---

license: apache-2.0

datasets: - lars1234/story_writing_benchmark

base_model: - mistralai/Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct-2501

---

Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct-2501-writer

Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct-2501-writer is a fine-tuned version of mistralai/Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct-2501, optimized specifically for creative writing tasks.

Performance

The following table was generated by creating 568 stories based on the same prompts as in the lars1234/story_writing_benchmark dataset and then evaluating them using the benchmark’s evaluator models.

Metric	Mistral-2501	Mistral-Writer	Gemma-Ataraxy
Grammar & Spelling	82.1%	83.3%	88.8%
Clarity	63.0%	64.1%	65.8%
Logical Connection	57.7%	64.1%	66.0%
Scene Construction	56.1%	62.0%	64.1%
Internal Consistency	67.2%	73.1%	75.1%
Character Consistency	50.7%	54.0%	54.3%
Character Motivation	44.6%	49.8%	49.2%
Sentence Variety	57.7%	64.4%	64.0%
Avoiding Clichés	24.6%	33.3%	31.2%
Natural Dialogue	42.9%	51.9%	48.3%
Avoiding Tropes	28.6%	37.4%	40.0%
Character Depth	35.7%	46.4%	45.4%
Character Interactions	45.0%	52.0%	51.7%
Reader Interest	54.1%	63.1%	63.0%
Plot Resolution	35.3%	45.3%	44.9%
Average	49.3%	56.5%	56.1%

Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct-2501-writer outperforms the base Mistral model across all metrics. Gemma-2-Ataraxy still shows higher creativity in some categories, as seen for example in its better score on “Avoiding Tropes.”

DPO Dataset Creation

The model was fine-tuned using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), which requires pairs of responses where one is preferred over the other. The pairs were created from the lars1234/story_writing_benchmark dataset using two approaches:

1. Language-Based Pairs

• Correct vs. Incorrect Language: For prompts requesting stories in specific languages (English, Spanish, or German), we identified cases where models incorrectly generated text in the wrong language.
• Verification Process: Used fast_langdetect to automatically verify language with high confidence (threshold ≥ 0.8).
• Pair Creation: Stories with correctly detected language were paired as “chosen” against stories with incorrectly detected language as “rejected” for the same prompt.

2. Quality-Based Pairs

• Quality Scoring: For stories with correctly detected language, we calculated quality differences based on four metrics:
  • q1: Grammar and spelling
  • q11: Avoiding tropes
  • q12: Character depth
  • q14: Reader interest
• Minimum Threshold: Only story pairs with a quality difference of at least 0.4 (on a 1-5 scale) were considered.
• Greedy Selection: the highest-rated story was selected as “chosen” and paired with a lower-rated story as “rejected” for the same prompt.
• Uniqueness: Each story was used in at most one pair.

The final JSONL dataset contained these pairs in the format:

{"prompt": "Write a story about...", "chosen": "High quality story text...", "rejected": "Lower quality story text..."}

See this script for the code.

Training Methodology

The model was fine-tuned using Axolotl with the following parameters:

• Base Model: mistralai/Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct-2501
• Adapter: LoRA with r=16, alpha=32
• DPO Beta: 0.1
• Learning Rate: 1e-4
• Optimizer: AdamW with cosine scheduler
• Training Epochs: 1
• Gradient Accumulation Steps: 4
• Micro Batch Size: 2
• Sequence Length: 2048
• Quantization: 4-bit

Inference Parameters

A grid search was performed on inference parameters to find optimal generation settings: - min_p: 0.05 (fixed) - temperature: 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25

The most significant quality improvement was observed when increasing temperature from 0.5 to 0.75. Beyond this point, other quality aspects began to suffer.