With the increasing demand for step-wise, cross-modal, and knowledge-grounded reasoning, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are evolving beyond the traditional fixed retrieve-then-generate paradigm toward more sophisticated agentic multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (MM-RAG). Existing benchmarks, however, mainly focus on simplified QA with short retrieval chains, leaving adaptive planning and multimodal reasoning underexplored. We present MC-Search, the first benchmark for agentic MM-RAG with long, step-wise annotated reasoning chains spanning five representative reasoning structures. Each example specifies sub-questions, retrieval modalities, supporting facts, and intermediate answers, with fidelity ensured by HAVE (Hop-wise Attribution and Verification of Evidence), resulting in 3,333 high-quality examples averaging 3.7 hops. Beyond answer accuracy, MC-Search introduces new process-level metrics for reasoning quality, stepwise retrieval and planning accuracy. By developing a unified agentic MM-RAG pipeline, we benchmark six leading MLLMs and reveal systematic issues such as over- and under-retrieval and modality-misaligned planning. Finally, we introduce Search-Align, a process-supervised fine-tuning framework leveraging verified reasoning chains, showing that our data not only enables faithful evaluation but also improves planning and retrieval fidelity in open-source MLLMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Example query requiring multimodal agentic search with a long reasoning chain.
Benchmark
Knowledge Modality
Typical Hops
Long Chain ( ≥4 Hops)
Stepwise Annotation
Reasoning Topology
OK-VQA ( Marino et al., 2019 )
Text
1 Hop
✗
✗
✗
ViQuAE ( Lerner et al., 2022 )
Text
1 Hop
✗
✗
✗
WebQA ( Chang et al., 2022 )
Text/Caption
≤ 2 Hops
✗
✗
✗
InfoSeek ( Chen et al., 2023 )
Text
1 Hop
✗
✗
✗
MMSearch ( Jiang et al., 2024 )
Text/Image
1 Hop
✗
✗
✗
Dyn-VQA ( Li et al., 2025b )
Text/Image
≤ 2 Hops
✗
✗
✗
Table 1: Left : Comparison of existing multimodal retrieval-augmented QA datasets. Right : Distribution of the five reasoning topologies in MC-Search , with outer rings illustrating hop diversity (2–5 hops).
Figure 2: Overview of MC-Search benchmark and evaluation. Left : Benchmark covering five reasoning topologies, filtered via the hop-wise attribution and verification of evidence (HAVE) process. Right : Multimodal agentic RAG pipeline, where an MLLM iteratively generates sub-queries and actions, retrieves multimodal evidence, reasons over the retrieved information, and integrates it to produce the final answer. Our framework further aligns predicted reasoning chains with golden trajectories to assess chain-level retrieval and planning.
Statistic
Number
Parallel Image-Text Fork
680
Image–Initiated Chain
1,306
Text Chain
945
Text–Initiated Chain
169
Multi–Images Fork
233
Total Samples
3,333
Table 2: Benchmark statistics.
Table 3: Evaluation of MLLMs on the MC-Search benchmark under the agentic MM-RAG pipeline, reported across five reasoning graphs. Best backbone results are shown in bold , second-best are underlined , and improvements from Search-Align on open-source models are highlighted in bold red .
Figure 6
Type
Modality
Gemini-2.5-Pro
InternVL-3.5-8B
Covered/Gold
Cov. (%)
Covered/Gold
Cov. (%)
Query w/ Image
Image
1,339/1,533
87.35
977/1,533
63.84
Text
3,230/4,109
78.61
3,395/4,109
82.67
Query w/o Image
Image
300/1,017
29.50
7/1,017
0.66
Text
2,097/2,510
83.55
2,251/2,510
89.78
Overall
Image
1,639/2,550
64.27
861/2,550
33.69
Table 4: Stepwise retrieval modality coverage (Cov.). Red = high coverage; Blue = low coverage.
Figure 5: Eight-way error taxonomy proportions (higher is worse), annotated by Gemini-2.5-Pro.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Reason Graphs
Model
Answer Accuracy
Chain Alignment
Golden F1 ( ↑ )
F1 ( ↑ )
Δ F1 ( ↑ )
LJ ( ↑ )
HPS ( ↑ )
RD ( ↓ )
Text-Only Chain
GPT-4o-Mini
27.50
27.48
1.69
19.22
3.00
61.90
Gemini-2.5-Flash
10.88
10.81
0.75
67.72
Gemini-2.5-Pro
11.11
11.10
0.70
62.42
Claude-3.7-Sonnet
22.71
22.09
1.69
66.38
InternVL3.5-8B
30.98
24.00
1.47
65.72
Appendix
Table 5: Evaluation of various models on the MC-Search benchmark under single-step RAG .
