Organizations: Computer Science, Beijing Institute of Technology · AMAP, Alibaba Group · City University of Hong Kong · Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) · Beihang University
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has substantially advanced multimodal reasoning, yet it remains fundamentally limited by ambiguous token-level credit assignment. While high-entropy token heuristics encourage possibility exploration, naively extending them to video reasoning tends to induce lengthy reasoning, as the model becomes overly reliant on high-entropy visual activations. Alternative approaches that rely on counterfactual-based visual token localization for credit assignment also tend to over-prioritize visual exploration at the expense of decisive reasoning cues for answer derivation, thereby exacerbating the interference from spurious visual nuances. Moreover, these methods employ static counterfactual strategies that fail to co-evolve with the policy during training. In this paper, we introduce DyCPO, a co-evolutionary framework that jointly optimizes reliable token selection and adaptive counterfactual intervention. It constructs a multi-role dependence metric to balance visual exploration and answer-relevance mining in token-wise contrastive learning, while suppressing exploration-only filler tokens and spurious visual noise. Rather than relying on static counterfactual priors, DyCPO dynamically derives counterfactual signals from the model's own successful and failed rollouts, enabling self-diagnostic analysis and co-evolution of the optimization objective with the policy. Extensive experiments on complex video reasoning and general video understanding benchmarks demonstrate consistent performance improvements, establishing DyCPO as a robust token-level credit assignment paradigm for multimodal reinforcement learning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Left to right: (a, b) Numerous tokens with high vision-dependent and answer-dependent ΔHt / Jt reside in the low-entropy token set. (c, d) Token omission induced by single-selection metrics. Specifically, the recall in (c) is defined as ∣Aent∩Avis∣/∣Avis∣ , quantifying the coverage of visual-dependency tokens within the high-entropy selection. Similarly, the recall in (d) is calculated as ∣Avis∩Aans∣/∣Aans∣ , measuring the alignment between vision-sensitive and answer-critical tokens.
Figure 2: Left to right: (a, b) Vision- and answer-aware sensitivity across token positions, (c) entropy dynamics, and (d) reliance on towards low-entropy visual activations. Token position denotes the normalized decoding length.
Figure 3: Training dynamics of the correlation between activated tokens and answer-relevant reasoning cues.
Model
Data Size
VSI.
VideoMMMU
MMVU
Video-Holmes
MV.
TempC.
VideoMME
Proprietary Models
GPT-4o Hurst et al. (2024)
–
34.0
61.2
75.4
-
-
-
71.9
Open-Source Models
VideoLLaMA2 Cheng et al. (2024)
–
-
-
44.8
-
54.6
-
47.9
LongVA-7B Zhang et al. (2024)
–
29.2
23.9
-
-
-
56.9
52.6
VILA-1.5-8B Lin et al. (2024)
–
28.9
20.8
-
-
-
58.8
-
Table 1: Performance Comparison. Bold indicates the best results. † marks results from original papers under different evaluation protocols. “Data Size” refers to the RL training data scale. The default video input consists of 32 frames.
Model
Method
MMVU
VSI
VideoMMMU
Video-Holmes
VideoMME
Perc.
Compre.
Adapt.
Avg.
Short
Medium
Long
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL 7B
GRPO
65.3
35.9
61.7
47.3
41.3
50.1
40.9
70.0
58.4
49.5
59.3
wo ΔHans / Jans
64.3
36.5
61.0
47.7
41.7
50.1
41.2
71.3
59.7
50.4
60.5
wo ΔHvis / Jvis
67.2
37.9
62.3
47.0
37.0
48.8
42.1
70.7
57.8
49.5
59.3
wo Ht
69.0
39.1
64.0
51.7
42.7
52.8
44.2
73.3
60.5
50.5
61.4
Our Full Model
68.5
39.2
63.7
52.3
43.3
53.1
44.8
74.3
61.5
52.0
62.6
Table 2: Ablation study of different scoring metrics across MMVU-MC, VSI, VideoMMMU, Video-Holmes, and VideoMME over three backbone architectures.
