Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards scales multimodal reasoning, but an outcome reward says how much a trajectory is worth, not how that value should be spread over the decisions that produced it. We introduce Residual Visual Credit Optimization (RVCO), which treats token credit as a conserved routing problem. A controlled visual intervention yields a per-token evidence response; robust within-trajectory coordinates remove incidental scale; and a budgeted entropic router distributes a fixed amount of sequence utility according to perceptual dependence. A residual support path guarantees positive credit at every valid position, and an analytic correction restores the prescribed credit mass exactly. The resulting field is selective, bounded, full-support, and invariant to response-local score shifts, and recovers hard token selection as a limiting case. Across four model families and seven reasoning benchmarks, RVCO improves accuracy over strong RLVR baselines while maintaining late-stage optimization stability, corruption robustness, and competitive training cost. Rewards, rollouts, and the group-relative advantage estimator are unchanged; only the geometry of token-level credit differs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Conserved evidence routing in RVCO . Controlled visual replay produces a sampled-token evidence response without changing the generated trajectory. Response-local calibration removes incidental scale, the entropic router concentrates a fixed mass mi , and residual mixing preserves positive support before analytic correction restores the exact budget. Only the detached token weights enter policy optimization; rewards and advantages remain unchanged.
Figure 2: Main architecture of RVCO . Multiple controlled visual interventions are evaluated by a shared behavior policy while the visual question and generated response state are held fixed. The resulting original/intervened token responses define a decision-relative evidence coordinate, which is transformed into a residual credit field and routed under the exact budget constraint ∑tgi,t=mi . The conserved field then modulates the ordinary policy update, emphasizing visually grounded decisions while retaining full-support credit across the response.
Backbone
Method
MathV.
Dyna
MMK12
Geo3K
VisNum
Logic
MMMU-P
Avg.
Qwen3-VL-4B
GRPO
66.5
65.8
72.3
65.0
23.1
57.8
39.2
55.7
Visual-RFT
80.7
75.6
76.3
67.6
25.4
59.1
49.3
62.0
VPPO
80.9
75.3
76.2
67.7
24.8
59.2
49.5
61.9
RVCO
82.3
78.2
78.0
69.7
27.2
61.5
51.1
64.0
Qwen3-VL-8B
GRPO
76.5
75.0
71.2
64.4
28.7
56.0
42.8
59.2
Visual-RFT
81.0
78.1
77.2
69.1
29.6
63.0
49.3
63.9
Table 1: Benchmark-wise comparison across the Qwen3-VL family. All values are accuracy@8 (%); Avg. is the macro-average over the seven benchmarks with reported results. The same rollout budget, verifier, and decoding protocol are used for all methods within each backbone. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best results within each backbone.
Backbone
Method
MathV.
Dyna
MMK12
Geo3K
VisNum
Logic
MMMU-P
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
GRPO
75.0
72.9
69.5
62.0
26.4
54.0
40.7
57.2
Visual-RFT
79.5
78.2
75.5
66.7
28.1
58.0
46.8
61.8
VPPO
82.4
78.0
78.6
69.6
28.6
60.4
50.4
64.0
RVCO
83.1
78.5
79.1
70.3
29.0
62.3
53.4
65.1
InternVL3-8B
GRPO
73.1
72.3
68.0
61.5
25.9
53.1
39.6
56.2
Visual-RFT
77.4
75.2
73.8
66.0
27.3
56.9
45.5
60.3
Table 2: Benchmark-wise comparison across vision-language model families. All values are accuracy@8 (%); Avg. is the macro-average over the seven benchmarks. Each backbone retains its native visual encoder and tokenizer. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best results within each backbone.
Variant
MathV.
