Abstract
Vision-language models show inverse scaling on specific subtasks, where larger versions underperform smaller ones in areas like spatial reasoning and STEM questions, indicating that model choice should be task-specific.
Scaling laws suggest that increasing model size, training data, and compute generally yields monotonic performance improvements. While this often holds at the aggregate level, we present systematic evidence that vision-language models (VLMs) exhibit inverse scaling at the subtask level: specific question categories on which larger models perform worse than smaller counterparts within the same model family. We evaluate 19 models from four distinct model families across eight multimodal benchmarks (nine evaluation splits), answering 29,386 questions per model, 558,334 model-question evaluations in total. Using per-question pairwise analysis across all model pairs in each family, we identify 375 subtask-model-pair combinations exhibiting inverse scaling, spanning 4,342 unique queries where a smaller model answers correctly but a larger model fails, and we find that these patterns replicate across independently developed architectures. We identify 13 subtask-dataset pairs that show inverse scaling across multiple families, consistent with the phenomenon being task-driven rather than model-specific. The most affected domains in our study include multi-image spatial reasoning, visual perception, and university-level STEM knowledge, with accuracy gaps exceeding 20 percentage points in several cases, while diagram understanding appears comparatively resistant. These findings challenge the assumption that increasing model size uniformly improves multimodal capabilities and suggest that model selection should be task-aware.
Community
In this paper, we investigate does scaling a vision-language model improve every capability.
We compare 19 open-weight VLMs (Qwen3-VL, InternVL3.5, Gemma 3, Molmo 2; 1B to 241B) on 8 benchmarks, comparing smaller and larger models on the same questions. We find 375 subtask-level inverse-scaling cases. Thirteen subtasks regress in at least three independent families, and the effect survives dense-only and twofold-size restrictions, statistical correction and annotation audits. Chain-of-thought helps on knowledge-heavy tasks, but about half of the perception cases persist. Takeaway: evaluate different size of models on your VLM task, the biggest model may not necessarily be the best one for it.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- Seeing and Solving Are Not Enough for Vision-Language Models (2026)
- PRISM-VLM: A Multi-Axis Discriminative Benchmark for Compact Vision-Language Models (2026)
- VisualWorldBench: A Fine-Grained Multi-Task Benchmark for Evaluating Visual World Knowledge in MLLMs (2026)
- A Systematic Study of Small Language Models on Abstract Reasoning Tasks (2026)
- Seeing is not Enough: Vision-Language Models Perceive Evidence but Fail to Act (2026)
- Looks the Same, Answers Differently: Flip-Direction Steering for Robust Vision-Language Reasoning (2026)
- From Knowing to Abstaining: Bridging the Representation-Action Gap in Vision-Language Models (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper