When Should a VLM Look? Paying Only for Visual Calls That Were Needed and Used
Organizations: Tongji University · University of Melbourne · Nankai University
Abstract
Vision-language agents that crop and zoom are trained with rewards that credit a successful tool call, yet a successful call does not show that the model needed to look or used the pixels it received. On our cold-start checkpoint only 10% to 12% of visual calls were both needed and used, and released agents make spurious calls 36% to 87% of the time on individual benchmarks. Outcome rewards, judge rewards, and branch probes each observe one side of this failure, and about two thirds of what an outcome reward pays goes to calls that were neither needed nor used. CounterCredit asks both questions of every image-returning call at its realized pre-call state, using the policy's own gold-answer score. A decision value compares the realized visual branch with answering immediately; an evidence value compares the returned crop with random same-size patches substituted into the same call. A call verified on both earns cashback and every other executed call pays rent; the price is bounded so that every correct trajectory outranks every wrong one, and a dual-channel GRPO advantage keeps the price in its own units. From the same cold start, prompt pool, and budget, CounterCredit reaches 89.5% on V*, 80.2% on HR-Bench-4K, and 76.4% on HR-Bench-8K, 6.3 to 9.4 points above outcome-only GRPO at 1.78 against 1.84 calls per question, and lowers the spurious-call rate to 31% to 36%, the lowest among the agents evaluated. The same recipe lifts a Qwen3-VL-8B base from 75.4 to 80.8 on average.
Figures & tables
| Perception | General | |||||||
| Model | V ∗ | HR-4K | HR-8K | MME-RW | MMStar | ChartQA | BLINK | Avg. |
| Closed models (API) | ||||||||
| GPT-5 | 72.3 | 75.6 | 73.8 | 68.9 | 73.4 | 76.5 | 69.7 | 72.9 |
| Gemini-2.5-Pro | 79.1 | 84.2 | 81.1 | 58.7 | 73.4 | 83.8 | 73.6 | 76.3 |
| Open models without a visual tool | ||||||||
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 77.0 | 69.1 | 65.6 | 58.0 | 64.4 | 83.9 | 56.2 | 67.7 |
| Perception | General | V ∗ calls | ||||||||
| Model | V ∗ | HR-4K | HR-8K | MME-RW | MMStar | ChartQA | BLINK | Avg. | Calls | Spur. % |
| Starting points | ||||||||||
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 77.0 | 69.1 | 65.6 | 58.0 | 64.4 | 83.9 | 56.2 | 67.7 | 0 | – |
| SFT (cold start) | 71.7 | 70.4 | 61.6 | 55.6 | 60.3 | 80.8 | 54.5 | 65.0 | 2.68 | 88.2 |
| Which calls are verified | ||||||||||
| Outcome-only GRPO | 80.1 | 73.9 | 69.4 | 56.8 | 61.7 | 86.4 | 54.3 | 68.9 | 1.84 | 82.1 |
| Base / Method | V ∗ | HR-4K | HR-8K | MME-RW | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 77.0 | 69.1 | 65.6 | 58.0 | 67.7 |
| + CounterCredit | 89.5 | 80.2 | 76.4 | 67.7 | 76.1 |
| Qwen3-VL-8B | 85.9 | 79.2 | 74.3 | 60.7 | 75.4 |
| + CounterCredit | 91.6 | 85.4 | 84.0 | 70.1 | 80.8 |
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Quantity | Expression | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome margin, Proposition 2 | ||
| Reward range of a correct trajectory | ||
| Verifier reliability threshold, (A3) | ||
| Measured chance rate of clearing | V ∗ , HR-4K, free-form | , , |
| Worst-case expected price of a chance call at | ||
| Advantage gap, Corollary 1 |
| Behaviour | What the policy does | How credit is constrained |
|---|---|---|
| Text laundering | names the answer in the call’s arguments | when the call text shifts the real and every random-patch score equally, that common shift cancels in (Lemma 1 ) |
| Performative call | the branch changes the answer, the pixels do not | fails |
