In the era of Vision-Language Models (VLMs), enhancing multimodal reasoning capabilities remains a critical challenge, particularly in handling ambiguous or complex visual inputs, where initial inferences often lead to hallucinations or logic errors. Existing VLMs often produce plausible yet ungrounded answers, and even when prompted to "reflect", their corrections may remain detached from the image evidence. To address this, we propose the MIRROR framework for Multimodal Iterative Reasoning via Reflection On visual Regions. By embedding visual reflection as a core mechanism, MIRROR is formulated as a closed-loop process comprising draft, critique, region-based verification, and revision, which are repeated until the output is visually grounded. To facilitate training of this model, we construct ReflectV, a visual reflective dataset for multi-turn supervision that explicitly contains reflection triggers, region-based verification actions, and answer revision grounded in visual evidence. Experiments on both general vision-language benchmarks and representative vision-language reasoning benchmarks show that MIRROR improves correctness and reduces visual hallucinations, demonstrating the value of training reflection as an evidence-seeking, region-aware verification process rather than a purely textual revision step.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of existing multimodal reasoning paradigms. MIRROR explicitly seeks visual evidence to achieve closed-loop visually grounded verification.
Figure 2: MIRROR performs closed-loop: it iteratively generates an initial response, identifies response uncertainties, invokes the visual prompt generator for verification, and revises based on the rendered visual evidence.
Figure 3: Overview of the ReflectV construction pipeline. Multi-turn reflective trajectories are constructed from diverse multimodal datasets and further processed into visually grounded verification trajectories.
Model
General Capabilities
OCR & Document
MM-Vet
MMStar
SeedBench-2-Plus
TextVQA-Val
OCRBench
ChartQA-Test
LLaVA-OneVision-7B
48.80
61.70
–
76.10
62.10
80.00
InternVL3-2B
54.95
60.70
64.95
77.00
82.20
76.08
InternVL3-8B
64.27
61.50
69.61
80.51
85.00
79.64
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
47.39
55.87
68.81
79.12
82.60
83.20
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
56.60
61.21
70.88
84.90
83.20
86.08
Table 1: Performance on General and OCR & Document benchmarks. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined . MIRROR (w/o loop) is an open-loop variant without reflective loop.
Model
Hallucination
Fine-grained Perception
Math
POPE
HallusionBench
HRBench-4K
MME-RW
VStarBench
MathVision
LLaVA-OneVision-7B
78.10
31.60
63.00
–
72.30
18.30
InternVL3-2B
89.60
42.50
61.75
43.88
68.59
21.71
InternVL3-8B
90.37
49.90
70.00
48.83
68.06
20.39
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
86.21
63.09
50.25
42.15
72.77
25.66
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
86.45
68.66
68.87
44.29
75.39
23.36
Table 2: Performance comparison on Hallucination, Fine-grained Perception, and Math benchmarks. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively. MME-RW indicates MME-RealWorld-Lite.
Figure 4: Qualitative examples of iterative visual reflection. Compared to Qwen2.5-VL and MIRROR (w/o loop) (without reflective loop), MIRROR successfully corrects errors via visually grounded verification.
Figure 5: Visualization of per-token attention maps in the first reasoning round (before tool invocation). Correct target regions (the specific value “56” and the “van”) are highlighted with red boxes in MIRROR’s attention maps.
Method
OCRBench
POPE
MME-RW
MM-Vet
Text Reflection
VL-Rethinker
85.40
84.19
47.21
56.19
Visual Reflection
LookBack (Solution)
87.50
88.20
49.80
63.50
LookBack (Semantic)
88.60
89.80
50.40
65.10
Thinking with Images
Table 3: Performance comparison with SOTA reasoning methods, all fine-tuned on Qwen2.5-VL-7B. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined .
Method
OCRBench
POPE
VStarBench
MM-Vet
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
82.60
86.20
72.77
47.39
+vanilla-SFT
81.60
86.31
75.92
56.33
MIRROR-3B
85.40
87.74
80.63
60.60
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
83.20
86.45
75.39
56.60
+vanilla-SFT
86.90
86.99
78.01
61.01
MIRROR-7B
92.00
94.42
83.77
66.70
Table 4: Ablation study on training paradigms, model sizes, and architectures. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined .
Ratio ρ
OCR
Math
Spat
Gen
Rec
Avg.
ρ=0.5
61.85
51.54
59.73
45.75
55.61
55.87
ρ=0.6
64.81
56.15
62.13
56.75
61.28
60.32
ρ=1.0
65.19
56.54
61.47
54.12
59.04
58.81
ρ=0.75
69.90
60.77
70.80
61.62
64.40
66.70
Table 5: Ablation study regarding multi-turn sample ratio ρ for trajectory adaptation on MM-Vet. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined .
