← 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.
AutocompleteAbout the same132 / 280 · beu-6d424727aa9c116d

InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiency

Computer science · 2508.18265v1

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

InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiency

Introduction / methods

.5 75.1 72.6 70.4 70.4 67.6 66.9 65.9 65.3 65.2 64.4 63.6 62.2 60.8 59.4 58.8 56.9 56.5 55.0 53.8 50.9 50.7 47.3 46.4 44.9 42.7 Figure 1: Comparison between InternVL3.5 and leading MLLMs in general capabilities. Hatched bars represent closed-source commercial models. We report average scores on a set of multimodal general, reasoning, text, and agentic benchmarks: MMBench v1.1 (en) [ 71], MMStar [11], BLINK [36], HallusionBench [41], AI2D [55], OCRBench [72], MMVet [167], MME-RealWorld (en) [177], MVBench [63], VideoMME [35], MMMU [169], MathVista [76], MathVision [134], MathVerse [174], DynaMath [188], WeMath [100], Log- icVista [152], MATH500 [45], AIME24 [84], AIME25 [85], GPQA [106], MMLU-Pro [145], GAOKAO [176], IFEval [184], SGP-Bench [102], VSI-Bench [160], ERQA [121], SpaCE-10 [38], and OmniSpatial [50]. understanding [5, 81, 146, 179, 186], often comes with ever increasing computational costs, which have become a crucial bottleneck of real-world applications. In this work, we introduce InternVL3.5, an advanced family of InternVL series [13, 14, 15, 37, 79, 80, 186] with stronger capabilities in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency. Compared to InternVL3 [186], InternVL3.5

↓ 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: About the same

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 are identical and provide a plausible continuation for the InternVL3.5 introduction. The sentence introduces specific technical contributions (cascade reinforcement learning framework, visual resolution routing strategy) that align with the manuscript's emphasis on 'stronger capabilities in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency' compared to InternVL3. The claim about improving reasoning performance while reducing inference cost fits the efficiency theme and the figure showing benchmark comparisons. However, the draft is cut off mid-sentence ('Compared to InternVL3 [186], InternVL3.5') and clearly needs continuation—neither output abstains inappropriately. Since the outputs are character-for-character identical, they are equally usable with no basis to prefer one over the other.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

introduces a cascade reinforcement learning framework and a visual resolution routing strategy to improve reasoning performance while reducing inference cost.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context

In this report, we introduce the Gemini 1.5 family of models, representing the next generation of highly compute-efficient multimodal models capable of recalling and reasoning over fine-grained information from millions of tokens of context, including multiple long documents and hours of video and a…

Read full passage excerpt

In this report, we introduce the Gemini 1.5 family of models, representing the next generation of highly compute-efficient multimodal models capable of recalling and reasoning over fine-grained information from millions of tokens of context, including multiple long documents and hours of video and audio. The family includes two new models: (1) an updated Gemini 1.5 Pro, which exceeds the February version on the great majority of capabilities and benchmarks; (2) Gemini 1.5 Flash, a more lightweight variant designed for efficiency with minimal regression in quality. Gemini 1.5 models achieve near-perfect recall on long-context retrieval tasks across modalities, improve the state-of-the-art in long-document QA, long-video QA and long-context ASR, and match or surpass Gemini 1.0 Ultra's state-of-the-art performance across a broad set of benchmarks. Studying the limits of Gemini 1.5's long-context ability, we find continued improvement in next-token prediction and near-perfect retrieval (>9 …

Card 2 · Corvid: Improving Multimodal Large Language Models Towards Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Recent advancements in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance in multimodal perception and understanding. However, leading open-source MLLMs exhibit significant limitations in complex and structured reasoning, particularly in tasks requiring deep reasoning…

Read full passage excerpt

Recent advancements in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance in multimodal perception and understanding. However, leading open-source MLLMs exhibit significant limitations in complex and structured reasoning, particularly in tasks requiring deep reasoning for decision-making and problem-solving. In this work, we present Corvid, an MLLM with enhanced chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning capabilities. Architecturally, Corvid incorporates a hybrid vision encoder for informative visual representation and a meticulously designed connector (GateMixer) to facilitate cross-modal alignment. To enhance Corvid's CoT reasoning capabilities, we introduce MCoT-Instruct-287K, a high-quality multimodal CoT instruction-following dataset, refined and standardized from diverse public reasoning sources. Leveraging this dataset, we fine-tune Corvid with a two-stage CoT-formatted training approach to progressively enhance its step-by-step reasoning abilities. Further …

