← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteWithout cards better129 / 280 · beu-21ca95716983feb2

InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models

Computer science · 2504.10479v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models

Introduction / methods

reinforce both performance and scalability. We employ a variable visual position encoding (V2PE) mechanism [ 41] to accommodate longer multimodal contexts. Furthermore, advanced post-training strategies—comprising supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and mixed preference optimization (MPO) [123]—together with test-time scaling strategies [124] and an optimized training infrastructure [15], significantly enhance InternVL3’s efficiency and performance. Comprehensive empirical evaluations demonstrate that InternVL3 surpasses its predecessors ( e.g., In- ternVL2.5 [18]) across a wide range of tasks, including multi-discipline reasoning, document understanding, multi-image / video understanding, real-world comprehension, multimodal hallucination detection, visual ground- ing, and multilingual capabilities. Notably, by incorporating expanded domain-specific datasets, InternVL3 also exhibits marked improvements in tool usage, GUI agents, industrial image analysis, and spatial reasoning, thus substantially extending the multimodal scenarios addressed by the InternVL series. It proves highly competitive with other open-source MLLMs such as Qwen2.5-VL [7] and remains on par with closed-source models

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: Without cards better

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = with cards · B = without cards

Both outputs attempt to complete the comparison with closed-source models, but they differ in fit and scope. The draft states InternVL3 'remains on par with closed-source models' — a comparative claim that needs concrete examples to be meaningful. Output A lists 'GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet' as examples. These specific models appear in the source material about InternVL 2.5 (which 'rivals leading commercial models such as GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet'), but the draft is about InternVL3, and the source doesn't confirm these exact comparisons for InternVL3. Output B names only 'GPT-4o' and adds 'demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed training and test-time recipes.' This is better because: (1) it names one verifiable closed-source model rather than two unchecked specifics; (2) the concluding phrase ties back to the draft's emphasis on training strategies (SFT, MPO, test-time scaling) mentioned earlier in the paragraph, preserving argumentative coherence; (3) it avoids overcommitting to exact parity with multiple named competitors. Output A's 'Claude-3.5-Sonnet' is unsupported for InternVL3 specifically and risks being an unsupported specificity. Output B is more cautious, more integrated with the argument, and less likely to require repair.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

such as GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Expanding Performance Boundaries of Open-Source Multimodal Models with Model, Data, and Test-Time Scaling

We introduce InternVL 2.5, an advanced multimodal large language model (MLLM) series that builds upon InternVL 2.0, maintaining its core model architecture while introducing significant enhancements in training and testing strategies as well as data quality. In this work, we delve into the relations…

Read full passage excerpt

We introduce InternVL 2.5, an advanced multimodal large language model (MLLM) series that builds upon InternVL 2.0, maintaining its core model architecture while introducing significant enhancements in training and testing strategies as well as data quality. In this work, we delve into the relationship between model scaling and performance, systematically exploring the performance trends in vision encoders, language models, dataset sizes, and test-time configurations. Through extensive evaluations on a wide range of benchmarks, including multi-discipline reasoning, document understanding, multi-image / video understanding, real-world comprehension, multimodal hallucination detection, visual grounding, multilingual capabilities, and pure language processing, InternVL 2.5 exhibits competitive performance, rivaling leading commercial models such as GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet. Notably, our model is the first open-source MLLMs to surpass 70% on the MMMU benchmark, achieving a 3.7-point im …

Card 2 · Recursive Inference Scaling: A Winning Path to Scalable Inference in Language and Multimodal Systems

Inspired by recent findings on the fractal geometry of language, we introduce Recursive INference Scaling (RINS) as a complementary, plug-in recipe for scaling inference time in language and multimodal systems. RINS is a particular form of recursive depth that significantly outperforms +55 other var…