Configuration
Loop
Tools
MM-Vet
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
-
-
56.60
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Tools
-
✓
57.90
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-MIRROR
✓
✓
57.10
MIRROR (w/o loop)
-
-
59.91
MIRROR-Tools
-
✓
62.70
MIRROR (ours)
✓
✓
66.70
Table 6: Ablation study of the closed-loop reflection mechanism on the MM-Vet benchmark (Average Score). Bold and underlined indicate the best and second-best performance, respectively.
Figure 6: Statistics and distribution of the ReflectV dataset construction. (a). Domain Distribution: The composition of the raw data spans four distinct capabilities: General QA, Document Understanding (Doc), Scene Text (OCR), and Chart Reasoning. (b). Filtering Pipeline: The data volume retention across the three construction stages (Original → Response-Filtered → GT-Filtered), illustrating the rigorous quality control process described in Section 4.1 . (c). Trajectory Depth: We set the default mixing ratio to ρ=0.75 for our training. The distribution of samples based on the number of self-reflection rounds required for convergence illustrates the varying complexity of error correction.
Appendix figures & tables32 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Human
GPT-4o-mini
Average
Logic
Visual
Logic
Visual
Logic
Visual
Dnoise
2.14
1.38
2.30
1.45
2.22
1.42
Draw
3.56
3.12
3.65
3.20
3.61
3.16
Dclean
4.78
4.65
4.82
4.70
4.80
4.68
Appendix
Table 7: Comparative quality assessment. We evaluate samples from Discarded ( Dnoise ), Unfiltered ( Draw ), and Filtered ( Dclean ) subsets. The results demonstrate that our pipeline effectively isolates high-quality trajectories.
Figure 7: Distribution of inference trajectory lengths across representative benchmarks. The stacked bars illustrate the percentage of samples resolved within 1, 2, or 3+ rounds.
(a) Part 1 of the case from Dnoise .
Figure 9: Case 1 from Dnoise .
Model
OCR
Math
Spat
Gen
Rec
Overall
MIRROR-Raw
56.39
41.54
55.20
38.63
55.88
55.87
MIRROR-1.0
65.19
56.54
61.47
54.12
59.04
58.81
MIRROR-0.75
69.90
60.77
70.80
61.62
64.40
66.70
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation study on data filtering strategy conducted on MM-Vet. We compare MIRROR-Raw with MIRROR-1.0 and our final MIRROR-0.75 ( ρ=0.75 ). The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively.
Method
C → C
W → C ↑
C → W ↓
W → W ↓
Qwen2.5-VL- 7B-MIRROR
28.0
28.5
15.0
28.5
MIRROR (ours)
25.0
69.0
3.5
2.5
Appendix
Table 9: Reflection outcome analysis on the triggered multi-turn subset of MM-Vet. Distribution of correctness transitions (%) on the triggered multi-turn subset of MM-Vet.
Figure 10: Subject Extraction Prompt: Extracts core subjects and key modifiers from questions to form concise visual descriptions for Chart, OCR, and Doc understanding tasks.
Figure 11: Visual Caption Generation Prompt: A two-step pipeline that first identifies key physical objects from feedback and then synthesizes them into short descriptive captions for QA tasks.
Figure 12: Caption Insertion Prompt: Seamlessly integrates generated visual captions and spatial marks (e.g., points) into textual feedback to ensure visual grounding.
Figure 13: Self-Reflection Conversion Prompt: Rewrites teacher-side evaluations into first-person student self-reflections (e.g., changing "Your response is wrong" to "I think my response is wrong").
(a) Part 1 of system prompt.
Figure 15: System prompt during training.
Figure 16: User prompt during training.
Method
Time (s) ↓
Tokens ↓
Text Reflection
VL-Rethinker
5.56
229.33
Visual Reflection
Look-Back (Semantic)
89.34
307.90
Look-Back (Solution)
300.86
427.22
Thinking with Images
Appendix
Table 10: Efficiency comparison on the MM-Vet dataset. We report the average time cost (seconds) and token consumption per sample. Bold and underlined indicate the best and second-best efficiency, respectively.
Configuration
Time (s) ↓
Tokens ↓
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
2.81
85.50
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Tools
6.65
180.40
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-MIRROR
4.69
156.30
MIRROR (w/o loop)
3.25
98.50
MIRROR-Tools
5.74
161.70
MIRROR (ours)
3.73
112.58
Appendix
Table 11: Efficiency breakdown of ablation configurations on MM-Vet. Time and token costs are per sample. Bold and underlined indicate the best and second-best, respectively.
(a) Part 1 of comparison case 1 with Qwen2.5-VL-7B.
Figure 18: Comparison case 1 with Qwen2.5-VL-7B.
Figure 19: Comparison case 2 with Qwen2.5-VL-7B.
