While reinforcement learning with verifiable reward (RLVR) enhances reasoning in large language models, its efficacy in long-horizon multimodal tasks remains underexplored. Visual Sudoku puzzles pose a representative challenge, requiring multi-step deductive reasoning over both local constraints and global dependency chains. To this end, we introduce FG-Sudoku, a fine-grained benchmark categorized by grid size and required deductive steps. Evaluations reveal that frontier MLLMs fail on complex long-range dependencies (e.g., 9*9 puzzles). During post-training, this near-zero success rate causes severe reward sparsity, halting standard RLVR. We propose Adaptive Curriculum Group Relative Policy Optimization (AdaC-GRPO) to overcome this. Unlike rigid or prior-based schedules, AdaC-GRPO dynamically constructs training batches by tracking the model's "Zone of Proximal Development" via online rollout accuracy. Experiments demonstrate that AdaC-GRPO enables Qwen2.5-VL-7B to approach the performance of Gemini-2.5-Flash while bridging 62.2% of the overall accuracy gap to Gemini-2.5-Pro, with its generalizability further validated across InternVL-3.5 and Qwen3-VL.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of AdaC-GRPO. The policy dynamically selects FG-Sudoku groups within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) based on online rollout accuracy, excluding trivially solved and reward-starved tasks.
Figure 2: Overview of the dataset, showing a representative Sudoku sample, model-measured difficulty steps across subsets, and the metadata structure of individual entries. Panel (B) reports Gemini-2.5-Flash’s pass@1 accuracy on each subgroup as a post-hoc empirical validation of our solver-derived difficulty hierarchy; correctness is determined by exact-grid matching. Higher bars generally correspond to easier subgroups.
Figure 3: Visualization of the solution trace for a 4×4 Sudoku puzzle. Each quadrant represents a distinct class of operations. Operations applied to the same cell are connected by straight-line links, and the colors change continuously from blue to red to indicate the temporal sequence of the reasoning steps.
Table 1: Benchmarking leading proprietary and open-weight multimodal models (Pass@1). Panel (a) reports per-tier results, while panels (b) and (c) report group-level averages. A, B, and C denote the 4 × 4, 6 × 6, and 9 × 9 subsets, respectively; 1–4 denote difficulty tiers. Block C compares training methods under the same Qwen2.5-VL-7B backbone, SFT warm start, reward, and rollout budget. Bold denotes the best result within Block C, while underlined values indicate the best result across all models.
Figure 4: Trajectory of policy competence during curriculum-guided unit testing. The horizontal axis represents sequentially activated training subsets, while the vertical axis shows the rollout accuracy ( f=1/4 ). The orange shaded area denotes the globally defined Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) bounds [τlow,τhigh] .
Curriculum Granularity
A
B
C
Total
Coarse-grained (size only)
0.6484
0.5547
0.0117
0.4049
Fine-grained (ours)
0.8906
0.6485
0.2189
0.5860
Table 2: Ablation results. (a) Fine-grained tiers bridge the gap between grid sizes. (b) Partial reward fails on Group C. (c) Each trained condition uses one input form throughout training; cross-modal rows change only the evaluation input.
Method
Easy
Medium
Hard
Overall
ZebraLogicBench-ID ( Lin et al., 2025 )
Base
0.453
0.047
0.014
0.165
GRPO
0.656
0.063
0.014
0.235
AdaC-GRPO
0.625
0.109
0.042
0.250
CMM-Math ( Liu et al., 2024c )
Base
0.526
0.480
0.410
0.469
Table 3: Pass@1 after training GRPO or AdaC-GRPO from the same task-specific initialization. ZebraLogicBench uses structural-complexity tiers; CMM-Math uses its provided level labels.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Train Set
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Total
A (4 × 4)
376
271
239
138
1,024
B (6 × 6)
324
245
234
221
1,024
C (9 × 9)
308
246
214
256
1,024
Test Set
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Total
A (4 × 4)
85
97
53
21
256
B (6 × 6)
82
64
62
48
256
Appendix
Table 4: Exact train/test counts per difficulty tier in the FG-Sudoku dataset.
Hyperparameter
Value
Base Model
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
GPUs
4 × NVIDIA A800
Precision
bfloat16
Optimization Method
GRPO
Optimizer
AdamW
DeepSpeed Stage
ZeRO-3
Appendix
Table 5: Detailed training configurations and hyperparameters.
Strategy
A1
A2
A3
A4
B1
B2
B3
B4
C1
C2
C3
C4
Random
0.894
0.794
0.566
0.476
0.476
0.219
0.210
0.083
0.130
0.034
0.000
0.000
Median
0.929
0.887
0.679
0.524
0.695
0.469
0.290
0.188
0.203
0.068
0.000
0.000
Argmax (Ours)
0.953
0.897
0.717
0.571
0.634
0.500
0.226
0.125
0.304
0.153
0.015
0.000
Appendix
Table 6: Selection-strategy ablation within the ZPD window (1-epoch training). Argmax delivers the strongest C-group performance, confirming that consolidation-first progression is preferable to undirected sampling for long-horizon curriculum learning.
Figure 5: Heatmap visualization of the selection-strategy ablation (same data as Table 6 ). Color encodes accuracy on a 0 – 1 scale; framed cells mark the column-best entry per tier.
