Recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) support Thinking with Images, invoking visual tools such as zooming and cropping to inspect image regions during inference. Yet these systems remain brittle in fine-grained reasoning: to acquire a decisive detail, a model must ground its attention on the correct region, but knowing which region is correct presupposes having already observed that detail. We identify this circular dependency as the grounding paradox, show that grounding errors are rarely self-corrected within a single trajectory---once a misleading region is inspected, all subsequent reasoning conditions on that observation and the error propagates to the final answer---and observe that because each trajectory constructs its own evidence, answer-level aggregation discards the very information that distinguishes trajectories. We propose Test-Time Scaling over Perception (TTSP), a closed-loop framework that treats perception as the unit of scalable inference and allocates compute along two axes: Entropy-Gated Perceptual Exploration samples diverse trajectories and uses critical-token entropy to withhold evidence the model cannot commit to, while Evidence-Guided Iterative Refinement distills validated observations into a correctable Evidence Ledger that steers later rounds to re-inspect unresolved regions. Across high-resolution and general multimodal benchmarks, TTSP consistently outperforms strong test-time scaling baselines, while improving grounding quality with favorable token efficiency.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The grounding paradox and its resolution. Left: a single trajectory must commit to a region under incomplete evidence and inherits any early error. Right: TTSP converts the circularity into a gated search across trajectories, coupled through a correctable evidence ledger.
Figure 2: Overview of TTSP . Each round draws fresh and guided traces ( coverage ), gates them on critical-token entropy ( selection ), and refines an Evidence Ledger whose spatial directives redirect the next round ( utilization ); the answer is a reliability-weighted vote over all retained traces.
V ∗ Bench
HR-Bench-4K
HR-Bench-8K
TreeBench
MME-RealWorld-Lite
Method
Attr.
Spat.
Ovr.
FSP
FCP
Ovr.
FSP
FCP
Ovr.
Perc.
Reas.
Ovr.
Perc.
Reas.
Ovr.
Reference systems, not budget-matched
GPT-4o
72.2
60.5
67.5
66.8
63.3
65.0
60.8
58.5
59.6
61.7
38.3
46.9
54.4
48.3
52.0
Thyme
83.5
80.3
82.2
91.0
63.0
77.0
86.5
57.5
72.0
57.0
28.9
39.3
59.1
49.1
55.2
DeepEyes
91.3
88.2
90.1
91.3
59.0
75.1
86.8
58.5
72.6
57.7
29.3
39.8
55.4
46.8
52.1
Pixel-Reasoner
83.5
76.3
80.6
86.0
60.3
72.9
80.0
54.3
66.9
54.3
30.1
39.0
53.1
45.6
50.1
Table 1: High-resolution and fine-grained visual reasoning. All test-time scaling methods within a backbone block use the same trajectory budget as TTSP ; reference systems are not budget-matched. Best result per column within each block is in bold.
Table 4
Figure 3: Scaling behavior of TTSP along (a) backbone size, (b) perception width K , and (c) perception depth N .
Figure 6Figure 7
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Perception
Reasoning
Method
Attr.
Mat.
Phys.
Ret.
OCR
Ovr.
Persp.
Ord.
Cont.
Cntm.
Comp.
Ovr.
GPT-4o
51.7
61.5
65.2
43.8
69.1
61.7
18.8
38.6
48.8
72.4
43.2
38.3
DeepEyes
62.1
53.8
65.2
68.8
51.5
57.7
11.8
24.6
36.6
51.7
47.7
29.3
Pixel-Reasoner
58.6
61.5
65.2
50.0
48.5
54.3
14.1
31.6
39.0
44.8
40.9
30.1
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
Base
44.8
61.5
52.2
62.5
69.1
60.4
15.3
29.8
48.8
75.9
47.7
36.3
Appendix
Table 4: Category-level results on TreeBench. Perception covers attributes (Attr.), material (Mat.), physical state (Phys.), object retrieval (Ret.), and OCR. Reasoning covers perspective transformation (Persp.), ordering (Ord.), contact and occlusion (Cont.), spatial containment (Cntm.), and comparison (Comp.).
