← 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.
AutocompleteWith cards better134 / 280 · beu-a4aec3dae95b838d

Qwen3-VL Technical Report

Computer science · 2511.21631v1

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

Qwen3-VL Technical Report

Introduction / methods

trum, and introduce text-based timestamp tokens to more effectively capture the temporal structure of video sequences. outperforms most VLMs across a broad set of multimodal tasks and surpasses its text-only counterpart on the majority of language benchmarks. Vision Encoder: We utilize the SigLIP-2 architecture (Tschannen et al., 2025) as our vision encoder and continue training it with dynamic input resolutions, initialized from official pretrained checkpoints. To accommodate dynamic resolutions effectively, we employ 2D-RoPE and interpolate absolute position embeddings based on input size, following the methodology of CoMP (Chen et al., 2025). Specifically, we default to the SigLIP2-SO-400M variant and use SigLIP2-Large (300M) for small-scale LLMs (2B and 4B). MLP-based Vision-Language Merger: As in Qwen2.5-VL, we use a two-layer MLP to compress 2 × 2 visual features from the vision encoder into a single visual token, aligned with the LLM’s hidden dimension. Additionally, we deploy specialized mergers to support the DeepStack mechanism (Meng et al., 2024), the details of which are fully described in Section 2.2. 2.1 Interleaved MRoPE Qwen2-VL (Wang et al., 2024c) introduced MRoPE

↓ 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: With 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 = without cards · B = with cards

Both outputs continue the sentence about MRoPE appropriately, explaining that Qwen2-VL introduced it for spatial/temporal position encoding and that Qwen2.5-VL extended it. Output B is more precise: it specifies 'actual timestamps of the video' rather than the vaguer 'absolute time.' This better fits the draft's opening mention of 'text-based timestamp tokens to more effectively capture the temporal structure of video sequences,' creating stronger argumentative coherence. The draft emphasizes timestamp-based temporal modeling, so B's explicit mention of 'actual timestamps' directly supports that thread. Output A's 'absolute time' is slightly more generic and less connected to the draft's specific temporal mechanism. Both are accurate and well-scoped; neither introduces unsupported claims. B wins on tighter fit to the established argument.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Preferred by blind review

to encode spatial and temporal position information for multimodal inputs, and Qwen2.5-VL extended it with absolute temporal positions aligned to the actual timestamps of the video.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Model's Perception of the World at Any Resolution

We present the Qwen2-VL Series, an advanced upgrade of the previous Qwen-VL models that redefines the conventional predetermined-resolution approach in visual processing. Qwen2-VL introduces the Naive Dynamic Resolution mechanism, which enables the model to dynamically process images of varying reso…

Read full passage excerpt

We present the Qwen2-VL Series, an advanced upgrade of the previous Qwen-VL models that redefines the conventional predetermined-resolution approach in visual processing. Qwen2-VL introduces the Naive Dynamic Resolution mechanism, which enables the model to dynamically process images of varying resolutions into different numbers of visual tokens. This approach allows the model to generate more efficient and accurate visual representations, closely aligning with human perceptual processes. The model also integrates Multimodal Rotary Position Embedding (M-RoPE), facilitating the effective fusion of positional information across text, images, and videos. We employ a unified paradigm for processing both images and videos, enhancing the model's visual perception capabilities. To explore the potential of large multimodal models, Qwen2-VL investigates the scaling laws for large vision-language models (LVLMs). By scaling both the model size-with versions at 2B, 8B, and 72B parameters-and the a …

Card 2 · Spatial-MLLM: Boosting MLLM Capabilities in Visual-based Spatial Intelligence

Recent advancements in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly enhanced performance on 2D visual tasks. However, improving their spatial intelligence remains a challenge. Existing 3D MLLMs always rely on additional 3D or 2.5D data to incorporate spatial awareness, restricting the…