Reason Graphs
Model
Answer Accuracy
Chain Alignment
Golden F1 ( ↑ )
F1 ( ↑ )
Δ F1 ( ↑ )
LLJ ( ↑ )
HPS ( ↑ )
RD ( ↓ )
Image Initiated Chain
GPT-4o-Mini
35.61
33.30
1.58
21.11
2.42
68.29
Gemini-2.5-Flash
7.42
0.70
0.32
72.39
Gemini-2.5-Pro
6.06
1.21
0.25
69.83
Claude-3.7-Sonnet
21.72
21.10
1.72
72.62
InternVL3.5-8B
31.26
21.64
1.24
63.86
Appendix
Table 6: Evaluation of various models on the MC-Search benchmark under traditional MM-RAG .
Statistic
Number
Parallel Visual-Textual Fork Samples
680
Image-Initiated Chain Samples
1,306
Text Chain Samples
945
Text-Initiated Chain Samples
169
Multi-Images Fork Samples
233
Total Samples
3,333
Appendix
Table 7: Statistics of MC-Search benchmark.
Dimension
Average Score
Factual correctness
4.93
Step necessity
4.70
Clarity
4.88
Multimodal alignment
4.95
Overall (mean)
4.87
Appendix
Table 8: Average Gemini-2.5-Pro evaluation scores.
Evaluator Pair
Pearson
Spearman
Mean Bias
LoA
Gemini / GPT-5
0.9330 (0.00076)
0.8720 (0.00120)
+0.0288 (0.00051)
0.8438 (0.07937)
Gemini / Qwen
0.9147 (0.00116)
0.8145 (0.00360)
−0.0083 (0.00082)
0.9295 (0.08834)
GPT-5 / Qwen
0.9147 (0.00131)
0.8259 (0.00374)
−0.0371 (0.00212)
0.9341 (0.09565)
Appendix
Table 9: Cross-model LLJ consistency scores, with mean (variance) reported. High correlations and small mean biases indicate strong agreement across evaluator families.
Figure 6: Hexbin plots of Gemini-2.5-Pro vs. GPT-5 scores across four LLJ dimensions.
Dimension
Pearson
Spearman
Mean Bias
LoA
Accuracy
0.9632
0.9556
+0.0800
0.6606
Entity Coverage
0.9375
0.8691
+0.1200
0.9309
Coherence
0.6061
0.8200
−0.0200
0.6778
Alignment
0.9275
0.7925
+0.2750
0.9982
Stacked Score
0.9323
0.8675
+0.1138
0.8562
Appendix
Table 10: Human–LLJ agreement scores.
Graph Type
Model
F1 Score ( ↑ )
LLJ Score ( ↑ )
GPT
Gemini
GPT
Gemini
Text Chain
Gemini-Pro
32.52
34.42
3.44
3.46
GPT-4o-mini
26.05
26.98
3.01
3.05
Image-Initiated Chain
Gemini-Pro
41.37
46.57
3.82
3.81
GPT-4o-mini
35.01
38.96
3.24
3.20
Multi-Images Fork
Gemini-Pro
35.49
38.04
3.48
3.66
Appendix
Table 11: Performance of Gemini-2.5-Pro and GPT-4o-mini when evaluated against ground-truth reasoning chains generated by GPT-5 (GPT columns) or by the original Gemini-based construction (Gemini columns).
Figure 7: Error proportions before and after SEARCH-ALIGN across four process-level categories.
Hyper-parameter
InternVL3.5-8B
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct
Optimizer
AdamW
AdamW
Learning Rate
1e-5
1e-4
Training Epochs
1
2
Warm-up Ratio
0.1
0.1
Scheduler Type
Cosine
Cosine
Train Batch (per device)
1
1
Appendix
Table 12: Fine-tuning hyper-parameters for Search-Align alignment on InternVL3.5-8B and Qwen/Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct. Both models are trained on 4 × A100 GPUs.
Graph Type
Gemini-2.5-Pro Soft-HPS
Gemini-Flash Soft-HPS
τ =1.0
τ =0.95
τ =0.90
τ =0.85
τ =1.0
τ =0.95
τ =0.90
τ =0.85
Text Chain
21.59
35.59
38.05
41.26
13.33
26.86
28.78
30.97
Image-Initiated Chain
25.90
38.74
40.48
42.87
25.03
43.19
45.04
47.42
Multi-Images Fork
18.68
25.58
26.49
28.18
18.53
24.51
25.35
27.20
Parallel Image-Text Fork
16.74
26.25
27.68
30.22
20.73
25.68
27.12
29.69
Text-Initiated Chain
19.51
26.31
27.81
29.88
21.67
29.94
30.55
32.03
Appendix
Table 13: Soft HPS scores for Gemini-2.5-Pro and Gemini-Flash under different similarity thresholds τ .
Figure 8: Δ F1 across Δ Step values for Gemini-2.5-Flash under top- k retrieval ( k=1,3,5 ).
