Improving Multimodal Reasoning via Worst Dimension Optimization

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 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.

Visual question answering increasingly requires multi-step reasoning. Recent post-training with reinforcement learning under verifiable rewards (RLVR) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) can improve multimodal reasoning, but most approaches rely on sparse outcome-only rewards. As a result, they struggle to tell whether an incorrect answer comes from a small mistake late in the reasoning or from an unhelpful trajectory from the start. A common solution is to train a process reward model (PRM) for step-level supervision, but this typically requires large-scale high-quality chain-of-thought annotations and additional training cost. We propose ProcessThinker, a practical post-training pipeline that provides step-level process rewards without training an explicit PRM. ProcessThinker first rewrites reasoning traces into a step-tagged format for cold-start supervised fine-tuning, then applies GRPO with a standard format reward and our rollout-based process reward. Concretely, for each intermediate step, we sample multiple continuations from that step and use the empirical success rate (final-answer verification) as the step reward. This gives dense credit assignment and encourages reasoning steps that more reliably support a correct conclusion, helping reduce inconsistent or self-contradictory progress across steps -- a key issue in logical reasoning. Across four challenging video benchmarks (Video-MMMU, MMVU, VideoMathQA, and LongVideoBench), ProcessThinker consistently improves over the baseline model Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct