Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has substantially enhanced the reasoning capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). However, existing RLVR approaches typically rely on outcome-driven optimization that updates both perception and reasoning using a shared reward based solely on the final answer. This shared reward blurs credit assignment, frequently improving reasoning patterns while failing to reliably enhance the accuracy of upstream visual evidence extraction. To address this perception bottleneck, we introduce PRCO (Perception-Reasoning Coevolution), a dual-role RLVR framework with a shared policy. PRCO consists of two cooperative roles: an Observer that generates an evidence caption tailored to the question and a Solver that predicts the final answer based on this caption. Crucially, PRCO employs role-specific reward signals: the Solver is optimized using verifiable outcome rewards on the final answer, while the Observer receives a utility reward derived from the Solver's downstream success. Extensive experiments across eight challenging multimodal reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that PRCO yields consistent improvements across model scales by over 7 points on average accuracy compared to the base model, outperforming prior open-source RL-tuned baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Diagnostic analysis of GRPO on WeMath Qiao et al. (2025) . Left: GRPO reduces reasoning errors much more than perception errors. Right: a representative failure case caused by incorrect perception.
Figure 2: Overview of PRCO. A shared policy alternates between an Observer for question-conditioned evidence captioning and a Solver for evidence-conditioned reasoning. The two roles are jointly optimized with role-specific learning signals and group-relative advantages, enabling perception–reasoning coevolution under a shared policy.
Model
Math-Related
General Task
Overall
MathVerse
MathVision
MathVista
WeMath
DynaMath
LogicVista
MMMU-Pro
MMStar
Avg.
Based on Qwen2.5-VL-3B
Base Model
34.13
22.50
65.00
23.52
12.37
38.70
26.76
56.06
34.88
GRPO
36.29
24.70
67.40
30.57
17.96
38.92
29.88
58.00
37.97
DAPO
40.98
27.40
70.20
35.14
20.35
43.62
31.73
60.40
41.23
PAPO-G-3B
37.56
23.61
67.60
31.05
17.96
40.26
29.01
58.86
38.24
Table 1: Main results on eight multimodal reasoning benchmarks with Qwen2.5-VL-3B and Qwen2.5-VL-7B backbones. We report benchmark scores on math-related benchmarks, general-task benchmarks, and their overall average. The best and second-best results within each backbone are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively.
Model
Math
Δ
General
Δ
Avg
Δ
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
31.50
-
40.51
-
34.88
-
+ PRCO w/o warmup
39.45
+7.95
45.88
+5.37
41.86
+6.98
+ PRCO w/o Observer
39.48
+7.98
45.02
+4.51
41.56
+6.68
+ PRCO w/o Solver
33.46
+1.96
41.55
+1.04
36.49
+1.61
+ PRCO
40.49
+8.99
45.94
+5.43
42.53
+7.65
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
38.89
-
48.39
-
42.45
-
Table 2: Ablation study of PRCO on Qwen2.5-VL-3B and Qwen2.5-VL-7B. We report average scores on math-related benchmarks, general-task benchmarks, and all benchmarks; Δ denotes improvement over the corresponding base model.
Figure 3: Training reward curves of PRCO and its role-ablation variants with Qwen2.5-VL-3B and Qwen2.5-VL-7B as backbones.
Figure 4: Pass@ k comparison on WeMath and MMStar for PRCO-7B, DAPO-7B, and VPPO-7B under different inference-time sampling budgets.
Figure 5: Error category analysis on WeMath and MathVista. Compared with Qwen2.5-VL-7B, PRCO-7B reduces both perception and reasoning errors. For presentation clarity, Knowledge and Extraction errors are grouped into the Other category.
Figure 6: Effect of solver rollout group size GS on Qwen2.5-VL-7B. We vary GS among {4, 8, 12} and compare PRCO with DAPO on Math, General, and Avg. The dashed line denotes the base model performance.
