Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report

We introduce Qwen2.5-VL, the latest flagship model of Qwen vision-language series, which demonstrates significant advancements in both foundational capabilities and innovative functionalities. Qwen2.5-VL achieves a major leap forward in understanding and interacting with the world through enhanced visual recognition, precise object localization, robust document parsing, and long-video comprehension. A standout feature of Qwen2.5-VL is its ability to localize objects using bounding boxes or points accurately. It provides robust structured data extraction from invoices, forms, and tables, as well as detailed analysis of charts, diagrams, and layouts. To handle complex inputs, Qwen2.5-VL introduces dynamic resolution processing and absolute time encoding, enabling it to process images of varying sizes and videos of extended durations (up to hours) with second-level event localization. This allows the model to natively perceive spatial scales and temporal dynamics without relying on traditional normalization techniques. By training a native dynamic-resolution Vision Transformer (ViT) from scratch and incorporating Window Attention, we reduce computational overhead while maintaining native resolution. As a result, Qwen2.5-VL excels not only in static image and document understanding but also as an interactive visual agent capable of reasoning, tool usage, and task execution in real-world scenarios such as operating computers and mobile devices. Qwen2.5-VL is available in three sizes, addressing diverse use cases from edge AI to high-performance computing. The flagship Qwen2.5-VL-72B model matches state-of-the-art models like GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, particularly excelling in document and diagram understanding. Additionally, Qwen2.5-VL maintains robust linguistic performance, preserving the core language competencies of the Qwen2.5 LLM.

Host: Hey everyone, welcome back to the podcast! Super excited for today's episode. We're diving into the world of pre-prints, specifically focusing on arXiv. It's a topic that's been buzzing around in academic circles and beyond, and I think it's crucial for anyone interested in science, research, or even just staying up-to-date with the latest discoveries.

Guest: Absolutely, Leo! arXiv is a game-changer. It’s not just a repository; it's a window into the raw, unfiltered progress of scientific thought. Before arXiv, waiting for peer-reviewed publications could take months, even years. This platform allows researchers to share their work almost immediately, fostering faster collaboration and dissemination of knowledge.

Host: Exactly! And I think that speed is absolutely critical, especially in fields that are moving as fast as, say, AI or quantum computing. But let's back up a little bit. For those who might not be familiar, can you give us a quick overview of what arXiv actually is and how it works? I mean, it's more than just a website with a bunch of PDFs, right?

Guest: Definitely. arXiv is essentially an open-access archive for electronic pre-prints of scientific papers. Primarily, it covers fields like physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. Researchers upload their papers to arXiv before (or sometimes instead of) submitting them to traditional peer-reviewed journals. This allows the scientific community to access and discuss the findings much earlier. The key is that these are 'pre-prints,' meaning they haven't gone through the formal peer-review process. Think of it as a first draft shared with the world for feedback and further development.

Host: Okay, so it's like a sneak peek behind the curtain of scientific publishing. That makes sense. But how does arXiv ensure some level of quality control? I mean, anyone can upload anything to the internet these days. Are there safeguards in place to prevent the spread of, you know, pseudoscience or just plain wrong information?

Guest: That's a valid concern, and arXiv does have moderation procedures. It's not a free-for-all. They employ volunteer moderators, often experts in their respective fields, who screen submissions for basic suitability. They check for things like relevance to the subject areas covered by arXiv, originality (to avoid blatant plagiarism), and some minimal level of scientific rigor. If a paper is deemed completely nonsensical or clearly fraudulent, it can be rejected. However, it's important to remember that arXiv is not a peer-review system. Moderators don't assess the correctness of the science itself. That's still up to the community to evaluate through discussion, replication, and eventual peer review in journals, if the authors choose to pursue that route. It's more about ensuring the submission fits within the general scope and doesn't violate basic ethical or academic standards.

Host: So, it's more of a 'sanity check' than a rigorous validation process. That's a crucial distinction. Now, you mentioned that researchers sometimes submit to arXiv instead of traditional journals. Why would someone choose to do that? What are the advantages and disadvantages of going straight to arXiv and skipping the whole peer-review process altogether?

Guest: That's a multifaceted question. One primary advantage is speed. In rapidly evolving fields, the time it takes to get published in a traditional journal can be a significant barrier to progress. By posting on arXiv, researchers can immediately share their findings and get feedback from colleagues, potentially accelerating the pace of discovery. Another advantage is broader accessibility. Many journals require subscriptions, which can be expensive and limit access to research for those at smaller institutions or in developing countries. arXiv provides free and open access to a vast body of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, some researchers believe that peer review, while valuable, can sometimes be overly conservative or biased, stifling innovation. By posting on arXiv, they can bypass this potential bottleneck and let the community decide the merits of their work. However, there are also disadvantages. Pre-prints don't carry the same weight as peer-reviewed publications in terms of academic recognition and career advancement. Many institutions still prioritize publications in established journals when evaluating researchers for promotions or funding. Also, pre-prints haven't undergone the same level of scrutiny as peer-reviewed papers, so there's a higher risk of errors or flaws. Finally, there's the issue of priority. While posting on arXiv establishes a date of record for your work, it doesn't guarantee that someone else won't independently discover the same findings and publish them in a journal first, potentially claiming priority. It's a complex calculus, and researchers often weigh these factors carefully when deciding whether and when to post on arXiv.