Dyna
MMK12
Geo3K
VisNum
Logic
MMMU-P
Avg.
w/o Robust Coordinate
83.2
78.7
79.3
71.3
29.7
62.9
53.2
65.5
w/o Budgeted Routing
81.7
77.0
78.5
71.6
28.9
61.5
52.1
64.5
w/o Residual Support
80.9
76.4
77.2
69.0
27.8
60.6
49.3
63.0
w/o Exact Conservation
81.9
77.6
78.1
70.5
28.6
61.2
51.7
64.2
RVCO
84.4
80.4
80.6
72.5
30.5
64.1
55.4
66.8
Table 3: Ablation study on Qwen3-VL-8B. Each variant changes one component while preserving the same reward, rollout budget, optimizer, and decoding protocol.
Figure 3: Hyperparameter sensitivity on Qwen3-VL-8B. We vary the residual ratio β , visual budget ρ , and gate temperature τ while holding the other two parameters fixed. Dashed lines mark the default configuration.
Corruption
GRPO
VPPO
RVCO
Patch dropout (15%)
58.9
64.2
66.8
Gaussian blur
57.4
61.9
64.1
Low contrast
55.8
60.5
62.9
Unseen crop
52.6
58.1
60.7
Gaussian noise
54.9
59.8
62.5
Table 4: Visual corruption robustness and end-to-end training cost on Qwen3-VL-8B. Robustness reports exact-match accuracy (%).
Method
Flicker ↓
Continuity ↑
Ent. Var. ↓
Grad. CV ↓
Reward ↑
Hard Top- ρ
0.219
0.184
0.047
0.384
0.751
PGPO
0.143
0.231
0.031
0.319
0.766
VPPO
0.126
0.246
0.024
0.298
0.758
Entropic routing ( β=0 )
0.073
0.267
0.018
0.251
0.775
RVCO
0.041
0.281
0.012
0.214
0.784
Table 5: Optimization stability diagnostics over the final 20% of Qwen3-VL-8B updates. Lower support flicker, entropy variance, and gradient CV are better.
Table 7: Extended comparison on Qwen3-VL-8B. Values are accuracy@8 (%); Avg. denotes the macro-average over all seven benchmarks. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best results, respectively.
Method
Continuity ↑
Support overlap ↑
Weight Gini ↓
Mass error ↓
Hard Top- ρ
0.184
0.621
0.604
0.000
Independent sigmoid
0.251
0.652
0.421
0.087
Entropic gate ( β=0 )
0.267
0.638
0.468
0.000
RVCO
0.281
0.807
0.392
0.000
Appendix
Table 8: Evidence-retention diagnostics on held-out trajectories. Credit continuity is cosine similarity between allocation fields under paired mild interventions; support overlap uses matched top- ρ sets.
Figure 4: Support overlap during training under matched perturbations. The residual route maintains a larger stable intersection of credited positions as evidence becomes sharper late in training.
Figure 5: Held-out reward across training for representative perception-aware methods. The vertical marker denotes the late-stage window used for stability diagnostics.
Figure 6: Training dynamics over a 16 × range of routing temperatures on Qwen3-VL-4B. Moderate temperatures preserve evidence contrast without abrupt late-stage changes.
Figure 7: Sensitivity to residual ratio β , visual budget ρ ,and gate temperature τ on Qwen3-VL-8B. The dashed line marks the default.
Backbone
Method
A-OKVQA
SimpleVQA
ChartQA
InfoVQA
DocVQA
Avg.
Qwen3-VL-8B
Instruction
87.5
43.9
82.4
55.6
89.7
71.8
GRPO
87.3
42.7
82.8
55.1
89.1
71.4
RVCO
88.7
47.8
84.9
59.4
91.0
74.4
Qwen3-VL-4B
Instruction
86.3
38.4
79.6
51.2
87.1
68.5
GRPO
86.2
37.1
79.9
50.8
86.5
68.1
RVCO
87.3
42.0
82.1
55.0
88.4
71.0
Appendix
Table 9: Out-of-domain visual question answering and document understanding. Values use each benchmark’s official primary metric (%).