Figure 7: Qualitative analysis of PRCO-7B on two representative cases. For each case, we show the Observer output together with an attention overlay obtained by averaging attention to image tokens across all layers.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
Evaluation Split
Num. of Samples
Metric
MathVerse ( Zhang et al., 2024 )
MathVerse_MINI_Vision_Only
788
Overall
MathVista ( Lu et al., 2023 )
MathVista_MINI
1000
acc
MathVision ( Wang et al., 2024 )
MathVision
3040
acc
WeMath ( Qiao et al., 2025 )
WeMath
1740
Score (Strict)
DynaMath ( Zou et al., 2024 )
DynaMath
5010
Overall (Worst Case)
LogicVista ( Xiao et al., 2024 )
LogicVista
447
Overall
Appendix
Table 3: Details of the benchmarks we evaluate. The evaluation splits and reported metrics follow the settings in VLMEvalKit ( Duan et al., 2024 ) . We report single-sample greedy scores under each benchmark’s official VLMEvalKit metric, which we denote as accuracy for simplicity.
Method
lr
Max Len.
Steps
Warmup
Opt.
Rollout BS
Freeze VT
Temp.
top- p
top- k
GRPO
1e-6
2048
200
–
AdamW
384
False
1
1.0
-1
DAPO
1e-6
2048
200
–
AdamW
384
False
1
1.0
-1
PRCO
1e-6
1024 / 2048
200
40
AdamW
384
False
1
1.0
-1
Appendix
Table 4: Training hyperparameters used in our experiments. For GRPO and DAPO, Max Len. denotes the maximum rollout length of the single policy. For PRCO, it denotes Observer / Solver maximum rollout lengths.
Setting
MathVerse
MathVision
MathVista
WeMath
DynaMath
LogicVista
MMMU-Pro
MMStar
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL-7B (Base)
43.02
25.46
70.20
35.43
20.35
45.41
35.49
64.26
42.45
PRCO-7B (Ours)
49.49
30.86
77.10
50.29
29.74
49.66
42.08
67.80
49.63
PRCO w/ IS=∅
47.34
28.82
75.20
43.81
28.94
48.77
42.89
66.13
47.74 ↓ 1.89
PRCO w/ Fixed Utility Estimator
49.24
29.67
76.70
45.52
29.74
48.55
40.17
66.20
48.22 ↓ 1.41
PRCO w/o Leakage Checker
50.00
29.31
76.00
44.19
29.54
51.45
41.33
67.60
48.68 ↓ 0.95
Appendix
Table 5: Additional ablations of PRCO-7B. We report benchmark scores on eight benchmarks. Red downward arrows in the Avg. column indicate the drop relative to PRCO-7B (ours).
Figure 8: Ablation of the observer rollout group size GO in PRCO on Qwen2.5-VL-7B. Bars show different GO settings ( 2,4,8 ) on Math, General, and Avg, and the dashed line indicates the base model performance.
Figure 9: Training caption reward standard deviation curves of PRCO and its W/O warmup variant with Qwen2.5-VL-3B and Qwen2.5-VL-7B as backbones.
Setting
MathVerse (Vision Only)
MathVision
MathVista
WeMath
DynaMath
LogicVista
MMMU-Pro-V
MMStar
Avg.
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct (Base)
54.57
36.64
74.90
51.33
38.12
53.02
41.27
69.40
52.41
GRPO
64.59
46.94
78.30
59.62
41.12
61.75
52.72
73.00
59.75
DAPO
65.61
50.13
78.30
66.86
43.31
62.19
53.87
74.07
61.79
PRCO (Ours)
69.67
51.78
79.00
68.57
46.11
60.40
54.57
74.27
63.05
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of PRCO with GRPO and DAPO on Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct. We report benchmark scores on eight benchmarks. The best and second-best results within each backbone are highlighted in bold and underlined .
Figure 10: Training and inference prompt templates of the PRCO Observer and Solver, GRPO, and DAPO.
Figure 11: Prompt templates for leakage checking and error-type classification.
Figure 12: Qualitative example of PRCO-7B on synthetic object filtering. The Observer enumerates the relevant objects together with size, color, material, shape, and coarse spatial cues, converting the scene into a question-conditioned object inventory. PRCO performs discrete filtering and counting from explicit visual evidence.
Figure 13: Qualitative example of PRCO-7B on bar-chart threshold counting. The Observer transcribes item-wise values across stores into explicit textual evidence, and the Solver then checks the threshold condition and aggregates over items. PRCO supports accurate chart value extraction and evidence-conditioned counting through a compact intermediate representation.