Host: That's a really insightful overview. It sounds like there's a trade-off between speed and accessibility on one hand, and the perceived credibility and validation of peer review on the other. I'm curious, what are some of the implications of arXiv for the scientific community as a whole? Has it fundamentally changed the way science is done, or is it just a marginal improvement on the traditional publishing model?

Guest: I'd argue that it has fundamentally changed the scientific landscape, although perhaps not completely replaced the traditional model. The most significant impact is arguably the increased speed of scientific communication. Ideas spread much faster, collaborations form more readily, and errors are identified and corrected more quickly. This has led to a noticeable acceleration in the pace of scientific progress, particularly in fields like physics and computer science, where arXiv is widely used. It has also democratized access to scientific knowledge, leveling the playing field for researchers around the world. Researchers in less affluent countries can access the same pre-prints as their counterparts at top universities, allowing them to participate more fully in the global scientific conversation. Furthermore, arXiv has fostered a more open and collaborative research culture. The ability to share pre-prints encourages researchers to solicit feedback from the community, leading to improvements in their work and the development of new ideas. However, there are also challenges. The sheer volume of pre-prints on arXiv can be overwhelming, making it difficult to stay up-to-date with the latest research. Also, the lack of formal peer review can make it challenging to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality work. This requires researchers to be more critical and discerning in their reading, and to rely on their own expertise and judgment. There’s also the potential for increased competition, as researchers race to publish their findings on arXiv to establish priority. This can sometimes lead to a decrease in the quality of research, as researchers may be tempted to cut corners or publish prematurely. But overall, I think the benefits of arXiv far outweigh the drawbacks. It has transformed the way science is done, making it faster, more accessible, and more collaborative.

Host: I'm really struck by the point about democratizing access. Thinking about researchers in less well-funded institutions, that immediate access must be such a boost. Now, let's get practical. Suppose someone is listening and thinking, 'Okay, this arXiv thing sounds interesting, but how do I actually use it effectively?' What advice would you give to someone who's new to arXiv on how to navigate the site, find relevant papers, and critically evaluate the information they find there?

Guest: Great question! First, familiarize yourself with the arXiv subject categories. The site is organized into broad categories like 'physics,' 'mathematics,' and 'computer science,' and each of these is further subdivided into more specific subcategories. Start by exploring the categories that are most relevant to your interests. Second, use the search function effectively. arXiv has a powerful search engine that allows you to search for papers by keywords, authors, titles, and abstracts. Experiment with different search terms to find the papers you're looking for. You can also use advanced search operators to refine your searches, such as 'AND,' 'OR,' and 'NOT.' Third, pay attention to the dates of submission. arXiv papers are date-stamped, so you can easily see how recent a paper is. In rapidly evolving fields, it's often more useful to focus on the most recent papers. Fourth, read the abstracts carefully. The abstract is a concise summary of the paper's main findings, so it's a good way to quickly assess whether a paper is relevant to your interests. Fifth, don't be afraid to skim the paper before reading it in detail. Look at the figures, tables, and equations to get a sense of the paper's content. Sixth, critically evaluate the information you find. Remember that arXiv papers haven't been peer-reviewed, so it's important to assess the validity of the research yourself. Look for things like clear methodology, appropriate statistical analysis, and consistent results. Seventh, check for citations. See if other researchers have cited the paper in their own work. This can give you a sense of how influential the paper has been. Eighth, look for comments and discussions. Some arXiv papers have associated comment sections where researchers can discuss the paper's findings. These comments can be a valuable source of information and insight. Finally, don't hesitate to contact the authors if you have questions or comments. Most researchers are happy to discuss their work with others. By following these tips, you can navigate arXiv effectively and find the information you need.

Host: That's a fantastic set of practical tips. I especially appreciate the emphasis on critical evaluation. It's so easy to just assume that everything you read is true, especially when it's presented with scientific jargon. Now, let's talk about the future. Where do you see arXiv going in the next 5 to 10 years? Are there any challenges or opportunities on the horizon?

