← 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 better140 / 280 · beu-bcb97bf8973bad94

Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report

Computer science · 2502.13923v1

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

Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report

Introduction / methods

erently, improving its ability to process images across different resolutions. For video inputs, Qwen2.5-VL incorporates dynamic frame rate (FPS) training and absolute time encoding. By adapting to variable frame rates, the model can better capture the temporal dynamics of video content. Unlike other approaches that incorporate textual timestamps or utilize additional heads to enable temporal grounding, we introduce a novel and efficient strategy that aligns MRoPE IDs directly with the timestamps. This approach allows the model to understand the tempo of time through the intervals between temporal dimension IDs, without necessitating any additional computational overhead. 2.1.3 Multimodal Rotary Position Embedding Aligned to Absolute Time Positional embeddings are crucial for modeling sequential data in both vision and language modalities. Building upon the Multimodal Rotary Position Embedding (MRoPE) introduced in Qwen2-VL, we extend its capabilities to better handle temporal information in videos. The MRoPE in Qwen2-VL decomposes the position embedding into three distinct components: temporal, height, and width to effectively model multimodal inputs. For textual inputs, all three

↓ 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 complete the interrupted sentence about MRoPE's three components (temporal, height, width) and their assignment for textual vs. visual inputs. The draft breaks mid-sentence at 'all three' and needs to explain how textual inputs handle these three components compared to visual inputs. Output B is more precise and complete: it specifies that 'temporal, height, and width components encode distinct spatial and temporal positions' for visual inputs, which directly mirrors the preceding sentence's three-component decomposition and clarifies that each component serves a distinct purpose. Output A's 'encode the spatial and temporal structure' is slightly more generic and less well-integrated with the immediate context. Output B also maintains better parallel structure with the source material's description of MRoPE. Both are usable and accurate, but B fits the argumentative flow better by explicitly mapping the three components to their distinct roles.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

components are assigned identical position IDs, whereas for visual inputs they encode the spatial and temporal structure of the image or 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 · TC-LLaVA: Rethinking the Transfer from Image to Video Understanding with Temporal Considerations

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly improved performance across various image-language applications. Recently, there has been a growing interest in adapting image pre-trained MLLMs for video-related tasks. However, most efforts concentrate on enhancing the vision encoder and…

Read full passage excerpt

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly improved performance across various image-language applications. Recently, there has been a growing interest in adapting image pre-trained MLLMs for video-related tasks. However, most efforts concentrate on enhancing the vision encoder and projector components, while the core part, Large Language Models (LLMs), remains comparatively under-explored. In this paper, we propose two strategies to enhance the model's capability in video understanding tasks by improving inter-layer attention computation in LLMs. Specifically, the first approach focuses on the enhancement of Rotary Position Embedding (RoPE) with Temporal-Aware Dual RoPE, which introduces temporal position information to strengthen the MLLM's temporal modeling capabilities while preserving the relative position relationships of both visual and text tokens. The second approach involves enhancing the Attention Mask with the Frame-wise Block Causal Attention Mask, a simpl …

Card 3 · Video-3D LLM: Learning Position-Aware Video Representation for 3D Scene Understanding

The rapid advancement of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has significantly impacted various multimodal tasks. However, these models face challenges in tasks that require spatial understanding within 3D environments. Efforts to enhance MLLMs, such as incorporating point cloud features, have…

Read full passage excerpt

The rapid advancement of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has significantly impacted various multimodal tasks. However, these models face challenges in tasks that require spatial understanding within 3D environments. Efforts to enhance MLLMs, such as incorporating point cloud features, have been made, yet a considerable gap remains between the models' learned representations and the inherent complexity of 3D scenes. This discrepancy largely stems from the training of MLLMs on predominantly 2D data, which restricts their effectiveness in comprehending 3D spaces. To address this issue, in this paper, we propose a novel generalist model, i.e., Video-3D LLM, for 3D scene understanding. By treating 3D scenes as dynamic videos and incorporating 3D position encoding into these representations, our Video-3D LLM aligns video representations with real-world spatial contexts more accurately. In addition, we have implemented a maximum coverage sampling technique to optimize the trade-off b …

Card 4 · LLaVA-ST: A Multimodal Large Language Model for Fine-Grained Spatial-Temporal Understanding