Method
VideoMME
VideoMMMU
MMVU
Video-Holmes
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
+PAPO †
61.0
45.7
64.3
41.5
+Video-OPSD
58.6
49.9
-
36.2
+Ours
62.6
53.6
68.5
44.8
Qwen3-VL-4B
+PAPO †
60.2
54.5
64.8
41.5
Figure 4: Performance comparison with other RL methods. We use the same backbone for fairness, and † denotes our reimplementation results using the same data configurations.
Method
VideoMME
VideoMMMU
MMVU
Video-Holmes
Full Model
62.6
53.6
68.5
44.8
Effect of Advantage Gating
w.o. Ai Gating
58.6 ↓ 4.0
51.0 ↓ 2.6
64.8 ↓ 3.7
41.1 ↓ 3.7
Effect of Curriculum
Broad → Narrow
59.1 ↓ 3.5
49.7 ↓ 3.9
65.4 ↓ 3.1
42.3 ↓ 2.5
Fixed
60.6 ↓ 2.0
51.2 ↓ 2.4
65.6 ↓ 2.9
42.1 ↓ 2.7
Figure 5: Ablation study on Qwen2.5-VL-7B.
Method
ACH
TSH
STH
Binary QA
MCQ
w/o Jans/ΔHans
90.4
89.5
94.8
91.9
Only Entropy
89.8
89.3
93.6
88.1
Ours
91.4
90.6
94.8
93.5
Table 3: Performance comparison on video hallucination benchmark VidHalluc .
Figure 6: Left to right: (a) Steady rise in temporal metrics (TA, TCI) with stable perception (MHR). (b) Word distribution comparison between answer-aware and vision-aware tokens. (c) Detailed qualitative rollout and fine-grained visual diagnosis on Video-Holmes. The attention maps visualize the frame-level focus of each rollout, where lighter colors indicate higher attention weights. The bar chart at the bottom compares the frequency with which correct and erroneous rollouts attend to specific frames, while the black curve depicts the divergence between them.
Figure 7: Consistent correlation between reward and token activation fraction across training steps in 7B and 3B models.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Frames
K2
λ
α
η
Layers L
β
εl,εh
Qwen2.5-VL GRPO-3B
16
-
0
-
-
-
0.0
0.2, 0.2
Qwen2.5-VL GRPO-7B
16
-
0
-
-
-
0.0
0.2, 0.2
Qwen2.5-VL GRPO-7B
24
-
0
-
-
-
0.0
0.2, 0.2
Qwen2.5-VL GRPO-7B
32
-
0
-
-
-
0.0
0.2, 0.2
Qwen2.5-VL Ours-3B
16
4 → 8
0.05
0.5
0.01
Removing last five layers
0.0
0.2, 0.2
Qwen2.5-VL Ours-7B
16
4 → 8
0.05
0.5
0.01
Removing last five layers
0.0
0.2, 0.2
Appendix
Table 4: Hyperparameter configurations for different models. K1 and K2 respectively refers to the ratio of selected response token for keyframes localization and the number of attention-selected keyframes, annealed linearly over training by a curriculum; λ is the MRC perception coefficient (we set to 0 in GRPO setting), α1 and α2 the balacedd weight of scoring fusion weight, η the entropy-gate strength, and L the transformer layers whose response → frame attention is pooled for keyframe selection. All models remove the reference KL penalty ( β ) for better exploration.
Model
Avg.
Cartoon
Documentary
Live
Self-Media
Sport
TV
GRPO
40.03
34.28
45.18
39.69
40.06
42.50
40.40
Entropy-only
39.70
34.63
43.15
38.93
41.01
42.08
39.60
Ours
40.67
35.34
43.15
40.84
42.90
43.33
39.20
Appendix
Table 5: Performance comparison on different subtasks in LVBench.
