Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) exhibit substantial performance degradation in non-English visual reasoning, despite the strong multilingual competence of their text-only backbones. While mechanistic evidence from text-only models suggests that non-English inputs are routed through an English-centric latent space, the multimodal implications of this phenomenon remain unexplored. Through rigorous mechanistic analysis, we identify the Ghost Anchor phenomenon: a temporal modality asynchrony where linguistic translation to the English semantic manifold completes in early layers, while visual semanticization remains immature. Consequently, visual signals are physically present yet functionally invisible during the early alignment window. To rectify this, we propose ANCHOR, a training framework employing Proactive Visual Anchoring (PVA) to accelerate early visual semantic emergence, ensuring visual representations proactively guide linguistic translation. Mechanistic interventions confirm that ANCHOR successfully restores the causal influence of visual signals during early translation. Furthermore, extensive experiments on XMMMU, MaXM, and CVQA demonstrate that ANCHOR consistently outperforms standard baselines, achieving robust visual reasoning across both fine-tuned and zero-shot languages.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The Ghost Anchor phenomenon. (a) Ideal synchronized cross-modal alignment. (b) The reality of modality asynchrony: rapid linguistic translation bypasses delayed visual semantic emergence in early layers.
Figure 2: Modality Asynchrony . (a-b) Layer-wise English Similarity ( Simen ) and English Translation Ratio ( RET ) in text stream. (c) Visual Grounding Score ( SVG ) in vision stream. Shaded regions indicate the standard error of the mean (SEM).
Figure 3: Visual Causal Effect (LLaVA-1.5-7B left, 13B right). Difference between Normal and Noise inputs ( Δ=Normal−Noise ) across layers. Shaded regions indicate the standard error of the mean (SEM).
Size
Models
en
SFT Languages
Zero-shot
Avg.
ar
fr
hi
pt
id
ja
7B
LLaVA-1.5
35.2
29.9
34.6
28.2
33.7
31.6
32.0
32.2
+ Std. LoRA
34.9
32.9
36.6
30.2
36.0
32.0
30.9
33.4
+ Early-Layer FFT
32.6
28.9
32.2
24.1
31.6
34.3
32.0
30.8
+ ANCHOR
35.0
34.8
39.1
32.6
39.2
33.9
34.4
35.6
13B
LLaVA-1.5
34.8
30.9
35.6
29.2
37.0
33.7
30.9
33.2
Table 1: Performance comparison on multilingual multimodal benchmarks: (a) xMMMU and (b) MaXM. Best results are highlighted in bold .
Size
Models
SFT Languages
Zero-shot
Avg.
ar-EG
es-ES
zh-CN
am-ET
ja-JP
ro-RO
7B
LLaVA-1.5
32.5
67.0
48.6
26.5
35.0
51.0
43.4
+ Std. LoRA
31.5
62.0
44.7
26.1
35.5
46.7
41.1
+ Early-Layer FFT
29.6
50.3
42.8
27.4
35.5
44.4
38.3
+ ANCHOR
37.3
69.3
49.1
26.4
36.9
37.4
42.7
13B
LLaVA-1.5
38.4
70.4
54.3
25.2
45.8
57.0
48.5
Table 2: Performance on CVQA. We show six language–region pairs whose languages include both those used in SFT and those unseen during training; full results are reported in Table 8 . The Avg. column reports the average accuracy across the six displayed language–region pairs. Best results are highlighted in bold .
Figure 4: (a) Average visual causal effect ( ΔRET and ΔSimen ) across 7 languages. (b) Layer-wise hidden state dynamics in a cross-lingual VQA case, showing how ANCHOR enables visual grounding to override textual priors during translation.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Language
Abbreviations
Chinese
zh
Spanish
es
Hindi
hi
Arabic
ar
Russian
ru
Swahili
sw
Appendix
Table 3: Selected languages used in the mechanistic experiments and their corresponding ISO 639-1 codes.
Figure 5: Illustrative example of the input construction. This figure demonstrates the parallel input constructions across 7 structurally diverse target languages. To enforce a strict monolingual context and prevent English prior leakage during inference, both the standardized verification instruction and the ground-truth image caption are translated into the target language and paired with identical visual tokens from the COCO dataset.
Figure 6: (a) Original segmentation masks and semantic labels from the COCO dataset. (b) The mapped 24×24 visual patches and their corresponding labels.
