Most Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are built by extending pretrained Large Language Models (LLMs) with visual modules and multimodal alignment. However, this multimodal scaling often degrades the language-side reasoning ability originally encoded in the base LLM. While the base LLM retains usable reasoning after scaling, the aligned VLM itself cannot reliably access this ability. Therefore, recovering the degraded reasoning capability in VLMs would benefit more from seeking help from the base LLM than from the VLM alone. Motivated by this, we propose LIFT (Language-side reasonIng Facilitation and Transfer), a lightweight vector-intervention method that transfers reasoning capability from the base LLM to the VLM without retraining the backbone. LIFT defines Reasoning Vectors as answer-token hidden-state differences between a Reasoner path with an explicit reasoning trace and a Solver path without it, and injects these vectors into language-side activations of the target VLM. LIFT further supports learnable vector adaptation while keeping the VLM backbone frozen. We evaluate LIFT on two VLMs across six reasoning benchmarks, comparing Reasoning Vectors extracted from the base LLM and from the aligned VLM under matched protocols. Results show that LLM-derived vectors consistently outperform VLM-derived vectors, confirming that the base LLM is a more effective source for recovering reasoning. LIFT partially recovers degraded reasoning through lightweight language-side interventions. Further analyses show that Reasoning Vectors influence intermediate reasoning behavior rather than merely altering final answers. The source code will be released soon.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation of LIFT. Multimodal alignment may change language-side reasoning directions in the VLM. LIFT tests whether Reasoning Vectors from the base LLM can be reused as lightweight interventions in the aligned VLM.
Figure 2: Overview of LIFT. (a) For each layer, LIFT computes hidden-state differences between the Reasoner and Solver paths and averages these differences to obtain the Reasoning Vector. (b) Learnable adaptation optimizes only the injected vector parameters while keeping the VLM backbone frozen. (c) At inference, vectors are injected into selected VLM layers.
Model
Method
GSM8K
MVista
MVision
CSQA
SQA
SciQA
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL
Baseline
82.2
68.5
25.0
77.3
58.6
87.8
66.6
1-shot CoT
82.7
68.4
25.3
75.1
61.2
87.9
66.8
2-shot CoT
82.9
68.4
25.3
76.8
61.3
87.9
67.1
4-shot CoT
82.9
68.4
25.3
78.1
61.6
87.9
67.4
LLM-derived
84.2
69.1
26.6
78.0
63.5
88.1
68.3
VLM-derived
83.0
70.7
25.7
77.7
60.3
87.8
67.5
Table 1: Main results on six reasoning benchmarks across two VLMs. We abbreviate MathVista/MathVision/CommonsenseQA/StrategyQA/ScienceQA as MVista/MVision/CSQA/SQA/SciQA. LLM/VLM-derived denote static vector transfer using Reasoning Vectors extracted from the base LLM and the corresponding VLM, respectively; LLM/VLM-learnable are learnable vectors initialized from these corresponding static vectors. Bold and underlined numbers indicate the best and second-best results for each model and benchmark. All results are reported as accuracy (%), and Avg. denotes the average accuracy across benchmarks.
Figure 3: Representative Case Studies of Reasoning Repairs.
Model
Method
MVision
SciQA
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL
Baseline
25.0
87.8
56.4
LLM-derived
26.6
88.1
57.4
VLM-derived
25.7
87.8
56.8
VLM-MM
26.0
87.9
57.0
InternVL2.5
Baseline
22.7
96.5
59.6
LLM-derived
25.0
96.8
60.9
Table 2: Accuracy (%) of VLM multimodal extraction on multimodal reasoning benchmarks.
Model
Method
GSM8K
MVista
MVision
CSQA
SQA
SciQA
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL
LLM-learnable
85.6
71.8
27.3
78.3
62.4
88.9
69.1
Random init
83.2
68.6
24.7
77.4
58.8
87.9
66.7
VLM-learnable
83.2
69.5
24.7
77.7
60.3
87.9
67.2
Random init
83.0
68.6
24.7
77.4
58.8
87.9
66.7
InternVL2.5
LLM-learnable
78.0
64.6
25.3
83.2
67.6
97.4
69.4
Random init
77.4
63.3
24.1
83.1
65.4
96.7
68.3
Table 3: Initialization ablation for learnable vector adaptation. Random init replaces the extracted Reasoning Vector with a random vector under the same training setting.
