Authors: André G. Viveiros, Nuno Gonçalves, André F. T. Martins, Matthias Lindemann
Organizations: Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa · Instituto de Telecomunicações · Carnegie Mellon University · TransPerfect
Abstract
Humans can approach complex visual problems by mentally simulating intermediate visual steps, rather than reasoning through language alone. Inspired by this, several works on Vision-Language Models have recently explored chain-of-thought reasoning with continuous latent tokens as intermediate visual imagination steps. In this work, we investigate how recent models leverage such latent tokens. Surprisingly, we find that model accuracy is unaffected when latent tokens are replaced by uninformative dummy tokens. This indicates that latent tokens play a minimal causal role in the model's final prediction. To better understand this phenomenon, we analyze both the training signal provided by oracle latent representations and the quality of the latent tokens generated at inference time. Our experiments reveal two crucial issues holding back latent visual reasoning: First, in most existing datasets, oracle latent tokens provide limited additional information beyond the original image and do not substantially simplify the task, leading models to ignore them during training and effectively bypassing them at inference time. When fine-tuned on a diagnostic dataset, in which latent tokens provide sufficient support for the final prediction, we show that models can causally rely on them. Second, the latent tokens produced at inference time deviate from their corresponding oracle representations, collapsing to a narrow region and preventing benefits even when the model relies on them. Overall, our findings suggest that future progress in latent visual reasoning depends on two key pillars: high-quality datasets with informative intermediate steps and more precise latent token prediction.
Latent visual reasoning aims to mimic human's imagination process by meditating through hidden states of Multimodal Large Language Models. While recognized as a promising paradigm for visual reasoning, the underlying mechanisms driving its effectiveness remain unclear. Motivated to demystify the true source of its efficacy, we investigate the validity of latent reasoning using Causal Mediation Analysis. We model the process as a causal chain: the input as the treatment, the latent tokens as the mediator, and the final answer as the outcome. Our findings uncover two critical disconnections: (a) Input-Latent Disconnect: dramatic perturbations on the input result in negligible changes to the latent tokens, suggesting that latent tokens do not effectively attend to the input sequence. (b) Latent-Answer Disconnect: perturbations on the latent tokens yield minimal impact on the final answer, indicating the limited causal effect latent tokens imposing on the outcome. Furthermore, extensive probing analysis reveals that latent tokens encode limited visual information and exhibit high similarity. Consequently, we challenge the necessity of latent reasoning and propose a straightforward alternative named CapImagine, which teaches the model to explicitly imagine using text. Experiments on vision-centric benchmarks show that CapImagine significantly outperforms complex latent-space baselines, highlighting the superior potential of visual reasoning through explicit imagination.
Latent visual reasoning involves visual evidence more directly in multimodal reasoning by inserting continuous latent tokens before textual generation. However, the necessity of these latent tokens at inference remains ambiguous. We show that replacing latent tokens with random noise or removing them completely causes little performance degradation across spatial reasoning benchmarks. Reinforcement learning further diminishes the latent generation behavior after post-training. These observations raise a central question: Is latent visual reasoning still meaningful? We argue that its value should be measured by how effectively latent tokens guide learning, rather than whether they persist as an inference-time format. Our analysis shows that latent reasoning is unevenly favorable across question types, yet hard task-level routing for applying latent generation is brittle. Motivated by these findings, we propose an attention-based reward that encourages generated latent tokens to interact with later text tokens during RL. This reward promotes latent utilization when the latent mode is activated while preserving the flexibility to use pure-text reasoning. Experiments show that our method improves performance across perception and visual reasoning benchmarks, even when latent tokens are rarely generated after post-training. Our results highlight that, without explicit expression at inference, latent visual reasoning can shape better visual grounding and more accurate textual reasoning in silence. Our code and trained models are publicly available at \href{https://github.com/ddydyd32/silent-lvr/tree/master}{GitHub} and \href{https://huggingface.co/collections/cornuHGF/silent-lvr}{Hugging Face}.
Recent latent visual reasoning methods achieve substantial gains by inserting continuous latent tokens into multimodal language models. These gains are commonly attributed to the tokens encoding visual evidence; recent analyses, however, reveal a paradox: the tokens are loosely tied to the image and contribute little to the answer. Critically, these analyses treat latent tokens as a single unit, obscuring the true source of the gains. We therefore decompose latent tokens into three testable components: latent slots, boundary markers, and format, and develop a state-of-the-art method as a probe under favorable conditions. Across six method-stage settings and four perception-heavy benchmarks, latent slots fail every prediction of the visual-memory account. Strikingly, retaining only the boundary markers preserves 78 to 100% of the gain in several settings, while the model attends to the image more narrowly at latent positions than at answer positions. The gain therefore comes from boundary markers, format, and this attention pattern, not from latent slots. How each method engages this mechanism depends on its training supervision: at matched accuracy, mechanisms can still differ markedly. Latent visual reasoning thus needs evaluation not only by accuracy but by what the model actually relies on.