Length bucket
GRPO
VPPO
RVCO
Gain over VPPO
≤512 tokens
64.9
69.1
70.4
+1.3
513–2048 tokens
59.5
66.0
67.6
+1.6
>2048 tokens
53.2
60.6
63.0
+2.4
Appendix
Table 10: Accuracy by generated-response length on the seven-task reasoning suite. Length buckets are measured after answer extraction.
Figure 8: Sensitivity to rollout-group size under approximately matched generated-token budgets.
Figure 9: Sensitivity to controlled verifier label noise. All methods use the same corrupted reward labels at each flip rate.
Intervention
Avg. acc. ↑
Continuity ↑
Overhead
Random patch mask (default)
66.8
0.281
4.3%
Gaussian noise
66.3
0.275
4.1%
Gaussian blur
66.0
0.270
4.0%
Random cutout
66.1
0.272
4.2%
Grayscale attenuation
65.4
0.264
3.9%
Appendix
Table 11: Sensitivity to the visual intervention used to construct evidence coordinates on Qwen3-VL-8B. Overhead is relative to GRPO wall-clock time.
Figure 10: Accuracy under increasing patch corruption severity. The full-support field degrades more gradually as the visual signal becomes incomplete.
Figure 11: Reasoning accuracy as the ViRL39K training fraction increases. The proposed field retains an advantage throughout the data range.
Figure 12: Representative token-credit allocation for a visual comparison response under the same 40% total budget. Hard routing alternates between unit and zero credit, whereas RVCO preserves graded support around visually grounded and connective tokens.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves multimodal reasoning, but uniformly assigning a single response-level advantage to all tokens overlooks the distinct roles of visual observations and subsequent reasoning. Visual affinity alone is insufficient: predictive states may align with both image and prompt-context representations, and upweighting valid visual observations can amplify their negative-advantage updates when later reasoning fails. To address this issue, we propose Outcome-Conditioned Visual Credit (OVC), a plug-in framework that separates visual-association measurement from token-level credit assignment and is adaptable to policy-optimization methods with uniform response-level advantage allocation. Relative Visual Encoding constructs a context-relative visual coordinate by contrasting each predictive state's affinity to image and prompt-context representations. Outcome-conditioned Evidence Calibration combines this coordinate with uncertainty-scaled predictive features and calibrates their contributions to outcome-discriminative evidence through mean contrasts between positive- and negative-advantage responses, scaled by regularized within-side variation. Visual association thus informs credit through observed outcome differences rather than directly determining update priority. Normalized Credit Allocation conditions the calibrated evidence on the response's advantage sign to produce positive token weights with unit global mean. These detached weights preserve advantage signs while modulating individual token-gradient contributions. OVC reuses existing rollouts without auxiliary reward models, process annotations, or inference-time modules. Instantiated through GSPO-token, OVC retains sequence-level clipping and consistently improves six-benchmark mean accuracy over GSPO across three models, with gains of 1.86-2.39 percentage points.
Yuhang Han, Dingning Liu, Yujie Chen +7
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Shadoweave +2
While token-level entropy is commonly recognized as effective for credit assignment in text-only reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), it remains unclear whether this mechanism still holds in visual reasoning. Our controlled study shows that this mechanism collapses in visual reasoning due to the omission of vision-sensitive tokens with naturally low entropy. Although existing multimodal RL methods increasingly acknowledge the importance of visual perception, they struggle to satisfy the inherent demand for interleaving precise perceptual grounding with semantic reasoning, either lacking systematic visual measurements or overlooking that token entropy primarily drives semantic exploration. To address this, we introduce VEPO (Vision-Entropy token-selection for Policy Optimization), an effective RL framework explicitly integrating visual sensitivity with token entropy via a principled multiplicative coupling, where VEPO redirects gradient credit toward tokens which are simultaneously visually grounded and highly informative. Extensive experiments demonstrate VEPO's leading performance, significantly outperforming the entropy-only baseline by 2.28 points at 7B-scale and 3.15 points at 3B-scale. Ablations further substantiate the soundness of our method.
Senjie Jin, Peixin Wang, Boyang Liu +8
College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Fudan University
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