Recent advancements in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown promising results, yet existing approaches struggle to effectively handle both temporal and spatial localization simultaneously. This challenge stems from two key issues: first, incorporating spatial-temporal localization int…

Read full passage excerpt

Recent advancements in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown promising results, yet existing approaches struggle to effectively handle both temporal and spatial localization simultaneously. This challenge stems from two key issues: first, incorporating spatial-temporal localization introduces a vast number of coordinate combinations, complicating the alignment of linguistic and visual coordinate representations; second, encoding fine-grained temporal and spatial information during video feature compression is inherently difficult. To address these issues, we propose LLaVA-ST, a MLLM for fine-grained spatial-temporal multimodal understanding. In LLaVA-ST, we propose Language-Aligned Positional Embedding, which embeds the textual coordinate special token into the visual space, simplifying the alignment of fine-grained spatial-temporal correspondences. Additionally, we design the Spatial-Temporal Packer, which decouples the feature compression of temporal and spatial resolut …

Card 5 · VidEgoThink: Assessing Egocentric Video Understanding Capabilities for Embodied AI

Recent advancements in Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have opened new avenues for applications in Embodied AI. Building on previous work, EgoThink, we introduce VidEgoThink, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating egocentric video understanding capabilities. To bridge the gap between MLL…

Read full passage excerpt

Recent advancements in Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have opened new avenues for applications in Embodied AI. Building on previous work, EgoThink, we introduce VidEgoThink, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating egocentric video understanding capabilities. To bridge the gap between MLLMs and low-level control in Embodied AI, we design four key interrelated tasks: video question-answering, hierarchy planning, visual grounding and reward modeling. To minimize manual annotation costs, we develop an automatic data generation pipeline based on the Ego4D dataset, leveraging the prior knowledge and multimodal capabilities of GPT-4o. Three human annotators then filter the generated data to ensure diversity and quality, resulting in the VidEgoThink benchmark. We conduct extensive experiments with three types of models: API-based MLLMs, open-source image-based MLLMs, and open-source video-based MLLMs. Experimental results indicate that all MLLMs, including GPT-4o, perform poorly ac …

Model-reported card use

Card 1 · terminology

Affected output: components are assigned identical position IDs, whereas for visual inputs they encode the spatial and temporal structure of the image or video.

Model explanation: The row supplies the field-native terminology of MRoPE decomposing positional information into temporal, height, and width components for multimodal inputs, which shaped how the continuation describes the assignment of position IDs across modalities.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Preferred by blind review

components are assigned identical positional IDs, whereas for visual inputs the temporal, height, and width components encode distinct spatial and temporal positions.

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.

The blind model judge did not prefer either output.

Read the original model judgment

Order-swapped judges disagreed. Pass 1: Both outputs complete the sentence about MRoPE's three components (temporal, height, width) and how they differ between text and visual inputs. Output B is preferable because it explicitly names the three components ('temporal, height, and width') that were just introduced in the draft, making the continuation more precise and self-contained. Output A's 'spatial and temporal structure' is vaguer and doesn't mirror the draft's specific terminology. Output B also correctly uses 'distinct spatial and temporal positions' which aligns with the draft's emphasis on decomposition into separate components. Both are grounded in the source material about MRoPE decomposing position embedding into temporal, height, and width components. Pass 2: Output A is grounded in the source material. The Qwen2-VL source explicitly states that MRoPE 'decomposes the position embedding into three distinct components: temporal, height, and width' and that it facilitates 'the effective fusion of positional information across text, images, and videos.' Output A's claim that textual inputs have 'identical positional IDs' for all three components while visual inputs have 'distinct spatial and temporal positions' is a reasonable inference from the source's description of MRoPE's decomposition and its unified processing paradigm. Output B contains an unsupported claim: it states that for visual inputs 'they encode the spatial and temporal structure of the image or video' — but the draft explicitly states that for images, MRoPE decomposes into temporal, height, and width components. Images do not have temporal structure, yet Output B's vague 'spatial and temporal structure' incorrectly suggests temporal encoding applies to images. This is factually inaccurate given the draft's clear distinction that the temporal component is for videos (discussed in the 'For video inputs' and 'For textual inputs' contrast), and the source's description of M-RoPE handling text, images, and videos differently. Output B's claim about temporal structure for images is unsupported and misleading.

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.