| Unnecessary look | informative pixels after the answer was already settled | fails |
| Looping, malformed calls | keeps calling, or never answers | never verified; each executed call pays |
| V ∗ | HR-4K | HR-8K | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reward | Paid | Needed | Used | Both | Paid | Needed | Used | Both | Paid | Needed | Used | Both |
| Outcome reward | 40.2 | 17.4 | 18.6 | 12.8 | 39.2 | 23.2 | 22.5 | 12.4 | 33.7 | 31.1 | 24.0 | 14.6 |
| Branch probe (TACO) | 5.3 | 61.1 | 50.0 | 41.7 | 5.6 | 52.5 | 50.8 | 41.7 | 6.7 | 60.7 | 57.2 | 49.7 |
| External judge | 23.4 | 30.2 | 26.9 | 21.0 | 28.6 | 33.1 | 30.4 | 19.3 | 24.8 | 32.6 | 32.3 | 22.4 |
| Self-judge | 19.9 | 22.1 | 27.2 | 14.7 | 33.0 | 24.6 | 33.1 | 20.9 | 28.0 | 29.4 | 30.5 | 22.6 |
| Every call paid | 100 | 13.9 | 15.1 | 11.8 | 100 | 16.1 | 18.2 | 9.8 | 100 | 18.1 | 16.5 | 10.4 |
| Region | Changed (%) |
|---|---|
| Real | 33.3 |
| Performative | 2.2 |
| Unnecessary | 17.1 |
| Waste | 2.0 |
| Model | No call | Random | Real | Full |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V ∗ | ||||
| SFT (cold start) | 75.4 | 73.8 | 75.4 | 71.7 |
| Outcome-only GRPO | 77.5 | 74.7 | 76.4 | 80.1 |
| CounterCredit | 78.5 | 74.3 | 85.3 | 89.5 |
| HR-Bench-4K | ||||
| SFT (cold start) | 71.6 | 68.9 | 71.9 | 70.4 |
| Smallest | Middle | Largest | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Acc. | Calls | Acc. | Calls | Acc. | Calls |
| SFT (cold start) | 65.1 | 3.33 | 70.3 | 2.84 | 79.7 | 1.88 |
| Outcome-only GRPO | 66.7 | 2.38 | 89.1 | 1.77 | 84.4 | 1.39 |
| CounterCredit | 82.5 | 2.19 | 92.2 | 1.70 | 93.8 | 1.45 |
| Base / Method | V ∗ | HR-4K | HR-8K | MME-RW | MMStar | ChartQA | BLINK | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 77.0 | 69.1 | 65.6 | 58.0 | 64.4 | 83.9 | 56.2 | 67.7 |
| + CounterCredit | 89.5 | 80.2 | 76.4 | 67.7 | 68.9 | 87.1 | 62.8 | 76.1 |
| Qwen3-VL-8B | 85.9 | 79.2 | 74.3 | 60.7 | 70.5 | 88.4 | 68.9 | 75.4 |
| + CounterCredit | 91.6 | 85.4 | 84.0 | 70.1 | 72.2 | 90.0 | 72.3 | 80.8 |
| Seed | V ∗ | HR-4K | HR-8K | MME-RW | MMStar | ChartQA | BLINK | Avg. | Calls | Spur. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 89.5 | 80.2 | 76.4 | 67.7 | 68.9 | 87.1 | 62.8 | 76.1 | 1.78 | 31.4 |
| 1 | 90.1 | 80.9 | 77.2 | 68.2 | 68.5 | 86.8 | 63.4 | 76.4 | 1.84 | 33.3 |
| 2 | 88.5 | 79.4 | 75.4 | 67.2 | 69.2 | 87.4 | 62.1 | 75.6 | 1.72 | 29.5 |
| mean | 89.4 | 80.2 | 76.3 | 67.7 | 68.9 | 87.1 | 62.8 | 76.0 | 1.78 | 31.4 |
| sample SD | 0.81 | 0.75 | 0.90 | 0.50 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.65 | 0.40 | 0.06 | 1.90 |
| V ∗ | HR-4K | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | Used % | Agreement % | Used % | Agreement % | ||
| Default, random patches | 15.1 | 100 | 1.00 | 18.2 | 100 | 1.00 |
| 16.4 | 94.7 | 0.94 | 18.5 | 94.8 | 0.96 | |
| , leave one out | 15.7 | 97.5 | 0.98 | 18.6 | 96.7 | 0.99 |
| 14.9 | 97.8 | 0.99 | 18.1 | 97.1 | 0.99 | |
| Gray patch | 13.7 | 90.0 | 0.84 | 14.8 | 90.0 | 0.92 |
| Accuracy | Calls / question | Spurious % | |||||
| Block | Arm | V ∗ | HR-4K | V ∗ | HR-4K | V ∗ | HR-4K |
| Reference | CounterCredit | 89.5 | 80.2 | 1.78 | 1.76 | 31.4 | 35.1 |
| Rent | rent only on correct trajectories | 87.4 | 78.5 | 2.27 | 2.23 | 44.1 | 47.2 |
| Cashback | 87.4 | 78.6 | 1.57 | 1.55 | 36.2 | 39.7 | |
| 88.0 | 79.1 | 2.05 | 2.02 | 38.4 | 41.8 | ||
| Rent | 86.4 | 76.2 | 2.20 | 2.17 | 42.3 | 45.4 | |
Tool Use in VLMs
Tool use in vision-language models (VLMs) studies how models call visual, computational, and retrieval tools to improve grounded perception and reasoning.
See all 117 papers