (Highest reported score in this row)49.7%62.2% (Second-highest reported score in this row)58.6%57.8%58.3%–59.9%35.4%
EnterpriseOps-Gym33.2%––––36.4%––45.3% (Second-highest reported score in this row)–––
EnterpriseBench-CoreCraft46.7%––––51.8%––43.1%–58.5% (Second-highest reported score in this row)–
Finance Work
Tau 3 Banking v1.0.147.2% (Highest reported score in this row)–––––––33.4%–––
Finance Agent v2.160.6%63.3%58.8%62.9%60.7%65.0%64.3%61.7%60.0%56.8%65.8% (Second-highest reported score in this row)65.4%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.166.3%68.9%67.8%69.2%62.0%69.1%67.4%68.7%71.3% (Second-highest reported score in this row)70.0%72.9% (Highest reported score in this row)65.5%
Tax Agent Bench62.0%59.9%62.7%74.9% (Highest reported score in this row)52.1%73.1% (Second-highest reported score in this row)64.9%67.5%68.7%58.9%66.8%62.2%
DAYJOB (Finance)7.3%––12.5% (Second-highest reported score in this row)–11.0%–4.8%5.5%6.8%4.5%–
Apex-Accounting v1.1pass@1 / mean score12.3/53.7%–13.5/60.0%12.5/59.3%13.8/58.0%13.9/59.5%–12.0/56.5%9.5/56.7%10.8/53.9%15.5/58.8% (Highest reported score in this row)15.3/62.2% (Second-highest reported score in this row)
Diligence BenchBest harness–––50.4%59.0% (Highest reported score in this row)49.4%–––42.1%51.1%40.8%
Legal Work
Harvey LAB v1.110.4%13.3%7.5%14.2%25.0% (Highest reported score in this row)14.6%13.8%15.8%12.9%4.2%12.1%4.2%
Legal Research Bench45.2%38.0%34.1%45.2%38.5%49.0% (Highest reported score in this row)47.1% (Second-highest reported score in this row)35.6%46.2%30.3%38.9%43.8%
Visual Creation
DesignArena Web Apps––––––1275–1283 (Second-highest reported score in this row)11611221–
DesignArena Website1270–1280129713031290130712561334 (Second-highest reported score in this row)126812991261
DesignArena Game Dev1276–1312126112701303131512251351 (Second-highest reported score in this row)126113051319
DesignArena 3D Design1314–1332136112611324133312491381 (Second-highest reported score in this row)121312911334
Code Arena1607163715821665 (Highest reported score in this row)–1623162515441656 (Second-highest reported score in this row)157915831589
AA-3D937––––782977–982–965994 (Second-highest reported score in this row)
Code2Video-AA9751052 (Second-highest reported score in this row)–––10341052 (Second-highest reported score in this row)–104110308991192 (Highest reported score in this row)
Visual Perception
PerceptionBench–––47.7%––––58.5% (Second-highest reported score in this row)56.2%––
ScreenSpot Prooriginal / with Python––––––56.6%/–42.3%/–73.8/83.2%81.1/87.6% (Second-highest reported score in this row)––
Humanity’s Sixth Sense26.8%25.4%–30.1%29.6%–25.2%–25.5%21.0%41.6% (Highest reported score in this row)–
BabyVisionoriginal / with Python53.4/82.6% (Second-highest reported score in this row)––/91.0%–/92.5%44.3/80.2%––42.3/71.5%53.4/85.7% (Second-highest reported score in this row)–––
Visual Reasoning
GDP.pdf15.4%9.0%20.8%17.2%18.6%11.2%19.2%17.6%22.0%22.8% (Second-highest reported score in this row)21.0%20.8%
MMMU Pro (Standard 10)79.0%–79.1%80.6%80.9%–74.1%78.0%80.5%79.7%85.6% (Highest reported score in this row)79.1%
Charxiv RQoriginal / with Python80.2/89.4%66.2%/–82.5%/–77.0/85.6%85.4/88.7%–74.2%/–83.2/87.9%84.8/91.3%81.8/85.3%86.2/92.1% (Highest reported score in this row)84.4%/–
Chartographyoriginal / with Python16.3/78.0%7.5%/–12.6%/–17.9/83.0%35.7/63.2%–10.8%/–21.2/56.6%26.6/68.1%32.0%/–40.9/82.0% (Second-highest reported score in this row)46.4%/– (Highest reported score in this row)
MathVision82.9%–––87.7%––88.9%93.1% (Highest reported score in this row)–––
SAGE v1.189.3% (Second-highest reported score in this row)83.3%85.3%–85.8%–84.4%–86.8%83.4%88.2%89.8% (Highest reported score in this row)
STEM Reasoning
CritPt v2Full / Hard–/24.5%–/29.5%51.4/32.5%50.6/25.0%52.6/29.5%57.4/33.5%56.9/34.0%50.3/27.0%–/40.5%65.1/42.5% (Highest reported score in this row)65.1/46.5% (Highest reported score in this row)64.0/43.5% (Second-highest reported score in this row)
HLE-Diamond18.2%13.7%28.1%25.3%26.3%17.9%15.2%17.3%26.9%22.2%33.1% (Highest reported score in this row)29.6% (Second-highest reported score in this row)
HLE (text only)39.9%35.1%48.0% (Second-highest reported score in this row)43.3%43.9%42.3%49.4% (Highest reported score in this row)–46.9%38.5%47.8%44.4%
GPQA Diamond91.2%–86.7%92.2%89.0%91.7%89.0%89.7%93.5% (Second-highest reported score in this row)–95.3% (Highest reported score in this row)89.8%
Apex 2025––––32.3%–––65.6% (Highest reported score in this row)–––
HMMT Feb 2026––––93.9%–––97.0% (Highest reported score in this row)–––
Long Context
AA-LCR v1.180.0%–––78.3%79.7%86.3% (Second-highest reported score in this row)–88.7% (Highest reported score in this row)–81.3%82.7%
LongBench v268.2%60.7%60.9%69.0%68.7%68.4%68.0%65.7%69.0%65.0%73.7% (Highest reported score in this row)65.3%
Factuality
AA-Omniscience v1.1score0.7-10.8-6.40.925.8 (Highest reported score in this row)6.0-4.55.1–-8.323.3 (Second-highest reported score in this row)12.3
AA-Omniscience v1.1non-hallucination rate––6.3%35.9%72.0% (Second-highest reported score in this row)61.1%39.8%71.8%–20.7%44.9%65.8%
Instruction Following
ComplexConstraints v1.027.6%22.1%23.2%50.4% (Highest reported score in this row)41.3%30.5%32.3%36.5%37.9%27.3%48.4% (Second-highest reported score in this row)36.8%
Safety
DistressBench72.7%–––87.7% (Highest reported score in this row)72.5%–77.0%73.5%66.7%70.7%71.7%
FORTRESS (adversarial)73.3%––72.8%92.4% (Highest reported score in this row)71.8%–76.0%72.8%–––
FORTRESS (benign)96.4% (Second-highest reported score in this row)––93.1%84.0%96.8% (Highest reported score in this row)–91.8%96.0%–––
StrongREJECT (none)97.8%97.8%–99.4% (Highest reported score in this row)97.1%97.5%–99.0%99.0% (Second-highest reported score in this row)–––
Cybersecurity
CyberBench v1.167.9%75.4%–––72.1%72.9%–75.2%76.3% (Highest reported score in this row)43.8%75.5% (Second-highest reported score in this row)
PatchEval74.8%––80.4% (Highest reported score in this row)77.8%69.6%–76.1%––––
Highest reported score in each row; ties includedSecond-highest reported score in each row; ties included

