Native multimodal pre-training trains a single model from scratch on text and multimodal data, enabling it to understand both language and visual inputs. However, how visual signals shape scaling behavior and support capabilities beyond visual understanding remains unclear. We investigate this question through controlled visual-content ablations across model sizes and training budgets. Specifically, we replace image embeddings with content-free padding token embeddings. Retaining visual content improves text prediction on image-text examples without materially changing the lowest text-only loss at a given compute budget, the optimal balance of model size and training data, or aggregate language scores. The relative multimodal loss benefit grows approximately as a power law of compute. To test benefits beyond understanding images, we evaluate spatial reasoning from text descriptions alone. Both conditions improve with model and data scaling. During training of the largest model, visual gains are most sustained in localization, navigation, and symbolic planning, which involve maintaining object configurations or composing spatial updates; gains in spatial relations, geometry, and physical commonsense are less consistent. These findings identify visual content as a scalable anchor for multimodal learning, with benefits that extend beyond visual inputs while preserving aggregate language performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: IsoFLOP curves (language objective). (a,b) At each target budget Ctext , we read the Ltextpad and Ltextimg across various model size at the token count satisfying 6NDtext=Ctext and plot it against logN . (c,d) Optimal model size Ntext,isoq and optimal token count Dtext,isoq as a function of the compute budget Ctext .
Figure 2: Training curve envelope (language objective). (a,b) Training curves span the evaluated model sizes. The lower envelope gives the lowest observed loss at each budget Ctext . The fitted loss frontier summarizes this envelope. (c,d) Optimal model size Ntext,envq and optimal token count Dtext,envq as a function of the compute budget Ctext .
Figure 3: IsoFLOP curves (multimodal objective). (a,b) At each target budget Cmm , we read the Lmmpad and Lmmimg across various model size at the token count satisfying 6NDmm=Cmm and plot it against logN . (c,d) Optimal model size Nmm,isoq and optimal token count Dmm,isoq as a function of the compute budget Cmm .
Figure 4: Training curve envelope (multimodal objective). (a,b) Training curves span the evaluated model sizes. The lower envelope gives the lowest observed loss at each budget Cmm . The fitted loss frontier summarizes this envelope. (c,d) Optimal model size Nmm,envq and optimal token count Dmm,envq as a function of the compute budget Cmm .
Figure 5: Visual anchoring strengthens with multimodal compute while the text gap stays near zero. (a) Paired text gaps, with a shaded ±0.1% reference band. (b) Paired multimodal gaps, colored by model size. (c) Gap profiles at six fixed compute budgets. Stars mark maxima of quadratic fits in logN , not loss minima. (d) Per-model gap trajectories, paired gaps along the img envelope, and their power-law fit (black, γ=0.256 ). All gaps are relative loss increases under ablation, expressed as percentages.
Figure 6: Aggregate language performance. Average scores over 15 text benchmarks for img and pad (a) Text performance across model sizes N . (b) A3B text performance over D .
Figure 7: Per-category language performance. Average scores evaluated using A3B models for img and pad conditions.
Figure 8: Aggregate spatial reasoning performance. Scores for img and pad , averaged equally across six task groups, with equal benchmark weights within each group. (a) Final performance across model sizes N at a nominal budget of D=325B tokens. (b) A3B performance over nominal training tokens D .
Figure 9: Scores across model sizes for each task group.
Figure 10: Scores under data scaling for each task group.
Figure 11: Growth of symbolic tower-building performance in the benchmark Blocksworld. Final-checkpoint scores for (a) short plans with 3-4 blocks (106 problems) and (b) long plans with 5-12 blocks (385 problems) in the tower-building task.
Figure 12: Execution outcomes across scales for (a) img and (b) pad . Length-limited responses are classified first; others are executed until the first invalid instruction or unmet precondition, with a goal check after legal plans. Labels give percentages for segments of at least 10%.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
A71M
A128M
A340M
A590M
A874M
A3B
Architecture Configurations
layers
11
15
19
23
27
48
hidden size
640
768
1152
1280
1536
2048
FFN hidden size
2048
2048
3072
4096
4096
6912
attention heads
8
12
16
20
24
32
query groups
4
Appendix
Table 1: Pre-training hyperparameters. We detail the hyperparameters used for pre-training different model configurations to derive scaling laws.