Figure 7: Visual comparison of intervention conditions. Left: Normal RGB input with intact semantic content. Right: Gaussian noise with matched per-channel statistics ( μ , σ ) but no recognizable objects or scenes.
Model
ΔRET↑
ΔSimen↑
Qwen2.5-VL 3B
4.12×10−3
−2.31×10−4
Qwen2.5-VL 7B
5.34×10−3
−4.51×10−3
Gemma-3-4B
−1.13×10−2
−4.74×10−4
Gemma-3-13B
6.95×10−3
7.37×10−3
LLaVA-NeXT-7B
−3.19×10−3
−4.71×10−4
LLaVA-NeXT-13B
8.61×10−3
−8.28×10−3
Appendix
Table 4: Visual Causal Effect on English Translation Ratio ( ΔRET ) and English Similarity ( ΔSimen ).
Backbone
Size
Δ En
Δ SFT Avg.
Δ Zero-shot Avg.
Δ Avg.
LLaVA-NeXT
7B
+0.4
+3.1
+1.7
+2.3
LLaVA-NeXT
13B
+0.5
+4.0
+1.9
+2.9
InternVL3
8B
+0.2
+2.3
+1.1
+1.7
InternVL3
14B
+0.5
+2.6
+1.3
+1.9
Appendix
Table 5: Generalization to newer MLLM backbones on xMMMU. Each entry reports the accuracy difference in percentage points between ANCHOR and the corresponding Std. LoRA baseline ( ANCHOR−Std. LoRA ). SFT Avg. and Zero-shot Avg. are macro-averages over their respective language groups, while Avg. is the macro-average over all seven evaluated language subsets, including English.
Backbone
Size
Δ En
Δ SFT Avg.
Δ Zero-shot Avg.
Δ Avg.
LLaVA-NeXT
7B
+0.8
+3.4
+1.2
+2.4
LLaVA-NeXT
13B
+1.0
+3.8
+1.3
+2.7
InternVL3
8B
+0.5
+2.6
+0.8
+1.8
InternVL3
14B
+0.6
+3.0
+0.9
+2.1
Appendix
Table 6: Generalization to newer MLLM backbones on MaXM. Each entry reports the accuracy difference in percentage points between ANCHOR and the corresponding Std. LoRA baseline ( ANCHOR−Std. LoRA ). SFT Avg. and Zero-shot Avg. are macro-averages over their respective language groups, while Avg. is the macro-average over all seven evaluated language subsets, including English.
Backbone
Size
Δ SFT Avg.
Δ Zero-shot Avg.
Δ Avg.
LLaVA-NeXT
7B
+3.4
+1.4
+2.1
LLaVA-NeXT
13B
+3.8
+1.8
+2.5
InternVL3
8B
+2.6
+1.0
+1.6
InternVL3
14B
+2.9
+1.1
+1.7
Appendix
Table 7: Generalization to newer MLLM backbones on CVQA. Each entry reports the accuracy difference in percentage points between ANCHOR and the corresponding Std. LoRA baseline ( ANCHOR−Std. LoRA ). SFT Avg. and Zero-shot Avg. are macro-averages over their respective language–region groups, while Avg. is the macro-average over all 39 language–region pairs.
Models
ar-EG
es-AR
es-CL
es-CO
es-EC
es-ES
es-MX
es-UY
hi-IN
pt-BR
LLaVA-1.5-7B
32.5
54.3
60.7
56.4
53.6
67.0
48.3
43.5
40.3
57.4
+ Std. LoRA
31.5
51.7
56.4
55.2
49.5
62.0
46.1
40.6
38.8
56.3
+ Early-Layer FFT
29.6
41.5
44.9
46.5
42.3
50.3
43.7
37.8
37.3
45.8
+ ANCHOR
37.3
55.8
60.3
58.9
53.7
69.3
51.2
46.7
42.5
59.0
LLaVA-1.5-13B
38.4
57.4
62.0
61.4
53.6
70.4
51.1
39.7
49.3
63.4
+ Std. LoRA
36.0
54.7
57.7
61.4
55.0
67.9
50.8
39.7
46.8
59.9
Appendix
Table 8: CVQA benchmark performance. Pink columns denote language–region pairs whose languages are included in SFT, while Cyan columns denote languages unseen during training. The Avg. column reports the macro-average accuracy across all 39 pairs.