Read full passage excerpt

Inspired by recent findings on the fractal geometry of language, we introduce Recursive INference Scaling (RINS) as a complementary, plug-in recipe for scaling inference time in language and multimodal systems. RINS is a particular form of recursive depth that significantly outperforms +55 other variants, including the recent "repeat-all-over" (RAO) strategy in Mobile LLM (Liu et al., 2024) and latent recurrent thinking (Geiping et al., 2025). Unlike prior works, we carry out our comparisons on a compute-matched regime, and demonstrate that for a fixed model size and training compute budget, RINS substantially improves language modeling performance. It also generalizes beyond pure language tasks, delivering gains in multimodal systems, including a +2% improvement in 0-shot ImageNet accuracy for SigLIP-B/16. Additionally, by deriving data scaling laws, we show that RINS improves both the asymptotic performance limits and the scaling exponents. More importantly, with light-weight (linear …

Card 3 · Cambrian-1: A Fully Open, Vision-Centric Exploration of Multimodal LLMs

We introduce Cambrian-1, a family of multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) designed with a vision-centric approach. While stronger language models can enhance multimodal capabilities, the design choices for vision components are often insufficiently explored and disconnected from visual representation learning re…

Read full passage excerpt

We introduce Cambrian-1, a family of multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) designed with a vision-centric approach. While stronger language models can enhance multimodal capabilities, the design choices for vision components are often insufficiently explored and disconnected from visual representation learning research. This gap hinders accurate sensory grounding in real-world scenarios. Our study uses LLMs and visual instruction tuning as an interface to evaluate various visual representations, offering new insights into different models and architectures -- self-supervised, strongly supervised, or combinations thereof -- based on experiments with over 20 vision encoders. We critically examine existing MLLM benchmarks, address the difficulties involved in consolidating and interpreting results from various tasks, and introduce a new vision-centric benchmark, CV-Bench. To further improve visual grounding, we propose the Spatial Vision Aggregator (SVA), a dynamic and spatially-aware connector that in …

Card 4 · NaViL: Rethinking Scaling Properties of Native Multimodal Large Language Models under Data Constraints

Compositional training has been the de-facto paradigm in existing Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), where pre-trained vision encoders are connected with pre-trained LLMs through continuous multimodal pre-training. However, the multimodal scaling property of this paradigm remains difficult to…

Read full passage excerpt

Compositional training has been the de-facto paradigm in existing Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), where pre-trained vision encoders are connected with pre-trained LLMs through continuous multimodal pre-training. However, the multimodal scaling property of this paradigm remains difficult to explore due to the separated training. In this paper, we focus on the native training of MLLMs in an end-to-end manner and systematically study its design space and scaling property under a practical setting, i.e., data constraint. Through careful study of various choices in MLLM, we obtain the optimal meta-architecture that best balances performance and training cost. After that, we further explore the scaling properties of the native MLLM and indicate the positively correlated scaling relationship between visual encoders and LLMs. Based on these findings, we propose a native MLLM called NaViL, combined with a simple and cost-effective recipe. Experimental results on 14 multimodal benchmar …

Card 5 · DeepSeek-VL: Towards Real-World Vision-Language Understanding

We present DeepSeek-VL, an open-source Vision-Language (VL) Model designed for real-world vision and language understanding applications. Our approach is structured around three key dimensions: We strive to ensure our data is diverse, scalable, and extensively covers real-world scenarios including w…

Read full passage excerpt

We present DeepSeek-VL, an open-source Vision-Language (VL) Model designed for real-world vision and language understanding applications. Our approach is structured around three key dimensions: We strive to ensure our data is diverse, scalable, and extensively covers real-world scenarios including web screenshots, PDFs, OCR, charts, and knowledge-based content, aiming for a comprehensive representation of practical contexts. Further, we create a use case taxonomy from real user scenarios and construct an instruction tuning dataset accordingly. The fine-tuning with this dataset substantially improves the model's user experience in practical applications. Considering efficiency and the demands of most real-world scenarios, DeepSeek-VL incorporates a hybrid vision encoder that efficiently processes high-resolution images (1024 x 1024), while maintaining a relatively low computational overhead. This design choice ensures the model's ability to capture critical semantic and detailed informa …

Model-reported card use

The model did not report that any card materially affected this completion.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Preferred by blind review

such as GPT-4o, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed training and test-time recipes.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

This case does not have both with-card continuation text and a model-reported use record. It remains among all 280 tests but does not enter the reported-use comparison.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.