Vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse tasks. However, concerns about their trustworthiness persist, particularly regarding tendencies to lean more on textual cues than visual evidence and the risk of producing ungrounded or fabricated responses. To address these issues, we propose Saliency-R1, a framework for improving the interpretability and faithfulness of VLMs reasoning. Specifically, we introduce a novel saliency map technique that efficiently highlights critical image regions contributing to generated tokens without additional computational overhead. This can further be extended to trace how visual information flows through the reasoning process to the final answers, revealing the alignment between the thinking process and the visual context. We use the overlap between the saliency maps and human-annotated bounding boxes as the reward function, and apply Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to align the salient parts and critical regions, encouraging models to focus on relevant areas when conduct reasoning. Experiments show Saliency-R1 improves reasoning faithfulness, interpretability, and overall task performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Main motivation of this work. Different thinking processes might focus on distinct regions of an image, even if they arrive at the correct answer. Unfaithful thinking processes either focus on irrelevant parts of the image or fail to consider the image.
Figure 2: Overview of our method. (a) Illustration of saliency map techniques based on logits decomposition. (b) Illustration of attention rollout for generating saliency maps with thinking tokens as the bottleneck. (c) GRPO with saliency maps alignment reward.
COCO Caption
OpenPSG
Method
Deletion ↓
Insertion ↑
Deletion ↓
Insertion ↑
5%
15%
30%
5%
15%
30%
5% %
15%
30%
5%
15%
30%
CAM [ 97 ]
86.19
82.44
78.34
-0.10
2.47
28.02
87.29
82.50
76.56
-7.12
-2.33
16.10
Grad-CAM [ 57 ]
86.19
82.44
78.34
-0.10
2.47
28.02
87.29
82.50
76.56
-7.12
-2.33
16.10
Raw Attention
84.44
78.90
73.50
-0.12
-0.08
15.95
85.07
77.42
68.68
-7.13
-6.46
10.56
Attention Rollout [ 1 ]
84.75
71.57
58.48
-0.11
0.03
38.43
87.84
73.55
59.33
-8.38
-2.75
24.36
Table 1: Faithfulness experiment results. We use Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct for experiments. Our saliency map technique achieves comparable or better faithfulness to SOTA methods regarding the deletion and insertion metrics. We leave the results on GranDf dataset in the Appendix. The best metric is bold and the second best metric is underlined .
Figure 3: Qualitative evaluation of interpretability. We present example responses and their corresponding saliency maps from the base model, the SFT-tuned model (Saliency-R1-CI), and saliency-R1. The ground-truth bounding box is highlighted in red . Due to space constraints, some nonessential parts of the model responses are omitted; the full versions are provided in the Appendix.
Method
Energy-PG (%) ↑
PG (%) ↑
Qwen2.5-VL-7B [ 6 ]
19.26
24.49
Saliency-R1-CI
23.65
29.04
Vision-R1
25.32
32.58
Saliency-R1-zero
26.27
32.58
Saliency-R1-7B
30.08
38.63
Table 3: Evaluation of Interpretability. We calculate the energy-PG and PG metric on the test set of saliency-r1-8k dataset.
Figure 4: Ablation Studies. Top : Average metrics on 9 VQA benchmarks. Bottom : Metrics on MME.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
GranDf
Method
Deletion ↓
Insertion ↑
5%
15%
30%
5%
15%
30%
CAM [ 97 ]
81.71
78.21
74.14
-4.80
3.86
22.96
Grad-CAM [ 57 ]
81.71
78.21
74.14
-4.80
3.86
22.96
Raw Attention
79.72
73.02
66.58
-5.58
-2.06
15.91
Attention Rollout [ 1 ]
83.56
70.17
58.88
-4.94
1.36
25.98
Appendix
Table 4: Faithfulness experiment results. We use Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct for experiments. Our saliency map technique achieves comparable or better faithfulness to SOTA methods regarding the deletion and insertion metrics. The best metric is bold and the second best metric is underlined .
Accuracy
Method
Clean
Foreground ↓
Background ↑
-
σ=25
σ=50
σ=25
σ=50
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
70.8
60.8
63.9
50.5
55.4
Saliency-R1
74.4
58.0
66.4
48.9
59.0
Appendix
Table 5: Counterfactual test results. We inject Gaussian noise with different σ to the foreground and background of the images, and prompt the model to answer visual questions.