Capability
Benchmark
Items
Answer type
Spatial Relations
StepGame
3,000
Direction label
SpaRTUN
3326
Relation label
bAbI(positional reasoning)
627
Yes/no
FoREST
1998
Direction label
Localization
SpartQA
1994
Choice label
SpatialMap
997
Choice label
Appendix
Table 2: Spatial evaluation inventory. The 15 benchmarks cover six task groups.
Scale
Outcome or subset
img
pad
A71M
Truncation
1,115
1,069
A3B
Truncation
14
0
A3B
Legal plan, goal missed
523
1,121
A3B
Precondition violation
882
427
A3B
Too short among legal goal misses
231/523 (44.2%)
823/1,121 (73.4%)
Appendix
Table 3: Supplementary execution statistics. The last row is conditional on legal plans that miss the goal; its denominator differs from the outcome counts above.
IMG
PAD
Scale
Accepted
C / L / S / U
Accepted
C / L / S / U
A71M
3
0 / 0 / 3 / 0
1
1 / 0 / 0 / 0
A128M
1
1 / 0 / 0 / 0
3
1 / 0 / 2 / 0
A340M
3
1 / 0 / 1 / 1
2
0 / 0 / 1 / 1
A590M
2
1 / 0 / 0 / 1
2
1 / 1 / 0 / 0
A874M
1
1 / 0 / 0 / 0
3
2 / 0 / 1 / 0
Appendix
Table 4: Explanation quality among accepted answers in eight fixed problems per condition. C: consistent derivation; L: local verbal error with the solution intact; S: substantive reasoning error; U: unresolved boundary between local and substantive error. The four counts sum to Accepted, which is out of eight first responses. This manual case audit is separate from the all-response planning analysis and does not estimate population frequencies.
# Pre-Trained Tokens
25B
50B
75B
100B
125B
150B
175B
200B
225B
250B
275B
300B
325B
Aggregate
MMLU-Redux (Acc.)
27.05
38.81
44.74
48.35
51.19
51.37
54.49
54.21
55.05
56.00
57.17
57.09
57.98
MMLU-Pro (Acc.)
10.85
12.99
17.73
19.19
19.86
20.21
22.03
23.84
24.61
24.92
25.33
27.53
27.68
AGIEval en (Acc.)
20.49
22.71
27.88
29.27
32.13
32.66
36.03
36.58
35.02
35.99
37.10
36.92
37.73
SuperGPQA (Acc.)
10.78
13.48
14.92
16.88
18.11
18.27
18.69
19.63
20.17
20.63
21.08
21.53
22.00
Coding
HumanEval+ (Pass@1)
6.10
11.59
15.24
14.63
15.24
15.24
13.41
18.90
19.51
15.85
17.68
21.34
21.34
MBPP+ (Pass@1)
18.52
26.98
31.48
37.83
41.27
47.09
46.03
48.94
49.47
48.94
49.73
53.44
54.23
Appendix
Table 5: A3B IMG language scores across various D .
Model Sizes ( N )
A71M
A128M
A340M
A590M
A874M
A3B
Aggregate
MMLU-Redux (Acc.)
25.40
32.10
38.91
44.95
49.03
57.98
MMLU-Pro (Acc.)
10.68
11.63
13.87
14.97
17.29
27.68
AGIEval en (Acc.)
20.64
20.45
25.54
26.29
29.67
37.73
SuperGPQA (Acc.)
8.00
10.31
11.81
14.16
14.90
22.00
Coding
HumanEval+ (Pass@1)
4.88
7.93
12.20
16.46
15.85
21.34
MBPP+ (Pass@1)
7.94
13.23
26.45
30.95
37.57
54.23
Appendix
Table 6: img language scores across various N .
# Pre-Trained Tokens
25B
50B
75B
100B
125B
150B
175B
200B
225B
250B
275B
300B
325B
Aggregate
MMLU-Redux (Acc.)
