Papers
arxiv:2610.27360

On the Limits of Scale: Inverse Scaling in Vision-Language Models

Published on Oct 19
· Submitted by
Rohit Saxena
on Oct 21
Authors:
,
,
,

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

Paper submitter

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.

Sign up or log in to comment

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.27360 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.27360 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.27360 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.