Frames
Method
MMVU
VSI
VideoMME
Video-Holmes
VideoMMMU
Avg.
f=24
GRPO
66.7
36.6
61.9
43.8
50.0
51.80
Ours
68.8 ↑2.1
39.7 ↑3.1
63.9 ↑2.0
45.2 ↑1.4
51.3 ↑1.3
53.78 ↑1.98
f=32
GRPO
66.2
36.7
61.5
42.4
51.3
51.62
Ours
69.0 ↑2.8
40.2 ↑3.5
64.8 ↑3.3
45.2 ↑2.8
52.8 ↑1.5
54.40 ↑2.78
Appendix
Table 6: Performance comparison of models trained with different input video frames across five benchmarks.
Positive r+
Negative r−
MMVU
VSI.
VideoMME
Avg.
Peer rollout (right full)
Peer rollout (wrong full)
64.9
34.0
60.3
53.1
Peer rollout (right full)
Peer rollout (answer only)
65.5
34.8
60.4
53.6
Ground truth answer
Peer rollout (wrong full)
66.2
35.8
61.4
54.5
Ground truth answer
Peer rollout (random wrong answer)
67.3
37.0
61.8
55.4
Ground truth answer
Peer rollout (answer only)
68.5
39.2
62.6
56.8
Appendix
Table 7: Feedback source ablation. Comparative performance on three video benchmarks (Qwen2.5-VL-7B, 3K QA training). The final row indicates our default setting.
αvis
αans
VideoMMU
Video-Holmes
Avg.
0.25
0.25
61.0
42.7
51.9
0.35
0.15
57.9
42.2
50.1
0.15
0.35
58.4
42.2
50.3
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation on hyperparameters αvis and αans . Performance comparison on VideoMMU and Video-Holmes benchmarks.
Table 9: (a) Effect of window size ( K1 ) comparing fixed sizes with adaptive selection. (b) Effect of the number of selected tokens for video frame localization ( K2 ).
Attention Focus (Layer Group)
MMVU
VSI
VideoMME
Video-Holmes
VideoMMMU
Low Layers (e.g., L1–L8)
66.8
36.6
61.6
43.6
51.1
Mid Layers (e.g., L9–L20)
67.0
38.8
62.1
44.2
52.8
Last Few Layers (e.g., L21–L32)
67.2
37.8
61.9
44.8
51.1
Ours (Removing Last Five Layers)
68.5
39.2
62.6
44.8
53.6
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation study on selecting high-attention tokens/frames driven by different layer focus across five benchmarks. The base model is Qwen2.5-VL-7B.
Negative-view perturbation strategy
MMVU
VSI
VideoMME
Random region occlusion
68.16
38.55
62.37
Attention-focused occlusion
67.04
37.67
61.91
Curriculum (attention → full region)
66.88
37.55
62.03
Appendix
Table 11: Impact of the negative-view (masking) strategy on our method. All rows share the same base model, data, and hyperparameters and differ only in how the negative view is corrupted.
Figure 8: Left to right . (a) Convergence curve of LMRC loss. (b) Distance metrics of positive vs. negative samples relative to the anchor. (c) Reward trajectory. (d) Variations in reasoning chain length.
Base Model
Method
Per-Step Time Breakdown (s)
Overhead vs. GRPO
Rollout Gen.
Actor Update
Extra Fwd.
Avg. / Step
Absolute ( Δt )
Relative ( Δ )
Qwen3-VL-2B
GRPO
16.0
14.9
0.0
38.1
–
–
Ours
16.5
22.0
7.5
46.6
+8.5s
+22.3%
Qwen3-VL-4B
GRPO
15.6
20.5
0.0
45.9
–
–
Ours
18.2
34.3
11.9
64.2
+18.3s
+39.9%
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
GRPO
19.8
30.2
0.0
62.6
–
–
Appendix
Table 12: Per-step training efficiency and computational overhead breakdown across different model scales. All time metrics are measured in seconds ( s ) per training step. The extra computational overhead introduced by our method is modest and is almost entirely dominated by the forward pass of the teacher model during policy updates.