25.89
38.30
44.72
48.49
50.44
51.63
52.74
54.63
54.40
55.74
56.72
56.32
57.75
MMLU-Pro (Acc.)
11.17
12.20
15.96
16.94
18.53
18.59
20.05
21.95
21.62
22.29
22.20
24.36
25.49
AGIEval en (Acc.)
19.16
23.64
28.36
31.37
33.51
33.49
34.94
35.63
37.57
35.60
36.13
37.86
37.42
SuperGPQA (Acc.)
10.43
12.63
14.66
15.33
15.04
16.57
17.68
17.84
19.89
19.44
19.61
20.87
20.17
Coding
HumanEval+ (Pass@1)
6.71
10.37
9.76
13.41
18.29
14.02
18.90
20.12
19.51
12.80
15.85
16.46
18.29
MBPP+ (Pass@1)
14.29
28.04
35.71
34.39
36.77
45.77
45.50
45.24
53.70
52.65
46.30
54.50
52.12
Appendix
Table 7: A3B pad language scores across various D .
Model Sizes ( N )
A71M
A128M
A340M
A590M
A874M
A3B
Aggregate
MMLU-Redux (Acc.)
25.44
30.68
38.51
45.79
47.60
57.75
MMLU-Pro (Acc.)
11.18
11.63
13.22
16.48
16.70
25.49
AGIEval en (Acc.)
21.42
21.73
24.94
27.60
30.52
37.42
SuperGPQA (Acc.)
8.39
9.90
12.65
13.55
13.83
20.17
Coding
HumanEval+ (Pass@1)
7.32
7.93
10.98
16.46
13.41
18.29
MBPP+ (Pass@1)
8.99
12.17
22.75
31.48
35.98
52.12
Appendix
Table 8: pad language scores across various N .
# Pre-Trained Tokens
25B
50B
75B
100B
125B
150B
175B
200B
225B
250B
275B
300B
325B
Spatial Relations
StepGame
16.34
19.31
21.07
24.62
27.58
26.99
27.02
29.59
29.45
29.04
29.68
31.56
33.11
SpaRTUN
19.97
26.72
24.69
29.19
27.83
31.30
27.44
30.37
27.64
32.22
32.34
32.25
32.17
bAbI(positional reasoning)
47.49
47.85
47.05
48.52
52.07
54.19
53.79
54.27
51.20
52.31
59.41
51.36
58.41
FoREST
39.18
42.62
45.78
46.11
50.10
48.01
46.03
46.91
49.54
46.01
47.00
48.65
52.41
Localization
SpartQA
22.93
33.09
32.35
31.86
31.81
33.55
29.61
29.41
27.62
33.38
31.01
33.35
31.78
SpatialMap
20.91
26.45
29.01
28.91
33.45
33.30
33.27
33.10
31.47
34.25
35.21
32.22
33.25
Appendix
Table 9: A3B img spatial scores across various D .
Model Sizes ( N )
A71M
A128M
A340M
A590M
A874M
A3B
Spatial Relations
StepGame
15.46
14.20
16.97
20.64
21.67
33.11
SpaRTUN
19.76
24.11
24.95
25.17
24.68
32.17
bAbI(positional reasoning)
28.51
48.09
47.73
47.77
47.73
58.41
FoREST
34.23
35.70
40.04
40.90
47.75
52.41
Localization
SpartQA
25.93
33.35
32.72
31.01
30.58
31.78
SpatialMap
8.78
18.61
22.19
24.35
27.63
33.25
Appendix
Table 10: img spatial scores across various N .
# Pre-Trained Tokens
25B
50B
75B
100B
125B
150B
175B
200B
225B
250B
275B
300B
325B
Spatial Relations
StepGame
15.72
19.23
20.70
21.46
26.37
27.28
26.95
27.72
29.63
31.77
31.73
29.41
30.02
SpaRTUN
21.41
25.37
25.14
26.45
28.83
29.83
30.60
30.49
31.64
31.95
32.33
31.20
33.32
bAbI(positional reasoning)
46.53
47.81
47.89
50.32
48.41
51.59
52.43
49.96
52.07
50.48
52.19
57.50
52.75
FoREST
33.95
46.01
46.95
44.89
49.06
51.50
48.79
48.21
51.64
50.10
49.41
49.00
48.69
Localization
SpartQA
31.23
31.96
29.11
30.20
31.68
29.00
30.20
29.53
30.12
29.35
28.84
30.03
28.97
SpatialMap
16.22
22.77
28.18
25.95
30.07
31.04
30.62
30.44
27.76
31.19
30.74
34.05
31.92
Appendix
Table 11: A3B pad spatial scores across various D .
