Prioritizing the Best: Incentivizing Reliable Multimodal Reasoning by Rewarding Beyond Answer Correctness
Authors: Mengzhao Jia, Zhihan Zhang, Meng Jiang
Organizations: University of Notre Dame
Abstract
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) improves multimodal reasoning by rewarding verifiable final answers. Yet answer-correct trajectories may still rely on incomplete derivations, weak evidence, or statements that contradict their conclusions. This gap between answer correctness and reasoning validity, which we call reasoning-answer inconsistency, motivates trajectory supervision in multimodal RL. We compare two main approaches: reward models (RMs), and Generative Rewards (GRs). RMs are efficient and help early in training, but their gains weaken as the policy distribution shifts; GRs improve performance, but may give unstable rewards and computationally expensive. We therefore propose Groupwise Ranking Reward, which ranks verifier-passed trajectories for the same prompt in one pass and redistributes reward accordingly. Groupwise comparison better separates stronger and weaker correct trajectories with lower judge overhead than GRs. Experiments show that RLVR aggravates reasoning-answer inconsistency, while trajectory supervision alleviates it. Groupwise Ranking Reward performs best overall, improving reliability-conditioned accuracy from 47.4% to 54.7% over RLVR.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has successfully elicited the reasoning capabilities of large language models, motivating its extension to multimodal scenarios. Existing methods primarily focus on improving the visual coverage of reasoning traces and mitigating visual hallucinations, but underestimate the semantic inconsistency between the reasoning process and the final answer. In this paper, we delve into thinking-answer inconsistency in RLVR for large vision-language models (LVLMs), showing thorough analyses of rollouts collected throughout Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) training process and post-RLVR evaluation outputs that this issue persists during training and remains present during inference. Motivated by the analysis, we propose Consistency-Oriented Reasoning Alignment (CORA), which introduces thinking-answer semantic consistency into RLVR through a lightweight plug-and-play consistency reward model, and further incorporates Hybrid Reward Advantage Splitting (HRAS) to stably coordinate task and consistency optimization. Extensive experiments across representative multimodal reasoning benchmarks and mainstream LVLMs show that CORA improves task performance while effectively mitigating thinking-answer inconsistency, leading to more faithful reasoning traces.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged as an effective approach for improving multimodal reasoning. However, most existing methods evaluate an entire response using a binary reward based only on final-answer correctness, thereby discarding the supervision available in intermediate reasoning steps. Process reward models offer finer-grained feedback, but they typically rely on separately trained verifiers, costly chain-of-thought annotations, or online judging by large language models (LLMs). In this work, we introduce StructReward, a compute-efficient framework that provides dense reinforcement signals through structured step-level reward alignment. StructReward represents each generated solution as a sequence of reasoning steps and aligns them with process-labeled reference steps using lightweight numerical, symbolic, and lexical matching rules. The aligned labels are aggregated into a dense process reward and combined with final-answer consistency and output-validity rewards through a gated Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) objective. We further recycle policy rollouts into complementary supervision for response comparison and reflective self-correction, rather than discarding them after policy updates. Separately, we use a strong LLM to rewrite sampled correct trajectories into reflection-oriented training instances, further strengthening the policy's ability to evaluate and refine its reasoning. Since reward computation is performed online without an additional learned verifier or external LLM judge, StructReward substantially reduces the computational overhead of multimodal reinforcement learning. Experimental results show that structured process supervision and rollout recycling provide an efficient path toward self-improving multimodal reasoning.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) makes Multimodal Large Language Models more accurate, but the gains are brittle: simply paraphrasing a question or changing the prompt template can degrade them, which challenges reliable deployment in high-stakes scenarios like medical VQA. We trace this to two issues of the standard RL objective. First, the binary verifier conflates format with content, so the reward signal cannot tell a wrong answer apart from a misformatted one. Second, the training distribution covers only a thin slice of the real-world prompts that the model might meet at deployment, so policies that perform well on the training distribution can behave differently under unseen prompts during test. Both failures call for a robust post-training method that helps the policy cover a broader distribution of semantically equivalent prompts, and we identify two measures that help achieve this objective: separating format from semantics in the reward, and applying policy invariance across perturbed prompts with equivalent semantics. We therefore propose Prompt-Invariant RLVR (PIRL), consisting of a dynamic trinary reward and a consistency regularizer based on an embedding-space adversary. Under stress testing, PIRL's average accuracy on benchmarks drops by only ≤1%, where GRPO drops ~3%. On dynamic evaluation, PIRL also achieves the smallest performance drop.