Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have achieved strong performance on general multimodal reasoning, yet remain challenged in integrating nonlocal visual information to support semantically underdetermined visual reasoning. We describe this challenge as Fragmented Visual Reasoning. To this end, we propose Credit Assignment for Visual Evidence (CAVE), a structured process-reward method based on GRPO for interleaved visual reasoning. Specifically, CAVE evaluates the contribution of intermediate steps at the action level via three complementary reasoning process signals: belief update, evidence acquisition, and adaptive focus control, thereby guiding the model to optimize each reasoning action and learn more reliable visual reasoning strategies. Meanwhile, we construct TRACER-Bench, which covers four nonlocal and semantically confusable reasoning dimensions and provides key intermediate evidence to supervise reasoning paths. Experiments demonstrate that CAVE substantially improves performance on tasks requiring fragmented visual evidence integration, covering both public benchmarks and our newly introduced TRACER-Bench, while retaining competitive performance on general multimodal evaluations. Further analyses reveal that CAVE effectively improves the visual reasoning capacity and exhibits stronger robustness under longer-range and deeper cross-region dependencies.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) should answer from concrete image evidence rather than language priors, dataset shortcuts, or irrelevant visual context. Existing perception-aware post-training methods encourage image use through global perturbations or attention proxies, but they do not test whether a sampled answer causally depends on the local evidence that supports it. We propose Counterfactual Evidence Disentanglement (CED), a training-time evidence audit for VLM grounding. For each response, CED neutralizes an object-centric Evidence Region and compares the resulting support drop against matched non-evidence Regions. We combine this signal with answer correctness inside GRPO, rewarding correct answers that rely on the evidence path rather than shortcut or nuisance paths. CED uses weak object-level proposals, requires no question-specific evidence annotations, and adds no inference-time overhead. Across nine public benchmarks and four backbones, CED outperforms prior RL-based post-training methods, with targeted analyses verifying its object-centric signal.
Vision-language models achieve strong performance across a wide range of multimodal understanding and reasoning tasks, yet their multi-step reasoning remains unstable. Repeated sampling over the same input often produces divergent reasoning trajectories and inconsistent final predictions. To address this, we introduce two complementary approaches inspired by test-time scaling: (1) CASHEW, an inference-time framework that stabilizes reasoning by iteratively aggregating multiple candidate trajectories into higher-quality reasoning traces, with explicit visual verification filtering hallucinated steps and grounding reasoning in visual evidence, and (2) CASHEW-RL, a learned variant that internalizes this aggregation behavior within a single model. CASHEW-RL is trained using Group Sequence Policy Optimization (GSPO) with a composite reward that encourages correct answers grounded in minimal yet sufficient visual evidence, while adaptively allocating reasoning effort based on task difficulty. This training objective enables robust self-aggregation at inference. Extensive experiments on 13 image understanding, video understanding, and video reasoning benchmarks show significant performance improvements, including gains of up to +26.2 percentage points on ScienceQA and +9.1 percentage points on EgoSchema.
Vision-language models can describe an image with remarkable accuracy, yet a more fundamental question remains unanswered: what visual information actually drives their answers? In this work, we investigate this question through causal tracing, and we observe that highly causal vision tokens often lie outside the target region. Extending the analysis to larger vision-language models reveals a similar pattern across models and corruption settings, suggesting that strong multimodal performance does not necessarily imply spatially localized causal representations. We further investigate: can these models preserve visual structure when appearance cues are removed? and find that visual cues are exploited to understand visual structures. Together, our experiments expose a gap between seeing, using, and reasoning over visual structure, and provide a causal framework for studying how visual information is transformed, preserved, and ultimately used by modern vision-language models.