Figure 14: Qualitative example of PRCO-7B on table-based option selection. The Observer extracts only the question-relevant entries in the Rec column, rather than transcribing the full table, after which the Solver identifies the maximum and maps it to the correct answer option. PRCO focuses on question-relevant evidence while avoiding unnecessary visual details.
Figure 15: Qualitative example of PRCO-7B on diagram-grounded geometry reasoning. The Observer localizes points, coordinates, and segment relations from the diagram, and the Solver then uses this structured evidence to derive ∠BOA , OC , and AB .
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become an effective paradigm for improving the reasoning capability of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). However, existing RLVR methods primarily rely on trajectory-level outcome rewards, which assign identical learning signals across all generated tokens. This coarse-grained credit assignment is fundamentally mismatched to multimodal reasoning, where only a sparse subset of tokens is causally grounded in visual evidence. Consequently, these pivotal perceptual tokens receive weak supervision and are often overwhelmed by language priors or reasoning-template tokens. To address this limitation, we propose Perception-Reinforced Policy Optimization (PRPO), a token-level reinforcement learning framework that explicitly identifies and reinforces pivotal perceptual tokens within long-horizon multimodal reasoning trajectories. PRPO introduces Robust Visual Dependency (RVD), a principled metric that identifies tokens whose predictions are both visually grounded and perturbation-stable, filtering out brittle or noisy visual tokens. Based on RVD, we further propose Perceptual Advantage Reshaping (PAR), a token-level credit assignment technique that amplifies perceptually informative tokens while preserving stable gradients for non-perceptual tokens. Extensive experiments on seven multimodal reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that PRPO consistently outperforms strong LVLM baselines across both 3B and 7B model scales, achieving average gains of 23.3% and 21.1%, respectively. PRPO achieves state-of-the-art performance with improved training efficiency and stronger cross-task generalization. Our findings highlight the importance of fine-grained credit assignment for scalable multimodal reinforcement learning.
Extending Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) to multimodal large language models (MLLMs) faces a fundamental challenge: their responses inherently interleave perception-related tokens, which ground visual content, with reasoning-related tokens, which construct reasoning chains. These token types instantiate distinct yet interdependent capacities -- visual grounding and symbolic reasoning -- making isolated optimization insufficient. Through token-level empirical analysis, we demonstrate that optimizing either perception- or reasoning-only tokens consistently underperforms full optimization, underscoring their inherent coupling. To address this, we propose a plug-and-play Token-Reweighting (ToR) strategy that explicitly models this interdependence by identifying critical tokens of both types and dynamically reweighting them during RLVR training. Applied on top of existing methods (e.g., GRPO and DAPO), ToR delivers consistent performance gains across multiple multi-modal reasoning benchmarks, achieving state-of-the-art performance with both accurate visual grounding and coherent reasoning.
Jinda Lu, Junkang Wu, Jinghan Li +6
University of Science and Technology of China · Peking University · Independent Researcher
Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR), especially with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), has shown strong potential for improving the reasoning capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs). However, in multimodal reasoning, final-answer rewards are typically assigned at the sequence level and do not distinguish the functional roles of different tokens, making it difficult to determine whether a correct answer is supported by task-relevant visual evidence. In this paper, we revisit multimodal RLVR from the perspective of role-aware token-level credit assignment, where structured responses are decomposed into perception tokens for extracting visual evidence and reasoning tokens for deriving answers from that evidence. Based on this perspective, we propose Structured Role-aware Policy Optimization (SRPO), which refines the sequence-level GRPO advantage into role-aware token-level advantages without changing the reward function. Specifically, SRPO assigns role-specific credit by using self-distilled on-policy contrasts: perception tokens are emphasized according to their visual dependency under original versus corrupted visual inputs, while reasoning tokens are emphasized according to their consistency with the generated perception. These role-specific signals are further unified through a shared trajectory-level baseline, yielding positive token weights that adjust relative update magnitudes while preserving the original GRPO reward and optimization direction, without requiring external reward models or separate teachers. Experiments across diverse multimodal reasoning benchmarks show that SRPO improves evidence-grounded reasoning, highlighting the importance of moving beyond uniform sequence-level credit toward role-aware optimization for reliable multimodal reasoning.
Bingqing Jiang, Difan Zou
School of Computing & Data Science, The University of Hong Kong · School of Computing & Data Science and Institute of Data Science, The University of Hong Kong