Guest: Looking ahead, I think arXiv is poised to become even more central to the scientific ecosystem. One key trend is the increasing adoption of pre-prints in other fields beyond physics and computer science. We're already seeing more pre-prints in areas like biology, medicine, and the social sciences, and I expect this trend to continue. This will require arXiv to expand its subject categories and develop new tools and features to support these diverse communities. Another challenge is managing the growing volume of submissions. As arXiv becomes more popular, it will need to find new ways to filter and organize the information to make it easier for researchers to find what they're looking for. This could involve things like improved search algorithms, personalized recommendations, and automated quality assessment tools. AI will likely play a huge role here, helping to identify potentially flawed research or highlight groundbreaking discoveries. Furthermore, arXiv will need to address the issue of long-term preservation. As a digital archive, it's crucial that arXiv ensures the accessibility and integrity of its content for future generations. This will require ongoing investments in infrastructure, data management, and cybersecurity. There’s also the need to better integrate with the traditional publishing system. Right now, there's often a disconnect between arXiv and journals, which can create confusion and inefficiencies. I think we'll see more efforts to streamline the process of submitting papers to both arXiv and journals simultaneously, and to link pre-prints with their corresponding published articles. Finally, there's the potential for arXiv to evolve beyond a simple repository and become a more interactive platform for scientific communication. This could involve features like online forums, collaborative annotation tools, and live-streaming seminars. The goal is to create a more dynamic and engaging environment for researchers to share their ideas and collaborate on projects. Of course, funding will be crucial to realize this vision. Continued support from institutions, foundations, and individual donors will be essential to ensure that arXiv can continue to serve the scientific community effectively.

Host: That's a really compelling vision for the future. The idea of arXiv evolving into a more interactive and collaborative platform is particularly exciting. It sounds like there's a huge opportunity to leverage technology to enhance the scientific process. You mentioned the challenge of managing the growing volume of submissions, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on how arXiv might address the issue of predatory pre-print servers. There have been some concerns raised about the proliferation of these servers, which often lack proper moderation and quality control.

Guest: That's a very important point. The rise of predatory pre-print servers poses a significant threat to the integrity of the scientific record. These servers often accept submissions without any meaningful screening, allowing низкокачественные or even fraudulent papers to be disseminated widely. This can create confusion, undermine trust in science, and potentially harm public health. One strategy is for arXiv to strengthen its own moderation procedures to make it even more difficult for низкокачественные papers to slip through the cracks. This could involve things like using AI to detect plagiarism or fraudulent data, or expanding the pool of volunteer moderators. Another approach is to educate researchers about the dangers of predatory pre-print servers and to encourage them to submit their work only to reputable platforms like arXiv. This could involve developing guidelines for evaluating pre-print servers and publishing lists of known predatory servers. Furthermore, the scientific community as a whole needs to develop norms and standards for pre-print posting. This could involve things like requiring authors to disclose any conflicts of interest, or requiring pre-prints to be accompanied by data and code. The goal is to create a culture of transparency and accountability that discourages the use of predatory pre-print servers. Finally, funding agencies and academic institutions need to recognize the importance of pre-print quality and to factor this into their evaluation processes. This could involve things like giving less weight to publications on predatory pre-print servers, or requiring researchers to submit their data and code along with their pre-prints. By taking these steps, we can help to ensure that pre-prints remain a valuable tool for scientific communication and that the scientific record is not compromised by predatory practices. It’s a collective effort, and requires vigilance from researchers, institutions, and arXiv itself.

Host: Those are all really excellent points. It sounds like a multi-pronged approach is needed to combat the problem of predatory pre-print servers. Education, stricter moderation, and the establishment of community norms all seem crucial. Now, before we wrap up, I wanted to ask you about the arXiv 'no HTML' message. I was recently trying to access a paper and got a message saying 'No HTML for [paper ID]. This could be due to the source files not being HTML, LaTeX, or a conversion failure.' What does that mean, and how does it affect accessibility?

Guest: Ah, the dreaded 'No HTML' message! This essentially means that arXiv wasn't able to automatically convert the source files of the paper into an HTML version for easy web browsing. arXiv tries its best to create HTML versions of all submitted papers because it significantly improves accessibility. HTML allows for easier reading on different devices, better integration with screen readers for visually impaired users, and generally a more user-friendly experience compared to just downloading a PDF. The most common reason for this message is that the authors submitted their paper in a format that arXiv's conversion tools can't handle properly. LaTeX is usually the preferred format, but if there are errors in the LaTeX code, or if the authors use unusual packages or formatting, the conversion can fail. Sometimes, authors submit papers as scanned PDFs, which are essentially images of text and are very difficult to convert to HTML. The accessibility implications are significant. Without an HTML version, visually impaired users who rely on screen readers may have difficulty accessing the paper. It also makes it harder for anyone to copy and paste text, search within the document, or use other web-based tools. arXiv encourages authors to help improve accessibility by ensuring that their submissions are in a compatible format and by following best practices for creating accessible documents. They even have guidelines on their website about how to do this. If you encounter the 'No HTML' message, you can still download the original source files (usually a PDF), but it's definitely less convenient and less accessible. It's a reminder that while arXiv has made great strides in making science more open, there's still work to be done to ensure that everyone can access and benefit from this valuable resource.