Read full passage excerpt

Recent advancements in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly enhanced performance on 2D visual tasks. However, improving their spatial intelligence remains a challenge. Existing 3D MLLMs always rely on additional 3D or 2.5D data to incorporate spatial awareness, restricting their utility in scenarios with only 2D inputs, such as images or videos. In this paper, we present Spatial-MLLM, a novel framework for visual-based spatial reasoning from purely 2D observations. Unlike conventional video MLLMs which rely on CLIP-based visual encoders optimized for semantic understanding, our key insight is to unleash the strong structure prior from the feed-forward visual geometry foundation model. Specifically, we propose a dual-encoder architecture: a pretrained 2D visual encoder to extract semantic features, and a 3D spatial encoder-initialized from the backbone of the visual geometry model-to extract 3D structure features. A connector then integrates both features into uni …

Card 3 · Beyond Semantics: Rediscovering Spatial Awareness in Vision-Language Models

Vision Language Models (VLMs) excel at identifying and describing objects but often fail at spatial reasoning. We study why VLMs, such as LLaVA, underutilize spatial cues despite having positional encodings and spatially rich vision encoder features. Our analysis reveals a key imbalance: vision toke…

Read full passage excerpt

Vision Language Models (VLMs) excel at identifying and describing objects but often fail at spatial reasoning. We study why VLMs, such as LLaVA, underutilize spatial cues despite having positional encodings and spatially rich vision encoder features. Our analysis reveals a key imbalance: vision token embeddings have much larger norms than text tokens, suppressing LLM's position embedding. To expose this mechanism, we developed three interpretability tools: (1) the Position Sensitivity Index, which quantifies reliance on token order, (2) the Cross Modality Balance, which reveals attention head allocation patterns, and (3) a RoPE Sensitivity probe, which measures dependence on rotary positional embeddings. These tools uncover that vision tokens and system prompts dominate attention. We validated our mechanistic understanding through targeted interventions that predictably restore positional sensitivity. These findings reveal previously unknown failure modes in multimodal attention and de …

Card 4 · HoPE: Hybrid of Position Embedding for Long Context Vision-Language Models

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have made significant progress in multimodal tasks. However, their performance often deteriorates in long-context scenarios, particularly long videos. While Rotary Position Embedding (RoPE) has been widely adopted for length generalization in Large Language Models (LLMs…

Read full passage excerpt

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have made significant progress in multimodal tasks. However, their performance often deteriorates in long-context scenarios, particularly long videos. While Rotary Position Embedding (RoPE) has been widely adopted for length generalization in Large Language Models (LLMs), extending vanilla RoPE to capture the intricate spatial-temporal dependencies in videos remains an unsolved challenge. Existing methods typically allocate different frequencies within RoPE to encode 3D positional information. However, these allocation strategies mainly rely on heuristics, lacking in-depth theoretical analysis. In this paper, we first study how different allocation strategies impact the long-context capabilities of VLMs. Our analysis reveals that current multimodal RoPEs fail to reliably capture semantic similarities over extended contexts. To address this issue, we propose HoPE, a Hybrid of Position Embedding designed to improve the long-context capabilities of VLMs. HoPE …

Card 5 · Circle-RoPE: Cone-like Decoupled Rotary Positional Embedding for Large Vision-Language Models

Rotary Position Embedding (RoPE) is widely adopted in large language models, but when applied to vision-language models (VLMs) it couples text and image position indices and can introduce spurious cross-modal relative-position bias. We propose Per-Token Distance (PTD) to quantify cross-modal positio…

Read full passage excerpt

Rotary Position Embedding (RoPE) is widely adopted in large language models, but when applied to vision-language models (VLMs) it couples text and image position indices and can introduce spurious cross-modal relative-position bias. We propose Per-Token Distance (PTD) to quantify cross-modal positional disentanglement, and prove that PTD = 0 is a sufficient condition to eliminate the geometric attention bias induced by RoPE. Guided by this criterion, we introduce Circle-RoPE, which remaps 2D image-token coordinates onto an annulus orthogonal to the text position axis, yielding a cone-like geometry where each text token is equidistant to all image tokens while preserving intra-image spatial structure. We further propose Alternating Geometry Encoding (AGE) to combine complementary geometric priors by alternating the decoupled geometry of Circle-RoPE and the grid-based prior of standard RoPE across layers. This design enables cross-modal positional disentanglement while preserving fine-gr …

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

Not preferred in this comparison

to encode spatial and temporal position information for multimodal inputs, and Qwen2.5-VL extended it to align the temporal dimension with absolute time.

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.