Recent advances in vision-language models (VLMs) emphasize long chain-of-thought reasoning; yet, we find that their performance on visual tasks is primarily limited by a lack of visual perception as opposed to reasoning itself. In this work, we systematically study the interplay between perception and reasoning in VLM post-training by decomposing their capabilities into three separate training stages: visual perception, visual reasoning, and textual reasoning, incorporating specialized training data. We demonstrate that visual perception (a) requires targeted optimization with specialized data; (b) serves as a fundamental scaffold that should be solidified through staged training before refining visual reasoning; and (c) is more effectively learned via RL than caption-based SFT. Our experiments across multiple VLMs demonstrate that staged training consistently improves both visual perception and reasoning performance over merged training. Notably, models trained with our approach achieve 1.5% higher reasoning accuracy with 20.8% shorter reasoning traces, suggesting that superior perception reduces the need for excessive reasoning. Furthermore, we show that this capability-based staging represents a new curriculum dimension orthogonal to traditional difficulty-based curricula, and combining both yields further additive gains. Our staged-training models achieve superior performance among open-weight VLMs, establishing advanced results on several visual math and perception (e.g., +5.2% on WeMath and +3.7% on RealWorldQA) tasks compared with the base counterpart.
Post-training has greatly improved reasoning in frontier vision-language models, yet its gains for perception remain comparatively limited, creating a bottleneck for end-to-end visual reasoning. To investigate this gap, we introduce a controlled diagnostic framework with two synthetic tasks that disentangle perception from reasoning. Our analysis reveals a consistent perception-reasoning asymmetry: post-training improves reasoning more substantially than perception, though the underlying mechanism differs across training paradigms. For supervised fine-tuning (SFT), this asymmetry stems from token imbalance, with perception occupying a smaller fraction of tokens in chain-of-thought supervision. Reweighting the loss boosts end-to-end performance by up to 18.2 points. For reinforcement learning (RL), the asymmetry instead arises from reward coupling, as outcome rewards correlate more strongly with reasoning than perception. Adding a perception-aware reward improves end-to-end accuracy by up to 6.0 points; when ground-truth perception rewards are unavailable, a reliable surrogate provides useful signal, yielding gains of 2.2 points. Beyond the controlled setting, these strategies also improve real-world visual reasoning, with gains of up to 3.3 points across three benchmarks. Overall, we diagnose the causes of asymmetric optimization and provide actionable guidance that benefits both synthetic and realistic settings.
Achieving robust perception-reasoning synergy is a central goal for advanced Vision-Language Models (VLMs). Recent advancements have pursued this goal via architectural designs or agentic workflows. However, these approaches are often limited by static textual reasoning or complicated by the significant compute and engineering burden of external agentic complexity. Worse, this heavy investment does not yield proportional gains, often witnessing a "seesaw effect" on perception and reasoning. This motivates a fundamental rethinking of the true bottleneck. In this paper, we argue that the root cause of this trade-off is an ambiguity in modality credit assignment: when a VLM fails, is it due to flawed perception ("bad seeing") or flawed logic ("bad thinking")? To resolve this, we introduce a reinforcement learning framework that improves perception-reasoning synergy by reliably rewarding the perception fidelity. We explicitly decompose the generation process into interleaved perception and reasoning steps. This decoupling enables targeted supervision on perception. Crucially, we introduce Perception Verification (PV), leveraging a "blindfolded reasoning" proxy to reward perceptual fidelity independently of reasoning outcomes. Furthermore, to scale training across free-form VL tasks, we propose Structured Verbal Verification, which replaces high-variance LLM judging with structured algorithmic execution. These techniques are integrated into a Modality-Aware Credit Assignment (MoCA) mechanism, which routes rewards to the specific source of error -- either bad seeing or bad thinking -- enabling a single VLM to achieve simultaneous performance gains across a wide task spectrum.
Achieving human-like reasoning in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) remains a long-standing challenge. Recent approaches leverage Chain-of-Thought (CoT) rationales generated by human annotators or proprietary models, which are costly and difficult to scale. Self-training offers a promising alternative but often suffers from visual hallucinations and language shortcuts because rationales are filtered only by answer correctness without verifying visual perception. We propose a perception-verified self-training framework that enforces visually grounded reasoning. Our method employs a CoT template (caption-reasoning-conclusion) that disentangles perception from reasoning, enabling independent verification of visual understanding. To compensate for the absence of ground-truth captions, we introduce PerceptEval, an unsupervised method that evaluates caption quality based on its alignment with visual and textual elements in the image. Using caption verification together with answer correctness, we partition the data into easy, medium, and hard subsets and design a two-stage curriculum learning strategy. Stage 1 trains on easy samples, while Stage 2 enhances medium samples by regenerating reasoning conditioned on verified captions and retaining only those with correct conclusions. This ensures training is performed exclusively on perceptually grounded reasoning, reducing hallucinations and language shortcuts. Extensive experiments across diverse domains and models demonstrate improvements of up to 16% over standard self-training baselines, showing that our framework provides a scalable and cost-effective solution for advancing multimodal reasoning without manually annotated CoT rationales.