Perception
Reasoning
Method
OCR
RS
DT
MO
AD
Ovr.
OCR
DT
MO
AD
Ovr.
Pixel-Reasoner
89.6
52.0
86.0
38.9
30.9
53.1
71.0
72.0
46.0
32.5
45.6
DeepEyes
90.0
52.7
89.0
43.3
33.4
55.4
76.0
69.0
44.0
35.0
46.8
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
Base
89.6
50.7
85.0
37.3
34.3
53.4
73.0
75.0
42.7
31.0
44.8
SC
91.2
53.3
89.0
38.6
36.9
55.5
78.0
78.0
43.3
32.8
47.0
Appendix
Table 5: Category-level results on MME-RealWorld-Lite. RS, DT, MO, and AD denote remote sensing, diagram and table understanding, monitoring, and autonomous driving, respectively.
Split
RTWI
R1
R2
R3
R4
Perception
40.65
37.83
40.38
42.03
45.29
Reasoning
45.82
42.79
44.51
47.04
49.22
Appendix
Table 6: Grounding mIoU on TreeBench after each round of TTSP , compared with the strongest matched-budget baseline. R1 to R4 denote the refinement rounds; each round is measured over the same number of retained traces.
V ∗ Bench
HR-Bench-4K
HR-Bench-8K
Signal
Attr.
Spat.
FSP
FCP
FSP
FCP
Avg.
Answer probability
93.9
92.1
96.0
75.3
93.0
74.5
87.5
Probability margin
93.0
93.4
96.5
75.8
93.5
74.5
87.8
Mean token probability
94.8
92.1
96.0
76.3
93.0
74.0
87.7
Length-normalized probability
93.9
92.1
96.5
76.3
93.5
74.5
87.8
Cross-trace agreement
93.9
92.1
96.0
76.5
93.5
74.8
87.8
Appendix
Table 7: Accuracy when alternative trace-reliability signals replace critical-token entropy inside TTSP , with all other settings fixed. Results use Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct. Avg. is the mean of the six reported metrics.
V ∗ Bench
HR-Bench-4K
HR-Bench-8K
TreeBench
Method
Attr.
Spat.
Ovr.
FSP
FCP
Ovr.
FSP
FCP
Ovr.
Perc.
Reas.
Ovr.
DeepEyes-7B
Base
87.8
81.0
85.1
90.0
58.5
74.2
86.5
57.3
71.9
57.0
35.9
43.7
SC
89.6
82.3
86.7
91.3
61.0
76.2
88.0
61.0
74.5
61.1
37.1
45.9
CISC
90.4
82.3
87.2
91.3
59.0
75.2
88.0
61.8
74.9
61.1
37.5
46.2
TRT
89.6
81.0
86.2
90.0
61.8
75.9
87.8
59.0
73.4
60.4
37.1
45.7
Appendix
Table 8: Generalization of TTSP to additional multimodal backbones on high-resolution benchmarks. Absolute scores are not comparable with Table 1 , since the backbones and inference setups differ.
Method
Easy
Medium
Hard
Overall
Base
56.0
35.4
34.9
40.9
SC
64.0
40.2
42.5
47.2
CISC
59.7
38.6
39.6
44.6
TRT
59.7
39.6
40.6
45.3
Self-Ref.
61.0
39.6
38.7
45.3
Self-Cer.
59.0
39.4
37.7
44.4
Appendix
Table 9: Results on VisualProbe with Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct.
Setting
Value
Perception depth N
4
Perception width K
8
Fresh ratio α
0.4
Gate ratio ρ
0.4
Entropy truncation ktop
256
Critical positions k′
128
Appendix
Table 10: Default settings of TTSP , shared across all backbones and benchmarks.
Figure 8: Prompt template for perceptual exploration.
Figure 9: Prompt template for ledger-guided exploration.
Figure 10: Prompt template for the Evidence Ledger update.