Multimodal Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning requires large vision-language models to construct reasoning trajectories that interleave perceptual grounding with multi-step inference. However, existing Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) methods typically optimize reasoning at a coarse granularity, treating CoT uniformly without distinguishing their varying degrees of visual grounding. In this work, we conduct a token-level analysis of multimodal reasoning trajectories and show that successful reasoning is characterized by structured token dynamics reflecting both perceptual grounding and exploratory inference. Building upon this analysis, we propose Perception-Exploration Policy Optimization (PEPO), which derives a perception prior from hidden state similarity and integrates it with token entropy through a smooth gating mechanism to produce token-level advantages. PEPO integrates seamlessly with existing RLVR frameworks such as GRPO and DAPO, requiring neither additional supervision nor auxiliary branches. Extensive experiments across diverse multimodal benchmarks demonstrate consistent and robust improvements over strong RL baselines, spanning geometry reasoning, visual grounding, visual puzzle solving, and few-shot classification, while maintaining stable training dynamics. Code: https://github.com/xzxxntxdy/PEPO
Yunheng Li, Hangyi Kuang, Hengrui Zhang +4
VCIP, School of Computer Science, Nankai University · Kuaishou Technology
Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR), especially with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), has shown strong potential for improving the reasoning capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs). However, in multimodal reasoning, final-answer rewards are typically assigned at the sequence level and do not distinguish the functional roles of different tokens, making it difficult to determine whether a correct answer is supported by task-relevant visual evidence. In this paper, we revisit multimodal RLVR from the perspective of role-aware token-level credit assignment, where structured responses are decomposed into perception tokens for extracting visual evidence and reasoning tokens for deriving answers from that evidence. Based on this perspective, we propose Structured Role-aware Policy Optimization (SRPO), which refines the sequence-level GRPO advantage into role-aware token-level advantages without changing the reward function. Specifically, SRPO assigns role-specific credit by using self-distilled on-policy contrasts: perception tokens are emphasized according to their visual dependency under original versus corrupted visual inputs, while reasoning tokens are emphasized according to their consistency with the generated perception. These role-specific signals are further unified through a shared trajectory-level baseline, yielding positive token weights that adjust relative update magnitudes while preserving the original GRPO reward and optimization direction, without requiring external reward models or separate teachers. Experiments across diverse multimodal reasoning benchmarks show that SRPO improves evidence-grounded reasoning, highlighting the importance of moving beyond uniform sequence-level credit toward role-aware optimization for reliable multimodal reasoning.
Bingqing Jiang, Difan Zou
School of Computing & Data Science, The University of Hong Kong · School of Computing & Data Science and Institute of Data Science, The University of Hong Kong
We introduce STRIVE (SpatioTemporal Reinforcement with Importance-aware Variant Exploration), a structured reinforcement learning framework for video question answering. While group-based policy optimization methods have shown promise in large multimodal models, they often suffer from low reward variance when responses exhibit similar correctness, leading to weak or unstable advantage estimates. STRIVE addresses this limitation by constructing multiple spatiotemporal variants of each input video and performing joint normalization across both textual generations and visual variants. By expanding group comparisons beyond linguistic diversity to structured visual perturbations, STRIVE enriches reward signals and promotes more stable and informative policy updates. To ensure exploration remains semantically grounded, we introduce an importance-aware sampling mechanism that prioritizes frames most relevant to the input question while preserving temporal coverage. This design encourages robust reasoning across complementary visual perspectives rather than overfitting to a single spatiotemporal configuration. Experiments on six challenging video reasoning benchmarks including VideoMME, TempCompass, VideoMMMU, MMVU, VSI-Bench, and PerceptionTest demonstrate consistent improvements over strong reinforcement learning baselines across multiple large multimodal models. Our results highlight the role of structured spatiotemporal exploration as a principled mechanism for stabilizing multimodal reinforcement learning and improving video reasoning performance.
Emad Bahrami, Olga Zatsarynna, Parth Pathak +3
University of Bonn · Lamarr Institute for Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence · Meta +1