We present VisualDeltas, a lightweight preference-learning framework that extracts supervision from visual quality variations in multimodal data. By leveraging the systematic impact of image quality on visual perception and reasoning, VisualDeltas induces informative preference signals without relying on human annotations or external teachers. The framework supports both label-free and label-based regimes, enabling flexible use of available supervision when present. Across diverse multimodal benchmarks and model scales, VisualDeltas consistently outperforms rejection-sampling fine-tuning and improves generalization, and extends naturally to a range of visual degradations.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: DPO pair construction via multimodal input quality perturbation. HQ and LQ inputs for the same multimodal QA task induce correct and incorrect reasoning, forming a natural preference pair.
Figure 2: Overview of VisualDeltas. For each user query, the model generates paired responses under both HQ and LQ image views. We compare with SFT (supervised fine-tuning on HQ-correct responses only) and two VisualDeltas variants: VD-LF (label-free) uses all HQ vs. LQ pairs without correctness filtering, while VD-LB (label-based) selects only HQ-correct vs. LQ-wrong pairs. Both VisualDeltas variants apply DPO exclusively with HQ context during training.
Model
Method
Datasets
HiTab
WikiTQ
VQA
GQA
MathVision
Qwen2.5-7B-VL
Inference Only (No Training)
Baseline
67.93
66.40
60.00
39.95
24.87
Train Set: HiTab
SFT (HQ Correct Only)
69.89 (+1.96)
65.90 (-0.50)
60.85 (+0.85)
39.05 (-0.90)
22.76 (-2.11)
Table 1: Comparison of Qwen2.5-7B-VL and Qwen2.5-3B-VL under different training strategies, grouped by training dataset. Numbers are absolute accuracy (%), with differences relative to the Vanilla inference-only baseline shown in parentheses. SFT fine-tunes on HQ correct responses (using rejection-sampled model-generated reasonings), VD-LF constructs label-free HQ vs. LQ preferences, and VD-LB applies label-based VisualDeltas using HQ-correct vs. LQ-wrong pairs. Row and cell coloring: gray marks dataset groupings, blue marks VisualDelta-based results, dark green highlights best results, light green indicates positive gains, light red indicates negative changes, and dark red marks the largest drop.
Method
Test on LQ (0.1 × Res)
HiTab
WikiTQ
VQA
GQA
MathVision
Qwen2.5-7B-VL
No Training
33.46
40.00
50.55
33.40
23.95
Train: HiTab
SFT
34.34
45.35
51.20
32.30
18.55
VD-LF
36.43
47.95
52.55
36.80
22.37
Table 2: Generalization to low-quality image inputs (Qwen2.5-7B-VL). All models are trained on HQ images and tested on LQ images. SFT fine-tunes on HQ correct responses, VD-LF constructs label-free HQ vs. LQ preferences, and VD-LB applies label-based filtering using HQ-correct vs. LQ-wrong pairs. Best results per column are highlighted in bold with dark green background. Row and cell coloring: gray marks dataset groupings, blue marks VisualDeltas results, and dark green indicates best performance.
Figure 3: Sample category distribution on HiTab. Quality-Sensitive samples (HQ correct, LQ wrong) comprise 38.3% of the dataset, providing clean HQ ≻ LQ preference pairs for VD-LB training.
Figure 4: Response length distribution by category. LQ responses are consistently longer than HQ responses, suggesting that degraded visual inputs trigger compensatory but ineffective reasoning. After DPO training on VisualDeltas preference pairs, the HQ distribution shifts left and becomes sharper, with reduced mean and median token lengths. This demonstrates that DPO improves reasoning efficiency—models learn to produce more concise responses while maintaining higher accuracy.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Visual Modality
Task Type
Train Size
Test Size
HiTab
Table images
Hierarchical table QA
7,417
1,584
WikiTableQuestions
Table images
Table QA
8,000
2,000
VQA v2
Natural images
Open-ended VQA
8,000
2,000
GQA
Natural images
Compositional VQA
8,000
2,000
MathVision
Mixed visual formats
Visual math reasoning
8,000
2,000
Appendix
Table 3: Summary of datasets used in this work. Training is conducted on HiTab, VQA, and GQA, while evaluation is performed on all datasets. For HiTab and WikiTableQuestions, tables are converted from JSON/CSV format to images.
Figure 5: Visual Examples from Different Datasets. (a)-(b) Table datasets (HiTab, WikiTableQuestions) feature complex, dense structures requiring precise visual grounding. (c)-(d) Natural image datasets (VQA, GQA) contain real-world scenes with varying complexity. (e) MathVision contains simple mathematical expressions and diagrams that rely more on reasoning than visual details. This visual complexity hierarchy explains why HiTab/WTQ show strong resolution dependence while MathVision remains resolution-independent.
Figure 6: Accuracy vs. Resolution Across Datasets. Performance trends across different datasets under varying image resolutions. HiTab and WTQ show strong resolution dependence (accuracy doubling from 10% to 100% resolution), reflecting their visual complexity with dense, structurally intricate tables. MathVision maintains nearly flat performance across all resolutions, indicating reliance on reasoning rather than visual details. VQA and GQA show intermediate resolution sensitivity. This demonstrates that VisualDeltas specifically targets visually grounded reasoning tasks.