Method
POPE σ=25
POPE σ=50
MME σ=25
MME σ=50
VQA-RAD
ReasonVQA
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
85.1
81.1
2317
2223
73.1
42.2
Saliency-R1
86.9
83.2
2360
2252
75.4
56.9
Appendix
Table 6: Robustness Benchmark. We compare Saliency-R1 with base model on several benchmarks that show the robustness and generalizability of the method. We inject Gaussian noise with different σ to the images of POPE and MME.
Method
CAM
Attention Rollout
ATTN-LRP
TAM
Ours
s/samples
2.29
3.89
4.52
5.56
2.59
Appendix
Table 7: Throughput analysis. We report the average time to generate one saliency map using the saliency-r1-8k dataset.
Method
POPE
MFP-3B
86.5
RE-ALIGN-7B
87.1
MFCD-7B
87.4
Saliency-R1-3B
87.5
Saliency-R1-7B
88.1
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison with hallucination-reduction baselines.
Figure 5: Additional examples of the saliency maps generated by our proposed saliency map techniques, and the corresponding questions and responses. The examples are generated using Saliency-R1-7B.
Vision-language models (VLMs) aim to reason by jointly leveraging visual and textual modalities. While allocating additional inference-time computation has proven effective for large language models (LLMs), achieving similar scaling in VLMs remains challenging. A key obstacle is that visual inputs are typically provided only once at the start of generation, while textual reasoning (e.g., early visual summaries) is generated autoregressively, causing reasoning to become increasingly text-dominated and allowing early visual grounding errors to accumulate. Moreover, vanilla guidance for visual grounding during inference is often coarse and noisy, making it difficult to steer reasoning over long texts. To address these challenges, we propose Saliency-Aware Principle (SAP) selection. SAP operates on high-level reasoning principles rather than token-level trajectories, which enable stable control over discrete generation under noisy feedback while allowing later reasoning steps to re-consult visual evidence when renewed grounding is required. In addition, SAP supports multi-route inference, enabling parallel exploration of diverse reasoning behaviors. SAP is model-agnostic and data-free, requiring no additional training. Empirical results show that SAP achieves competitive performance, especially in reducing object hallucination, under comparable token-generation budgets while yielding more stable reasoning and lower response latency than CoT-style long sequential reasoning.
Understanding how vision-language models (VLMs) interpret data visualizations remains an open problem, and is increasingly important as these models are used for analytical tasks where reliable reasoning is essential. We introduce a lightweight, diagnostic saliency map method tailored for text generation over images using transformer models, the current state-of-the-art models in visualization interpretation. Our approach aggregates the language model's attention over the visual tokens across all heads and layers, then maps this attention back onto the vision encoder's patch grid to localise it over the image, producing a direct correspondence between each generated answer token and the image regions it attended to. This yields fast, gradient-free saliency maps that expose how VLMs allocate focus across visual elements during answer generation, enabling inspection of whether model attention aligns with semantically relevant components. We evaluate our approach using a deletion metric which validates the causal faithfulness of our saliency maps to the model's behavior.
We introduce Self-Saliency, a method for training Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to increase the alignment between their visual attention and the image regions mentioned in their reasoning. Self-Saliency uses a grounding model to localize the objects mentioned in each reasoning step and treats the resulting areas as supervision for the model's visual attention. Previous work on steering visual attention determines target image regions based solely on the image and question. In contrast, we show that conditioning the target regions on the model's generated reasoning improves downstream performance. For proper evaluation, we build a unified, broad suite of 25 visual reasoning benchmarks, where we reproduce the results of previous methods. We find that Self-Saliency significantly outperforms both prior attention-steering methods and baselines that ground image-level text, achieving both a better average rank and a better mean score. Post-training analysis shows that the model primarily adapts its reasoning text to existing attention patterns, producing shorter steps that refer to larger regions. Nevertheless, when controlling for generated text, attention to grounded regions increases significantly across the relevant layer. Finally, we identify a consistent geometric bias in VLM visual attention toward the image border. However, our ablations show that Self-Saliency's gains cannot be explained by simply aligning attention with the center of the image, highlighting the importance of aligning visual attention with the regions mentioned in the model's reasoning.
Uri Berger, Gal Chechik, Gal Dalal
NVIDIA Research · The Hebrew University of Jerusalem · University of Melbourne +1