Card 3 · The Point, the Vision and the Text: Does Point Cloud Boost Spatial Reasoning of Large Language Models? A Bias-Controlled Study

3D Large Language Models (LLMs) leveraging spatial information in point clouds for 3D spatial reasoning attract great attention. Despite some promising results, the advantages of point clouds over other modalities remain unclear. Moreover, existing 3D benchmarks are insufficient for fairly evaluatin…

Read full passage excerpt

3D Large Language Models (LLMs) leveraging spatial information in point clouds for 3D spatial reasoning attract great attention. Despite some promising results, the advantages of point clouds over other modalities remain unclear. Moreover, existing 3D benchmarks are insufficient for fairly evaluating the ability of multimodal LLMs to comprehend spatial concepts. To address these challenges, we introduce ScanReQA, a 3D spatial reasoning benchmark encompassing text, vision, and point cloud modalities. We then evaluate the performance of text, 2D, and 3D LLMs on the benchmark to compare the effectiveness of different modalities in understanding spatial concepts. Furthermore, we analyze the reasoning mechanisms behind 3D LLMs using point clouds. Our findings reveal that: 1) binary spatial reasoning remains challenging for current 3D LLMs, 2) MLLMs based on point cloud and visual modalities demonstrate stronger spatial reasoning capabilities than LLMs, and 3) 3D LLMs exhibit the attention s …

Card 4 · Position: Multimodal Large Language Models Can Significantly Advance Scientific Reasoning

Scientific reasoning, the process through which humans apply logic, evidence, and critical thinking to explore and interpret scientific phenomena, is essential in advancing knowledge reasoning across diverse fields. However, despite significant progress, current scientific reasoning models still str…

Read full passage excerpt

Scientific reasoning, the process through which humans apply logic, evidence, and critical thinking to explore and interpret scientific phenomena, is essential in advancing knowledge reasoning across diverse fields. However, despite significant progress, current scientific reasoning models still struggle with generalization across domains and often fall short of multimodal perception. Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), which integrate text, images, and other modalities, present an exciting opportunity to overcome these limitations and enhance scientific reasoning. Therefore, this position paper argues that MLLMs can significantly advance scientific reasoning across disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. First, we propose a four-stage research roadmap of scientific reasoning capabilities, and highlight the current state of MLLM applications in scientific reasoning, noting their ability to integrate and reason over diverse data types. Second, we summariz …

Card 5 · CX-Mind: A Pioneering Multimodal Large Language Model for Interleaved Reasoning in Chest X-ray via Curriculum-Guided Reinforcement Learning

Chest X-ray (CXR) imaging is one of the most widely used diagnostic modalities in clinical practice, encompassing a broad spectrum of diagnostic tasks. Recent advancements have seen the extensive application of reasoning-based multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in medical imaging to enhance di…

Read full passage excerpt

Chest X-ray (CXR) imaging is one of the most widely used diagnostic modalities in clinical practice, encompassing a broad spectrum of diagnostic tasks. Recent advancements have seen the extensive application of reasoning-based multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in medical imaging to enhance diagnostic efficiency and interpretability. However, existing multimodal models predominantly rely on "one-time" diagnostic approaches, lacking verifiable supervision of the reasoning process. This leads to challenges in multi-task CXR diagnosis, including lengthy reasoning, sparse rewards, and frequent hallucinations. To address these issues, we propose CX-Mind, the first generative model to achieve interleaved "think-answer" reasoning for CXR tasks, driven by curriculum-based reinforcement learning and verifiable process rewards (CuRL-VPR). Specifically, we constructed an instruction-tuning dataset, CX-Set, comprising 708,473 images and 2,619,148 samples, and generated 42,828 high-quality in …

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

introduces a cascade reinforcement learning framework and a visual resolution routing strategy to improve reasoning performance while reducing inference cost.

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.