Symbolic Grounding Reveals Representational Bottlenecks in Abstract Visual Reasoning

This paper argues that a systemic lack of Agency constrains the implicit reasoning capabilities of current Vision-Language Models (VLMs). Implicit reasoning refers to the ability to autonomously discover and utilize hidden visual evidence to bridge information gaps, rather than merely relying on explicitly specified targets. This capacity underlies human visual understanding and everyday reasoning. We argue that this limitation arises from a tendency to approach visual reasoning primarily as passive semantic retrieval, rather than as active, situated reasoning that depends on autonomous visual exploration. As a result, most existing benchmarks primarily assess Passive Capacity, leaving this aspect of reasoning largely unmeasured. To address this gap, we introduce the Visual Implicit Reasoning Diagnosing Benchmark (V-IRD), which targets this missing quadrant by requiring models to derive answers strictly through autonomous visual analysis. Our results show that, despite strong retrieval abilities, prominent VLMs struggle to utilize reference objects and to attend to visual evidence that requires self-directed inquiry. Simply put, strong semantic recognition does not equate to active visual exploration, revealing a critical gap in current VLMs. More information can be found at https://haoychen.github.io/Implicit-Reasoning/

While Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) exhibit strong perceptual capabilities, they remain vulnerable in visual reasoning tasks. Existing benchmarks largely focus on symbolic mathematical or scientific problems and simple vision-centric tasks, offering limited assessment of complex visual reasoning and logical consistency, a critical requirement for reliable reasoning systems. We introduce ConVBench, a complex vision-centric reasoning benchmark in which each image is paired with two logically equivalent questions across six categories: action and state, complex counting, spatial reasoning, causal and intent understanding, commonsense reasoning, and temporal perception. To complement this benchmark, we define two evaluation metrics, logical consistency and robust accuracy, that jointly assess both the correctness and consistency of model responses. We further present ConVLM, which improves LVLM reasoning through Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO)-based reinforcement learning with a novel consistency reward. This method leverages automatically generated logically equivalent question-answer pairs and a dual-reward design combining accuracy- and consistency-based signals, encouraging agreement between paired responses. The framework functions effectively with or without strict answer supervision.

Visual thinking should not only sound right; it should show its evidence. While recent vision-language models (VLMs) can produce natural-language reasoning traces, these traces often leave the supporting image regions implicit, making them hard to verify and difficult to supervise. We introduce visually grounded thinking, a reasoning process in which models interleave natural-language thoughts with explicit point or box groundings of the visual evidence used at each step. This lets the model express intermediate reasoning in language while grounding key objects in the image regions they refer to. To train this behavior, we construct a scalable synthesis pipeline that distills correct visual reasoning traces, extracts the visual objects required by the traces, grounds them with a SAM3-based agent, and derives aligned point and box supervision from the resulting masks. We further propose grounding-aware reinforcement learning, which combines answer correctness rewards with dense grounding rewards that score whether generated object references match the correct image evidence. Across two counting benchmarks and four spatial reasoning benchmarks, adding visually grounded thinking to Gemma3-4B-IT consistently improves performance over the original model and the non-grounded thinking baseline. On spatial reasoning, the visually grounded thinking 4B models match, and in some cases surpass, Gemma3-27B-IT from the same model family. Our analysis shows that point grounding is well suited to counting, while box grounding benefits most from explicit grounding rewards on spatial tasks. Overall, our results show that VLMs think better when their intermediate thoughts are tied to the image regions that make them true.