Figure 4: Cross-layer cosine similarity between LLM- and VLM-derived vectors on GSM8K.
Figure 5: Layer-wise performance of LLM- and VLM-derived vectors averaged over six datasets.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
Modality
#Eval. examples
Support source
GSM8K
Text
1319
GSM8K
MathVista
Image-text
1000
GSM8K
MathVision
Image-text
304
GSM8K
CommonsenseQA
Text
1221
CommonsenseQA
StrategyQA
Text
687
StrategyQA
ScienceQA
Image-text
4241
CommonsenseQA
Appendix
Table 4: Evaluation split sizes and support sources used in our experiments. Support examples are used only for offline Reasoning Vector extraction or learnable adaptation and are never appended to evaluation prompts.
Setting
Prompt Template
Direct Answer
Please answer the question directly. Put your final answer within \boxed{}.
Reasoning Trace
Please reason step by step. Put your final answer within \boxed{}.
Multiple Choice
Please choose the correct option. Put your final answer within \boxed{}.
Yes/No
Please answer the question with yes or no. Put your final answer within \boxed{}.
Appendix
Table 5: Prompt templates used in our experiments.
Parameter
Value
Number of beams
1
Maximum new tokens
512 / 4096
Length penalty
0.0
Random seed
42
Appendix
Table 6: Generation configuration used for evaluation.
Hyperparameter
Value
Trainable parameters
Injected vectors θl only
Backbone parameters
Frozen
Optimizer
AdamW
Learning rate
1×10−4
Batch size
1
Gradient accumulation
4
Appendix
Table 7: Hyperparameters for learnable vector adaptation.
Benchmark
#Examples
GSM8K
1319
MathVista
1000
MathVision
304
CommonsenseQA
1221
StrategyQA
687
ScienceQA
4241
Appendix
Table 8: Evaluation split sizes used in our experiments.
Comparison
Avg. Delta
95% CI
LLM-derived − Baseline
+1.45
[0.45, 2.45]
VLM-derived − Baseline
+0.70
[0.12, 1.28]
LLM-derived − VLM-derived
+0.75
[0.15, 1.35]
Appendix
Table 9: Paired bootstrap confidence intervals for macro-average accuracy differences.
Model
Method
GSM8K
MathVista
MathVision
CSQA
SQA
SciQA
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL
Baseline
82.2
68.5
25.0
77.3
58.6
87.8
66.6
LLM-derived
84.4
69.5
26.7
78.3
63.4
88.0
68.4
VLM-derived
83.2
70.6
25.7
77.8
60.3
87.6
67.5
InternVL2.5
Baseline
77.1
62.8
22.7
82.3
65.6
96.5
67.8
LLM-derived
78.5
63.9
25.0
83.5
67.2
96.8
69.2
VLM-derived
77.5
63.1
24.3
82.9
65.8
96.7
68.4
Appendix
Table 10: Additional-seed robustness check for frozen Reasoning Vector transfer.
Model
Method
GSM8K
MathVista
MathVision
CSQA
SQA
SciQA
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL
Baseline
82.2
68.5
25.0
77.3
58.6
87.8
66.6
Same-norm random
82.1
68.2
25.0
77.3
58.2
87.8
66.4
LLM-derived
84.2
69.1
26.6
78.0
63.5
88.1
68.3
InternVL2.5
Baseline
77.1
62.8
22.7
82.3
65.6
96.5
67.8
Same-norm random
77.1
62.6
22.8
79.7
58.4
96.3
66.1
LLM-derived
78.1
64.0
25.0
83.1
67.1
96.8
69.0
Appendix
Table 11: Same-norm random-vector control. All results are reported as accuracy (%).
Model
Method
GSM8K
MVista
MVision
CSQA
SQA
SciQA
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL
Baseline
82.2
68.5
25.0
77.3
58.6
87.8
66.6
LLM-derived
83.2
69.6
26.6
77.8
59.7
88.1
67.5
VLM-derived
82.9
69.5
26.3
77.6
59.4
88.0
67.3
InternVL2.5
Baseline
77.1
62.8
22.7
82.3
65.6
96.5
67.8
LLM-derived
78.1
63.9
25.3
83.2
67.4
96.7
69.1
VLM-derived
77.9
63.2
25.0
83.1
67.0
96.6
68.8
Appendix
Table 12: Additional results of Attention-level Injection. For each dataset, the injection layer is selected on a held-out development subset and then fixed for evaluation.