(a) Part 1 of comparison case 1 with reasoning paradigms.
(a) Part 2 of comparison case 1 with reasoning paradigms.
Figure 22: Comparison case 1 with reasoning paradigms.
(a) Part 1 of comparison case 2 with reasoning paradigms.
(a) Part 2 of comparison case 2 with reasoning paradigms.
Figure 25: Comparison case 2 with reasoning paradigms.
(a) Part 1 of comparison case 3 with reasoning paradigms.
(a) Part 2 of comparison case 3 with reasoning paradigms.
Figure 28: Comparison case 3 with reasoning paradigms.
(a) Part 1 of comparison case 4 with reasoning paradigms.
Figure 30: Comparison case 4 with reasoning paradigms.
(a) Part 1 of Qualitative failure case 1.
Figure 32: Limited Applicability in Abstract Domains: When addressing mathematical problems, the model attempts to verify symbolic logic (e.g., radius calculation) visually. However, since abstract derivations cannot be spatially grounded, the resulting visual prompts (red points) are uninformative and do not aid in verifying the calculation.
Figure 33: Coarse-grained Attribute Binding: This case demonstrates the limitations of the current visual verification mechanism.
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) achieve strong multimodal reasoning performance, yet we identify a recurring failure mode in long-form generation: as outputs grow longer, models progressively drift away from image evidence and fall back on textual priors, resulting in ungrounded reasoning and hallucinations. Interestingly, Based on attention analysis, we find that MLLMs have a latent capability for late-stage visual verification that is present but not consistently activated. Motivated by this observation, we propose Visual Re-Examination (VRE), a self-evolving training framework that enables MLLMs to autonomously perform visual introspection during reasoning without additional visual inputs. Rather than distilling visual capabilities from a stronger teacher, VRE promotes iterative self-improvement by leveraging the model itself to generate reflection traces, making visual information actionable through information gain. Extensive experiments across diverse multimodal benchmarks demonstrate that VRE consistently improves reasoning accuracy and perceptual reliability, while substantially reducing hallucinations, especially in long-chain settings. Code is available at https://github.com/Xiaobu-USTC/VRE.
Shuai Lv, Chang Liu, Feng Tang +5
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China · Huawei Foundation Model Department, Shanghai, China · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China +1
Recent large vision-language models (LVLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning ability by generating long chain-of-thought (CoT) responses. However, CoT reasoning in multimodal contexts is highly vulnerable to visual hallucination propagation: once an intermediate reasoning step becomes inconsistent with the visual evidence, subsequent steps-even if logically valid-can still lead to incorrect final answers. Existing solutions attempt to mitigate this issue by training models to "think with images" via reinforcement learning (RL). While effective, these methods are costly, model-specific, and difficult to generalize across architectures. Differently, we present a lightweight method that bypasses RL training and provides an iterative, training-free, plug-and-play framework for visually-grounded multimodal reasoning. Our key idea is to supervise each reasoning step at test time with visual evidence, ensuring that every decoded token is justified by corresponding visual cues. Concretely, we construct a textual visual-evidence pool that guides the model's reasoning generation. When existing evidence is insufficient, a visual decider module dynamically extracts additional relevant evidence from the image based on the ongoing reasoning context, expanding the pool until the model achieves sufficient visual certainty to terminate reasoning and produce the final answer. Extensive experiments on multiple LVLM backbones and benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. Our method achieves 16.5%-29.5% improvements on TreeBench and 13.7% RH-AUC gains on RH-Bench, substantially reducing hallucination rates while improving reasoning accuracy without additional training.
Yongchang Zhang, Oliver Ma, Tianyi Liu +2
Southeast University · AIIA, Ministry of Education, China · University of Oxford
Large vision-language models can reason over multimodal inputs by generating textual chains of thought (CoT). A key capability exhibited in CoT reasoning is self-reflection: revisiting earlier decisions and correcting previous errors. However, existing LVLMs often fail to properly attend to visual inputs during reflection, limiting their ability to translate feedback into grounded corrections, especially for out-of-distribution images. To address this issue, we propose a novel reinforcement learning training framework VRRL, with two components explicitly designed to elicit visually grounded self-reflection. First, we randomly mask trajectory prefixes during training to emphasize recovery from incorrect intermediate predictions rather than making early mistakes. Second, we introduce buffered roll-ins from an experience replay buffer to expose the model to diverse failure states that it must learn to correct. We evaluate our approach on visual grounding tasks involving tables and charts, as well as spatial navigation benchmarks. While off-the-shelf and conventionally fine-tuned models degrade substantially under distribution shift, our method substantially improves average out-of-distribution accuracy over standard RL and reflection-oriented fine-tuning baselines by using self-reflection effectively.
Liyan Tang, Fangcong Yin, Greg Durrett
The University of Texas at Austin · New York University