Figure 7: Resolution-Accuracy Relationship. The 7B model exhibits a characteristic three-phase pattern: stability at high resolution (100%–40%), rapid degradation in the critical zone (40%–20%), and severe failure at extreme low resolution (20%–10%). The 3B model shows a similar pattern with systematically lower accuracy, confirming the robustness of this phenomenon across model sizes.
Resolution
Accuracy
Correct
Total
Change
100% (1.0)
67.11%
1063
1584
–
80% (0.8)
67.99%
1077
1584
+0.88%
60% (0.6)
67.99%
1077
1584
+0.88%
40% (0.4)
66.60%
1055
1584
-0.51%
20% (0.2)
56.50%
895
1584
-10.61%
10% (0.1)
33.40%
529
1584
-33.71%
Appendix
Table 4: Accuracy metrics across resolution levels for Qwen2.5-VL-7B.
Figure 8: Sample Stability Heatmap. Failure transitions are unidirectional—once a question begins failing, it rarely recovers.
Train Set
VD-S Total (7B)
HQ vs. HQ Total (7B)
VD-S Total (3B)
HQ vs. HQ Total (3B)
HiTab
+10.23
+10.21
+10.10
+9.42
VQA
+10.39
+8.34
+9.85
+8.50
GQA
+12.84
+9.12
+10.95
+8.91
Appendix
Table 5: Cumulative Accuracy Gains: VD-LB vs. HQ-only DPO across all evaluation benchmarks. VD-LB achieves higher total gains than correctness-based DPO alone, demonstrating that visual quality deltas provide complementary supervision beyond mere correctness.
Train
Method
Qwen2.5-7B-VL
Qwen2.5-3B-VL
HiTab
WikiTQ
VQA
GQA
HiTab
WikiTQ
VQA
GQA
HiTab
VD-S
71.40 (+3.47)
69.90 (+3.50)
63.55 (+3.55)
42.90 (+2.95)
61.11 (+2.15)
51.35 (+12.90)
60.85 (+4.55)
39.75 (+3.45)
HQ vs. HQ
71.15 (+3.22)
68.95 (+2.55)
63.15 (+3.15)
40.90 (+0.95)
60.67 (+1.71)
50.05 (+11.60)
61.50 (+5.20)
39.80 (+3.50)
VQA
VD-S
70.58 (+2.65)
68.15 (+1.75)
68.20 (+8.20)
44.75 (+4.80)
59.09 (+0.13)
52.45 (+14.00)
61.45 (+5.15)
42.50 (+6.20)
HQ vs. HQ
70.20 (+2.27)
68.60 (+2.20)
66.55 (+6.55)
43.65 (+3.70)
61.24 (+2.28)
50.60 (+12.15)
61.90 (+5.60)
41.35 (+5.05)
GQA
VD-S
69.19 (+1.26)
69.60 (+3.20)
66.00 (+6.00)
47.50 (+7.55)
61.36 (+2.40)
50.60 (+12.15)
58.70 (+2.40)
42.65 (+6.35)
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison between VD-S (HQ Correct vs. LQ Wrong) and DPO (HQ Correct vs. HQ Wrong) across Qwen2.5-7B-VL and 3B-VL. Bold indicates the best score per model for each metric. Numbers in parentheses indicate absolute improvements relative to the respective baseline.
Train Set
VD-S Total Diff (7B)
HQ vs. HQ Total Diff (7B)
VD-S Total Diff (3B)
HQ vs. HQ Total Diff (3B)
HiTab
+10.23
+10.21
+10.10
+9.42
VQA
+10.39
+8.34
+9.85
+8.50
GQA
+12.84
+9.12
+10.95
+8.91
Appendix
Table 7: Summed absolute accuracy improvements across all evaluation benchmarks, for both 7B and 3B models, relative to the baseline.
Model Size
Train Set
DPO Ratio
7B
3B
HiTab
WikiTQ
VQA
GQA
MathVision
HiTab
WikiTQ
VQA
GQA
MathVision
Train Set: HiTab
1.0 vs 0.1
71.91
67.15
62.65
42.05
25.16
61.62
52.15
61.55
40.65
18.78
1.0 vs 0.2
70.71
67.95
62.40
39.90
25.07
59.72
49.70
60.40
38.15
17.20
1.0 vs 0.4
70.52
66.10
60.10
36.10
24.18
59.60
47.20
59.75
39.95
16.61
Appendix
Table 8: Effect of resolution perturbation strength on label-free DPO (VD-LF) across training sets and model sizes. Each DPO ratio compares the original resolution ( 1.0 ) with a downsampled counterpart. Results are reported in accuracy (%). For each training set, the best performance per task and model size is highlighted in green.
