← 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 better126 / 280 · beu-6e164151c23736ca

Gemma 3 Technical Report

Computer science · 2503.19786v1

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

Gemma 3 Technical Report

Introduction / methods

Gemma vision encoder takes as input square im- ages resized to 896 x 896, and is finetuned on data fromvisualassistanttasks. Forsimplicity, we share the vision encoder across our 4B, 12B, and 27B models, keeping it frozen during training. Pan & Scan (P&S).The Gemma vision encoder operates at a fixed resolution of 896× 896. This results in artifacts when processing non-square aspect ratios and high-resolution images, leading to unreadable text, or small objects disappearing. Weaddressthisissuewithanadaptivewindowing algorithm during inference. This algorithm seg- ments images into non-overlapping crops of equal size, covering the whole image, and resize them to 896×896 pixels to pass them to the encoder. This windowing is applied only when necessary, and control for the maximum number of crops. It is an inference-time only optimization and can be disabled for faster inference. 2 Gemma 3 Technical Report Shards Model Type #Chips Data Seq. Replica 1B TPUv5e 512 16 16 2 4B TPUv5e 2048 16 16 8 12B TPUv4 6144 16 16 24 27B TPUv5p 6144 24 8 32 Table 2| Training infrastructure with sharding by data, sequence (Seq.), and replica. 2.2. Pre-training We follow a similar recipe as in Gemma 2 for

↓ 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 continue the sentence starting 'We follow a similar recipe as in Gemma 2 for' and then complete. The draft is at the beginning of section 2.2 'Pre-training' and needs to establish what aspects of Gemma 2's pre-training recipe are followed. Output B ('pre-training, with modifications to the training data mixture and the model architecture') is more useful because it specifies concrete domains of modification (data mixture, model architecture) that are natural and expected areas of evolution between model generations. This gives the reader meaningful forward pointers to what will be discussed. Output A ('with several modifications to improve efficiency and stability') is more generic—efficiency and stability are broad goals rather than specific technical areas, and 'stability' is somewhat vague in this context. Output B's specificity better serves the argumentative flow of a technical report, where readers expect to learn about data and architecture choices. Both are grammatically correct and could be inserted, but B provides more useful orientation.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

pre-training, with several modifications to improve efficiency and stability.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size

In this work, we introduce Gemma 2, a new addition to the Gemma family of lightweight, state-of-the-art open models, ranging in scale from 2 billion to 27 billion parameters. In this new version, we apply several known technical modifications to the Transformer architecture, such as interleaving loc…

Read full passage excerpt

In this work, we introduce Gemma 2, a new addition to the Gemma family of lightweight, state-of-the-art open models, ranging in scale from 2 billion to 27 billion parameters. In this new version, we apply several known technical modifications to the Transformer architecture, such as interleaving local-global attentions (Beltagy et al., 2020a) and group-query attention (Ainslie et al., 2023). We also train the 2B and 9B models with knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) instead of next token prediction. The resulting models deliver the best performance for their size, and even offer competitive alternatives to models that are 2-3 times bigger. We release all our models to the community.

Card 2 · EfficientVLM: Fast and Accurate Vision-Language Models via Knowledge Distillation and Modal-adaptive Pruning

Pre-trained vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved impressive results in a range of vision-language tasks. However, popular VLMs usually consist of hundreds of millions of parameters which brings challenges for fine-tuning and deployment in real-world applications due to space, memory, and late…

Read full passage excerpt

Pre-trained vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved impressive results in a range of vision-language tasks. However, popular VLMs usually consist of hundreds of millions of parameters which brings challenges for fine-tuning and deployment in real-world applications due to space, memory, and latency constraints. In this work, we introduce a distilling then pruning framework to compress large vision-language models into smaller, faster, and more accurate ones. We first shrink the size of a pre-trained large VLM and apply knowledge distillation in the vision-language pre-training stage to obtain a task-agnostic compact VLM. Then we propose a modal-adaptive pruning algorithm to automatically infer the importance of vision and language modalities for different downstream tasks and adaptively remove redundant structures and neurons in different encoders with controllable target sparsity. We apply our framework to train EfficientVLM, a fast and accurate vision-language model consisting of …

Card 3 · Beyond FLOPs: Energy-Aware Knowledge Distillation for Sustainable LLMs on Code-Related Task

Background. Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being applied to Software Engineering (SE) tasks, achieving high accuracy across problems such as clone detection, vulnerability prediction, and code summarization. However, their high computational demands and energy consumption raise sustai…

Read full passage excerpt

Background. Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being applied to Software Engineering (SE) tasks, achieving high accuracy across problems such as clone detection, vulnerability prediction, and code summarization. However, their high computational demands and energy consumption raise sustainability concerns and hinder their use on consumer hardware and resource-constrained platforms. A common way to report the computational cost of an LLM in the literature and industry is to use the number of Floating Point Operations (FLOPs) required to perform a pass over the network. Aims. This paper investigates the implications of energy-aware knowledge distillation for SE, aiming to improve model efficiency while maintaining performance and to determine whether FLOPs is a reliable energy-aware metric. Method. We conduct a controlled experiment using Morph, a Many-Objective Optimization-based distillation methodology, to empirically examine whether FLOPs accurately reflect energy consumpt …

Card 4 · Efficient Transformer Knowledge Distillation: A Performance Review

As pretrained transformer language models continue to achieve state-of-the-art performance, the Natural Language Processing community has pushed for advances in model compression and efficient attention mechanisms to address high computational requirements and limited input sequence length. Despite…

Read full passage excerpt

As pretrained transformer language models continue to achieve state-of-the-art performance, the Natural Language Processing community has pushed for advances in model compression and efficient attention mechanisms to address high computational requirements and limited input sequence length. Despite these separate efforts, no investigation has been done into the intersection of these two fields. In this work, we provide an evaluation of model compression via knowledge distillation on efficient attention transformers. We provide cost-performance trade-offs for the compression of state-of-the-art efficient attention architectures and the gains made in performance in comparison to their full attention counterparts. Furthermore, we introduce a new long-context Named Entity Recognition dataset, GONERD, to train and test the performance of NER models on long sequences. We find that distilled efficient attention transformers can preserve a significant amount of original model performance, pres …

Card 5 · Active Data Curation Effectively Distills Large-Scale Multimodal Models

Knowledge distillation (KD) is the de facto standard for compressing large-scale models into smaller ones. Prior works have explored ever more complex KD strategies involving different objective functions, teacher-ensembles, and weight inheritance. In this work we explore an alternative, yet simple…

Read full passage excerpt

Knowledge distillation (KD) is the de facto standard for compressing large-scale models into smaller ones. Prior works have explored ever more complex KD strategies involving different objective functions, teacher-ensembles, and weight inheritance. In this work we explore an alternative, yet simple approach -- active data curation as effective distillation for contrastive multimodal pretraining. Our simple online batch selection method, ACID, outperforms strong KD baselines across various model-, data- and compute-configurations. Further, we find such an active data curation strategy to in fact be complementary to standard KD, and can be effectively combined to train highly performant inference-efficient models. Our simple and scalable pretraining framework, ACED, achieves state-of-the-art results across 27 zero-shot classification and retrieval tasks with upto 11% less inference FLOPs. We further demonstrate that our ACED models yield strong vision-encoders for training generative mul …

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

pre-training, with modifications to the training data mixture and the model architecture.

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.