Figure 11: Specification of the crop tool exposed to the model.
Visually grounded reasoning links visual evidence to multi-step conclusions and actions, aiming to make multimodal systems accurate, auditable, and robust.
Latent test-time scaling improves reasoning by refining hidden states during inference, but existing methods typically apply a single scalar reward to all editable latent tokens. For multimodal large language models, this global update ignores that generated tokens play different roles: some are sensitive to visual evidence, while others correspond to uncertain reasoning decisions. We present Token-Disentangled Latent Test-Time Scaling, an inference-time framework that makes latent refinement token-role-aware. Starting from an initial generated trajectory, we optimize a short hidden-state prefix while routing perception-side visual feedback to image-sensitive tokens and reasoning feedback to high-entropy tokens. Tokens selected by neither route are constrained by an anchor regularizer. Across both perception and reasoning benchmarks on Qwen2.5-VL-7B and InternVL3.5-8B, our method lifts macro accuracy over CoT by +2.57 and +1.51 respectively, and outperforms strong output-space test-time scaling baselines under matched decoded-candidate budgets. Code is available at https://github.com/Qwen-Applications/TD-LTTS.
Hao-Xuan Ma, Yihao Liu, Yutao Sun +8
Qwen Business Unit of Alibaba · School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University · National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University +5
While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) excel in cross-modal reasoning, they often struggle to perceive fine-grained details in complex high-resolution images. Recent training-free methods address this through image scaling and localized cropping. However, applying these manipulations indiscriminately introduces computational redundancy for simple queries and can degrade accuracy by truncating essential global context or introducing irrelevant background noise. To this end, we propose LazyMCoT, a dynamic and training-free framework that adaptively allocates visual grounding efforts based on sample difficulty. The framework features an Adaptive Routing mechanism that evaluates predictive uncertainty using first-token statistics from a single forward pass. This efficiently bypasses confident cases while ensuring the recall of difficult samples via conformal calibration. For these challenging cases, a Collaborative Grounding module integrates the inherent cross-modal attention of the model with an external visual expert through a two-stage refinement process. This refinement process generates a precise localized display to recover small or occluded targets. Extensive experiments across diverse benchmarks demonstrate that LazyMCoT rivals training-based approaches by simultaneously improving reasoning accuracy and reducing average inference latency. Our code is availble at https://github.com/TencentBAC/LazyMCoT.
Yifan Wang, Peiming Li, Shiyu Li +5
1Tencent BAC · School of Electronic and Computer Engineering, Peking University · School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Glasgow +1
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) capable of thinking with images often rely on external tools for fine-grained perception. However, this reliance introduces significant inference latency and fails to effectively resolve the spatial-structural gap-a fundamental challenge in text-dense and structurally relational visuals (e.g., charts and visual tables) where strict relative spatial arrangements bind textual elements. Without external tools, standard MLLMs struggle with such fine-grained visual reasoning tasks. To address these issues, we propose Think with Structured Grounding (TwSG), a novel fine-grained image perception framework designed to internalize complex images's tool-use capabilities within the model. TwSG distills the benefits of multi-step reasoning and micro-cropping into a single efficient forward pass during inference. Specifically, we use an MLLM to identify key regions guided by ground-truth answers, and then prompt a teacher model to generate high-quality visual question-answering (VQA) data. These fine-grained, region-based supervisory signals are subsequently distilled back into the full-image representation. Our training pipeline consists of two stages: (1) a cold-start supervised fine-tuning (SFT) phase using multi-turn data with focused area descriptions to foster complex reasoning and error recovery; and (2) a reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT) phase driven by a novel process reward mechanism, TL-GRPO, which encourages strategic reasoning. Extensive experiments across various MLLM architectures demonstrate that TwSG reduces inference latency while substantially improving accuracy and robustness, endowing models with native fine-grained region description and flexible reasoning capabilities.
Changjiang Jiang, Qiannian Zhao, Lei Xin +3
Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence · Nanjing University