Method
HiTab
WikiTQ
VQA
GQA
MathVision
Baseline
67.93
66.40
60.00
39.95
24.87
Gaussian Noise
72.22
67.55
63.10
43.85
25.23
Motion Blur
72.22
68.60
64.00
42.15
24.54
VD-LF (Ours)
71.91
67.15
62.65
42.05
25.16
VD-LB (Ours)
71.40
69.90
63.55
42.90
25.13
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison of noise-based methods vs. VisualDeltas on HiTab training set (Qwen2.5-7B-VL). All values are accuracy (%). Our methods (VD-LF and VD-LB, both using Resolution Reduction) are highlighted in light blue.
Paradigm
Method
HiTab
Out-of-Domain
WikiTQ
VQA
GQA
MathVision
Baseline
Baseline (no training)
67.93
66.40
60.00
39.95
24.87
Large-Model-Guided (External Teacher Required)
7B-guided (7B pref vs. 3B dispref)
70.01 (+2.08)
67.25 (+0.85)
60.90 (+0.90)
39.45 (-0.50)
22.66 (-2.21)
32B-guided (32B pref vs. 7B dispref)
67.55 (-0.38)
70.55 (+4.15)
65.10 (+5.10)
43.70 (+3.75)
21.88 (-2.99)
Appendix
Table 10: Detailed comparison of large-model-guided preference learning vs. single-model VisualDeltas. Experiments are conducted on the same 7B target model. Large-model-guided methods require external larger models (32B or 7B) to construct preferences, while VisualDeltas uses only the 7B model itself with resolution-induced deltas. Numbers show absolute accuracy (%) with gains/losses relative to baseline in parentheses. Best results per column are in bold with dark green background. VisualDeltas rows are highlighted in light blue. Light green indicates positive gains, light red indicates negative changes, and dark red marks the largest drop. Notably, VD-LF achieves the best HiTab performance (71.91%), and VisualDeltas methods maintain positive gains across all benchmarks unlike large-model-guided methods which hurt MathVision.
The effectiveness of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) depends on preference data that reflect the quality differences that matter in multimodal tasks. Existing pipelines often rely on off-policy perturbations or coarse outcome-based signals, which are not well suited to fine-grained visual reasoning. We propose rDPO, a preference optimization framework based on instance-specific rubrics. For each image-instruction pair, we create a checklist-style rubric of essential and additional criteria to score responses from any possible policies. The instruction-rubric pool is built offline and reused during the construction of on-policy data. On public reward modeling benchmarks, rubric-based prompting massively improves a 30B-A3B judge and brings it close to GPT-5.4. On public downstream benchmarks, rubric-based filtering raises the macro average to 82.69, whereas outcome-based filtering drops it to 75.82 from 81.14. When evaluating scalability on a comprehensive benchmark, rDPO achieves 61.01, markedly outperforming the style-constrained baseline (52.36) and surpassing the 59.48 base model. Together, these results show that visual preference optimization benefits from combining on-policy data construction with instance-specific criterion-level feedback.
Image Quality Assessment (IQA) in open-world environments remains challenging due to limited generalization and interpretability. Recent approaches based on multimodal large language models (MLLMs) introduce textual reasoning for quality prediction, yet their judgments rely heavily on semantically biased internal representations, making them insensitive to low-level perceptual degradations. We propose IQA-T1, a tool-based visual evidence reasoning framework that augments MLLM reasoning with explicit perceptual observations. During inference, the model autonomously invokes specialized analysis tools to generate structured visual evidence, such as noise residual maps, gradient statistics, and frequency spectra, which are progressively integrated into the reasoning process. To support this paradigm, we construct Q-Tool, a dataset containing 11k multimodal reasoning chains grounded in tool-generated evidence. Extensive experiments on seven IQA benchmarks show that IQA-T1 achieves the best overall performance across datasets while producing interpretable and evidence-grounded quality assessments. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/zibuyu-02/IQA-T1.
Jinjian Wu, Jiaqi Tang, Wei Wei +5
School of Computer Science, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China
Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have shown promise for video quality assessment, but most methods still predict an absolute score for each video. Such pointwise supervision often mixes perceptual quality with dataset-specific calibration, including annotation protocols, rating habits, and score distributions. As a result, the learned scoring rule may work well within a benchmark but transfer poorly across unseen domains. We argue that relative comparisons alleviate the absolute-scale calibration bias by focusing purely on perceptual differences rather than dataset-specific rating habits. Consequently, we propose VersusQ, a pairwise margin reasoning framework driven entirely by direct comparisons. Specifically, VersusQ performs LMM-based comparison between two videos, reasons about their visual and temporal quality differences, and predicts a signed continuous margin that captures both the preferred choice and the degree of difference. Furthermore, to align interpretable comparison rationales with fine-grained numerical differences, we introduce Margin-Coupled GRPO, which jointly optimizes rollout-based relational reasoning and continuous margin regression. Extensive experiments on multiple public VQA benchmarks demonstrate that VersusQ achieves state-of-the-art performance, strong cross-domain generalization, and reliable fine-grained ranking under heterogeneous evaluation scenarios.
Shibei Meng, Binxin Yang, Yuan Liu +4
The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Beijing Normal University · WeChat Vision, Tencent Inc. +2