Learly
xMMMU
MaXM
6
32.8
28.5
8
34.2
30.7
10
35.6
32.4
12
34.7
31.8
14
33.5
30.2
16
32.1
28.9
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation study on the target layer Learly . xMMMU and MaXM results are macro-averaged across all evaluated languages. All experiments are conducted on LLaVA-1.5-7B.
Intervention Scope
xMMMU
MaXM
Full SFT + PVA
32.8
27.5
ANCHOR (Ours)
35.6
32.4
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation on intervention scope using LLaVA-1.5-7B. Full-parameter fine-tuning augmented with PVA at layer 10 yields lower aggregate performance than the early-layer intervention on both benchmarks, suggesting that targeted early-layer updates better preserve cross-lingual generalization in this setting.
While language reasoning models excel in many tasks, visual reasoning remains challenging for current large multimodal models (LMMs). As a result, most LMMs default to verbalizing perceptual content into text, a strong limitation for tasks requiring fine-grained spatial and visual understanding. While recent approaches take steps toward thinking with images by invoking tools or generating intermediate images, they either rely on external modules, or incur unnecessary computation by reasoning directly in pixel space. In this paper, we introduce LanteRn, a framework that enables LMMs to interleave language with compact latent visual representations, allowing visual reasoning to occur directly in latent space. LanteRn augments a vision-language transformer with the ability to generate and attend to continuous visual thought embeddings during inference. We train the model in two stages: supervised fine-tuning to ground visual features in latent states, followed by reinforcement learning to align latent reasoning with task-level utility. We evaluate LanteRn on three perception-centric benchmarks (VisCoT, V*, and Blink), observing consistent improvements in visual grounding and fine-grained reasoning. These results suggest that internal latent representations provide a promising direction for more efficient multimodal reasoning.
André G. Viveiros, Nuno Gonçalves, Matthias Lindemann +1
Instituto de Telecomunicações · Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa · Carnegie Mellon University
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) extend large language models (LLMs) with visual perception, enabling joint reasoning over images and text. Despite inheriting strong reasoning capabilities from LLMs, they remain prone to hallucinations that contradict their visual inputs. Mechanistic studies indicate that this weakness stems from visual laziness: MLLMs encode the correct visual evidence internally, but overly rely on strong language priors during response. Existing alignment methods, such as direct preference optimization, primarily optimize outcome-level rewards based on text. This introduces an optimization bias toward linguistic shortcuts, leading to responses that often contradict the visual evidence. To address this, we propose Visual Information Gain In aLignment (VIGIL), a reinforcement-learning (RL) post-training framework that shifts the focus from numerical reward fitting to causal visual grounding. VIGIL introduces a geometric constraint that explicitly maximizes the mutual information between the visual input and the generated response. We achieve this by penalizing "blind confidence" instances where the model remains improperly certain even when textual-visual attention is masked to create a counterfactual blind state. Extensive experiments show that VIGIL consistently outperforms recent alignment methods across hallucination and reasoning benchmarks without compromising text-only capabilities. Our approach matches the full-data performance of state-of-the-art methods using only 25% of the preference data and even demonstrates emergent spatial grounding capabilities without explicit bounding box supervision.
While chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning has substantially improved multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on complex reasoning tasks, existing approaches largely rely on long textual reasoning trajectories and provide limited mechanisms for learning stable visual attention policies. Our analysis shows that current MLLMs exhibit weak visual focus: early-stage visual misalignment is rarely corrected during subsequent reasoning, leading to error propagation and failed inferences. We argue that this limitation stems from inadequate credit assignment for visual attention during training. To address this issue, we propose SAYO, a visual reasoning model trained with a reinforcement learning (RL) framework that introduces a region-level visual attention-based reward. This reward explicitly aligns optimization signals with visually grounded reasoning steps, enabling the model to learn more reliable attention behaviors. Extensive experiments across multiple multimodal benchmarks demonstrate that SAYO consistently improves performance on diverse reasoning and perception tasks. Project is open at https://github.com/Cratileo/Sayo.
Siqu Ou, Tianrui Wan, Zhiyuan Zhao +2
TeleAI · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Northwestern Polytechnical University