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have shown strong promise for multimodal reasoning, yet often struggle with tasks requiring concepts beyond what is directly observable in the input image. Existing methods generate intermediate images or latent visual tokens to guide reasoning, but these representations can introduce errors and increasingly interfere with textual reasoning as reasoning progresses. We propose Visual-to-Text Chain-of-Thought Distillation (V2T), a framework that enables LVLMs to internalize visual reasoning without generating intermediate visual representations at inference time. V2T first trains a teacher LVLM using interleaved visual and textual chains of thought, and then uses knowledge distillation to train a student LVLM using the teacher's logits and cross-entropy supervision from ground-truth textual reasoning. When reasoning images can be mapped to the original image, V2T can additionally distill the teacher's attention to corresponding regions, while ground-truth bounding boxes can further guide a subsequent reinforcement learning stage. Experiments across multiple multimodal reasoning benchmarks show that V2T consistently outperforms the teacher and existing baselines, improving average accuracy by 14.3% on a held-out set and 2.7% on the broader visual evaluation suite. Moreover, lightweight SFT and substantially reduced RL make V2T up to 42x faster to train than state-of-the-art baselines.
Wenhan Yang, Nilay Naharas, Ali Payani +1
University of California, Los Angeles · Cisco Research
Reasoning in vision-language models (VLMs) has recently attracted significant attention due to its broad applicability across diverse downstream tasks. However, it remains unclear whether the superior performance of VLMs stems from genuine vision-grounded reasoning or relies predominantly on the reasoning capabilities of their textual backbones. To systematically measure this, we introduce CrossMath, a novel multimodal reasoning benchmark designed for controlled cross-modal comparisons. Specifically, we construct each problem in text-only, image-only, and image+text formats guaranteeing identical task-relevant information, verified by human annotators. This rigorous alignment effectively isolates modality-specific reasoning differences while eliminating confounding factors such as information mismatch. Extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art VLMs reveals a consistent phenomenon: a substantial performance gap between textual and visual reasoning. Notably, VLMs excel with text-only inputs, whereas incorporating visual data (image+text) frequently degrades performance compared to the text-only baseline. These findings indicate that current VLMs conduct reasoning primarily in the textual space, with limited genuine reliance on visual evidence. To mitigate this limitation, we curate a CrossMath training set for VLM fine-tuning. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that fine-tuning on this training set significantly boosts reasoning performance across all individual and joint modalities, while yielding robust gains on two general visual reasoning tasks. Source code is available at https://github.com/xuyige/CrossMath.
Yige Xu, Yongjie Wang, Zizhuo Wu +3
College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Alibaba-NTU Global e-Sustainability CorpLab (ANGEL) · Tongyi Lab, Alibaba Group, China
Recent large vision-language models (LVLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning ability by generating long chain-of-thought (CoT) responses. However, CoT reasoning in multimodal contexts is highly vulnerable to visual hallucination propagation: once an intermediate reasoning step becomes inconsistent with the visual evidence, subsequent steps-even if logically valid-can still lead to incorrect final answers. Existing solutions attempt to mitigate this issue by training models to "think with images" via reinforcement learning (RL). While effective, these methods are costly, model-specific, and difficult to generalize across architectures. Differently, we present a lightweight method that bypasses RL training and provides an iterative, training-free, plug-and-play framework for visually-grounded multimodal reasoning. Our key idea is to supervise each reasoning step at test time with visual evidence, ensuring that every decoded token is justified by corresponding visual cues. Concretely, we construct a textual visual-evidence pool that guides the model's reasoning generation. When existing evidence is insufficient, a visual decider module dynamically extracts additional relevant evidence from the image based on the ongoing reasoning context, expanding the pool until the model achieves sufficient visual certainty to terminate reasoning and produce the final answer. Extensive experiments on multiple LVLM backbones and benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. Our method achieves 16.5%-29.5% improvements on TreeBench and 13.7% RH-AUC gains on RH-Bench, substantially reducing hallucination rates while improving reasoning accuracy without additional training.
Yongchang Zhang, Oliver Ma, Tianyi Liu +2
Southeast University · AIIA, Ministry of Education, China · University of Oxford