Multimodal pretraining learns reusable representations by training models on paired or mixed data from multiple modalities, such as text, images, audio, and signals.
Although large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable reasoning capabilities, their reliance on text-only pre-training restricts the perception of the multimodal physical world. Native multimodal pre-training avoids this limitation by training models from scratch on multimodal inputs, thereby achieving deep cross-modal integration and mitigating optimization asymmetries inherent to traditional late-fusion architectures. Despite these advantages, the scaling properties of this paradigm remain incompletely characterized. To address this gap, we investigate the optimal model size and token count for training a Transformer-based vision-language model under a fixed computational budget. Our study demonstrates that minimal objective loss adheres to a predictable compute law, whereas compute-optimal model sizes and token counts scale as power laws. Notably, language and multimodal objectives manifest distinct allocation trends. The language allocation exponents lie in a similar range across the different data mixtures. The multimodal model-allocation exponent decreases modestly with the multimodal token ratio, indicating a relative shift toward token allocation. Additionally, our scaling analysis yields a budget-compensation rule. Specifically, an additional multimodal-token budget can offset the text-efficiency penalty caused by incorporating visual information into native multimodal pre-training under a fixed compute budget. Downstream evaluations further reveal that native multimodal pre-training is associated with improved spatial reasoning and multimodal few-shot learning. Generally, this empirical research establishes the essential groundwork for predictably scaling multimodal foundation models.
Haoyuan Wu, Aoqi Wu, Hai Wang +3
The Chinese University of Hong Kong · LLM Department, Tencent
The visual world offers a critical axis for advancing foundation models beyond language. Despite growing interest in this direction, the design space for native multimodal models remains opaque. We provide empirical clarity through controlled, from-scratch pretraining experiments, isolating the factors that govern multimodal pretraining without interference from language pretraining. We adopt the Transfusion framework, using next-token prediction for language and diffusion for vision, to train on diverse data including text, video, image-text pairs, and even action-conditioned video. Our experiments yield four key insights: (i) Representation Autoencoder (RAE) provides an optimal unified visual representation by excelling at both visual understanding and generation; (ii) visual and language data are complementary and yield synergy for downstream capabilities; (iii) unified multimodal pretraining leads naturally to world modeling, with capabilities emerging from general training; and (iv) Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) enables efficient and effective multimodal scaling while naturally inducing modality specialization. Through IsoFLOP analysis, we compute scaling laws for both modalities and uncover a scaling asymmetry: vision is significantly more data-hungry than language. We demonstrate that the MoE architecture harmonizes this scaling asymmetry by providing the high model capacity required by language while accommodating the data-intensive nature of vision, paving the way for truly unified multimodal models.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have achieved rapid progress, yet their scaling behavior remains less clearly characterized and often less predictable than that of text-only LLMs. Increasing model size and task diversity often yields diminishing returns. In this work, we argue that the primary bottleneck in multimodal scaling is not task format, but knowledge density in training data. We first show that task-specific supervision such as Visual Question Answering (VQA) contributes little incremental semantic information beyond image captions: VQA signals can be reconstructed from captions with negligible performance loss. We then demonstrate that increasing knowledge density -- through structured caption enrichment and cross-modal knowledge injection -- leads to consistent performance improvements across multimodal and downstream benchmarks. Across controlled experiments, performance correlates more strongly with semantic coverage than with task diversity. These findings suggest that current MLLMs fail to scale primarily because training data lacks sufficient knowledge coverage. We advocate for knowledge-centric multimodal training as a principled foundation for scalable multimodal models.
Hongjian Zou, Yue Ge, Qi Ding +2
vivo AI Lab, Shenzhen, China · Wuhan University, Wuhan, China