Graph Type
Model
Retrieval@1
Retrieval@3
Retrieval@5
F1
Δ F1
HPS
RD
F1
Δ F1
HPS
RD
F1
Δ F1
HPS
RD
Image-Initiated Chain
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
26.30
8.65
16.51
4.04
29.21
11.56
16.17
3.79
29.35
11.70
16.95
3.79
+SEARCH-ALIGN
45.70
28.05
33.59
0.70
47.19
29.54
39.45
0.75
47.29
29.64
41.79
0.79
Multi-Images Fork
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
26.13
7.53
12.58
3.80
30.41
11.81
12.80
3.35
30.38
11.78
14.15
3.23
+SEARCH-ALIGN
38.01
19.41
41.20
1.16
40.00
21.40
46.82
1.21
39.80
21.20
48.21
1.28
Parallel Image-Text Fork
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
22.94
14.32
10.09
3.93
26.28
17.66
12.62
3.39
26.41
17.79
15.24
3.26
Appendix
Table 14: Performance of Qwen2.5-VL-7B and +SEARCH-ALIGN under Retrieval@1, @3, and @5. We report F1, Δ F1, Hit per Step (HPS), and Rollout Deviation (RD). Best values per topology and metric are highlighted in bold font.
Figure 9: Success case. The reasoning chain produced by the agent aligned with the golden reasoning chain and the final answer includes all key knowledge entities.
Figure 10: Failure case. While the agent successfully retrieves the first and the last hop information, it fails to retrieve the second and third hop information. Thus, the final answer does not include all key knowledge entities.
Agentic multimodal models have garnered significant attention for their ability to leverage external tools to tackle complex tasks. However, it is observed that such agents often meet premature interaction collapse, caused by two primary reasons: 1) the terminal reward often appending on the last token prevents the advantage from distinguishing trajectories with exploratory behavior; 2) excessively redundant context hinders the agent from absorbing useful feedback. To address these issues, we propose the Deepening Reasoning MMSearchAgent, the framework leverages the structural proximity to derive advantage signals from the whole rollout trajectories in an entire batch, such that trajectories of different lengths are further encouraged to be generated, even when containing the same correct answer. Additionally, differentiated gaussian rewards are employed to dynamically calibrate interaction tolerance, thereby ensuring information reliability and reduce redundancy. To support multi-turn interaction training, we have constructed a multi-step deep-reasoning dataset including 3602 high-quality QA pair with at least 3 reasonning steps. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming the MMSearch-R1 by 8.4% on FVQA-test.
Shengqin Wang, Wentao Yan, Huichi Zhou +4
East China Normal University · University College London · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab +2
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in visual understanding, yet they remain limited in complex, multi-step reasoning that requires deep searching and integrating visual evidence with external knowledge. In this work, we address this challenge by constructing high-quality, verified multi-hop vision-language training data for multimodal deep-search agents. We propose a Multi-hop Tool-Augmented Agent for Evidence-based QA Synthesis (MTA-Agent), which automatically selects tools and their parameters to retrieve and validate evidence from both visual and textual sources and generates structured multi-hop question-answer trajectories. Starting from diverse VQA seed datasets, our pipeline produces a large-scale training dataset, MTA-Vision-DeepSearch, containing 21K high-quality multi-hop examples. The data is filtered through a multi-stage verification process to ensure factual consistency and answer uniqueness. Using MTA-Vision-DeepSearch, a 32B open-source multimodal search agent achieves state-of-the-art performance, reaching an average of 54.63% across six challenging benchmarks, outperforming GPT-5 (51.86%), Gemini-2.5-Pro (50.98%), and Gemini-3-Pro (54.46%) under the same tool settings. We further show that training on our data improves both reasoning depth and tool-use behavior, increasing the average number of steps from 2.27 to 4.28, and leading to more systematic and persistent search strategies. Additionally, we demonstrate that training can be performed without real-time tool calls by replaying cached interactions, significantly reducing training cost. Importantly, we present MTA-Agent as a fully open recipe for multimodal deep search: we release the entire dataset, training trajectories, and implementation details to enable reproducibility and future research on open multimodal search agents.
We aim to develop a multimodal research agent capable of explicit reasoning and planning, multi-tool invocation, and cross-modal information synthesis, enabling it to conduct deep research tasks. However, we observe three main challenges in developing such agents: (1) scarcity of search-intensive multimodal QA data, (2) lack of effective search trajectories, and (3) prohibitive cost of training with online search APIs. To tackle them, we first propose Hyper-Search, a hypergraph-based QA generation method that models and connects visual and textual nodes within and across modalities, enabling to generate search-intensive multimodal QA pairs that require invoking various search tools to solve. Second, we introduce DR-TTS, which first decomposes search-involved tasks into several categories according to search tool types, and respectively optimize specialized search tool experts for each tool. It then recomposes tool experts to jointly explore search trajectories via tree search, producing trajectories that successfully solve complex tasks using various search tools. Third, we build an offline search engine supporting multiple search tools, enabling agentic reinforcement learning without using costly online search APIs. With the three designs, we develop MM-DeepResearch, a powerful multimodal deep research agent, and extensive results shows its superiority across benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/HJYao00/MM-DeepResearch
Huanjin Yao, Qixiang Yin, Min Yang +5
ByteDance · Zhongguancun Academy · Nanyang Technological University +2