For ScreenSpot Pro evaluation, images whose long side exceed 4,096 pixels are downsampled to that limit while preserving the aspect ratio; the ground truth answers were rescaled accordingly. Smaller images remain unchanged.

6. Safety

We conducted safety evaluations ahead of release, spanning both everyday human-AI interaction and dangerous-capability testing. Because Inkling 2 Small is multimodal, we paid attention to whether safety behavior held consistently across text and image inputs. We applied mitigations to reduce risks before release.

For everyday interaction, we evaluated sycophancy, harmful manipulation, and psychological-harm patterns like parasocial dependency and validation of delusional reasoning, including through multi-turn, open-ended external red-teaming designed to surface issues that only emerge over longer conversations. We also assessed whether the model refuses genuinely harmful requests without over-refusing benign ones. For CBRN and cyber, we assessed knowledge and procedural uplift through internal evaluations, external testing, and refusal-suppressed variants intended to estimate latent capability with safeguards removed. For loss of control, we evaluated agentic capability, strategic deception, and sabotage potential, benchmarked against public frontier models, and found the model materially below frontier capabilities.

7. Bias, risks and limitations

Inkling 2 Small may exhibit general limitations common to foundation models, including hallucination (generating plausible but factually incorrect or unsupported content), occasional failures to follow instructions precisely, and degraded performance in long multi-turn conversations. As with other large-scale models trained on web-derived and synthetic data, Inkling 2 Small may reflect biases present in its training data, including demographic, cultural, or linguistic biases, and may perform unevenly across languages, dialects, or subject domains that were less represented during training.

Inkling 2 Small’s knowledge is limited to information available as of its training cutoff, and it may not reflect events, developments, or changes that occurred afterward.

We recommend that downstream developers and deployers apply appropriate human oversight and review for outputs used in high-stakes or safety-critical contexts, rather than relying on Inkling 2 Small’s outputs without verification.

  • Conduct their own evaluation of Inkling 2 Small’s performance, safety, and fairness for their specific use case, language, and population prior to deployment, particularly for applications involving vulnerable groups.
  • Implement additional safeguards – such as content filtering, rate limiting, and monitoring – at the application layer, especially for open deployment contexts where Inkling 2 Small’s built-in mitigations may not be sufficient on their own.
  • Avoid deploying Inkling 2 Small in domains such as medical, legal, or safety-critical decision-making without additional fine-tuning, domain-specific validation, and human oversight

Training Data Documentation