[L,U]
A1
A2
A3
A4
B1
B2
B3
B4
C1
C2
C3
C4
[0.1,0.7]
0.870
0.845
0.623
0.524
0.634
0.406
0.274
0.188
0.203
0.051
0.000
0.000
[0.2,0.7]
0.918
0.856
0.679
0.619
0.646
0.484
0.226
0.125
0.290
0.153
0.000
0.000
[0.3,0.7]
0.929
0.887
0.679
0.667
0.634
0.484
0.258
0.167
0.333
0.203
0.015
0.000
[0.1,0.8]
0.906
0.866
0.642
0.524
0.646
0.406
0.258
0.188
0.203
0.051
0.000
0.000
[0.2,0.8]
0.953
0.897
0.717
0.571
0.634
0.500
0.226
0.125
0.304
0.153
0.015
0.000
[0.3,0.8] (Ours)
0.941
0.907
0.679
0.667
0.659
0.484
0.290
0.209
0.333
0.203
0.015
0.000
Appendix
Table 7: Sensitivity to the ZPD bounds [τlow,τhigh] (1 epoch per setting). The two highest- L configurations ( L=0.3 ) achieve identical C-group average accuracy and outperform lower- L configurations across most tiers, indicating that the method is robust to the choice of U but benefits from a moderately aggressive lower bound.
Figure 6: Heatmap visualization of the threshold-sensitivity sweep (same data as Table 7 ). Color encodes accuracy; framed cells mark the column-best entry per tier. Within each tier, color variation across configurations is small, which is the visual evidence for robustness to the choice of [τlow,τhigh] .
Seed
A1
A2
A3
A4
B1
B2
B3
B4
C1
C2
C3
C4
Total
Seed-1 (main)
0.976
0.928
0.774
0.667
0.878
0.641
0.548
0.396
0.478
0.288
0.074
0.017
0.5859
Seed-2
0.965
0.918
0.755
0.667
0.890
0.656
0.532
0.396
0.435
0.305
0.074
0.000
0.5794
Seed-3
0.988
0.938
0.755
0.619
0.866
0.625
0.565
0.375
0.464
0.271
0.059
0.033
0.5807
Mean
0.976
0.928
0.761
0.651
0.878
0.641
0.548
0.389
0.459
0.288
0.069
0.017
0.5820
Std
0.012
0.010
0.011
0.028
0.012
0.016
0.017
0.012
0.022
0.017
0.009
0.017
0.0034
Appendix
Table 8: Per-tier and total Pass@1 accuracy of Qwen2.5-VL-7B + AdaC-GRPO across three independent training seeds. Bold marks the best (or tied best) score per column. Seed-1 (the configuration reported as main in Table 1a ) yields the highest total accuracy across the three runs.
Seed
A1
A2
A3
A4
B1
B2
B3
B4
C1
C2
C3
C4
Total
Seed-1 (main)
0.906
0.835
0.509
0.476
0.732
0.422
0.355
0.292
0.087
0.068
0.000
0.000
0.4271
Seed-2
0.871
0.856
0.472
0.429
0.659
0.391
0.387
0.250
0.072
0.051
0.000
0.000
0.4089
Seed-3
0.929
0.814
0.491
0.476
0.720
0.406
0.339
0.271
0.058
0.068
0.015
0.000
0.4193
Mean
0.902
0.835
0.491
0.460
0.704
0.406
0.360
0.271
0.072
0.062
0.005
0.000
0.4184
Std
0.029
0.021
0.019
0.027
0.039
0.016
0.024
0.021
0.015
0.010
0.009
0.000
0.0091
Appendix
Table 9: Per-tier and total Pass@1 accuracy of Qwen2.5-VL-7B + GRPO across three independent training seeds. Bold marks the best (or tied best) score per column.
Benchmark
Baseline
AdaC-GRPO
VsiBench ( Yang et al., 2025 )
0.3305
0.3527
MMVU ( Zhao et al., 2025 )
0.6352
0.6390
TempCompass ( Liu et al., 2024d )
0.6947
0.6839
ZebraLogic ( Lin et al., 2025 )
0.0340
0.0620
CrosswordBench ( Leng et al., 2025 )
0.051
0.075
Average reasoning length
1910.88
975.58
Appendix
Table 10: Transfer evaluation of the Sudoku-trained model. Values are mean accuracy, except for CrosswordBench (ICR) and reasoning length (tokens).
Figure 7: Comparison of the time cost between unit testing and subset training in each course-learning iteration. The unit-testing module introduces only a small overhead across different sampling ratios.
Figure 8: Accuracy of the unit-testing module under different sampling ratios, using ratio = 1 as the reference. Even with substantially reduced sampling (e.g., ratio = 1/8), the accuracy remains close to the full-data result.
Method
Discard
All-wrong
All-correct
Pass
DAPO
99.7%
99.7%
0.0%
0.0%
AdaC-GRPO
54.7%
47.3%
7.4%
31.5%
Appendix
Table 11: Rollout-group statistics on Group C with G=8 . "Discard" denotes zero-variance groups; "Pass" is the trajectory-level pass rate.
Figure 9: Difficulty-Induced Entropy Bifurcation. The per-case mean entropy delta ( Hˉpost−Hˉpre ) reveals a distinct regime shift: predictive sharpening in easier tasks (negative ΔH ) versus uncertainty expansion in harder tasks (positive ΔH ).
Figure 10: Temporal Divergence from SFT Baseline. Jensen-Shannon divergence heatmap showing the magnitude of policy updates. High-complexity cases (bottom rows) exhibit sustained divergence, indicating significant exploration and trajectory re-parameterization by GRPO.
Figure 11: Stratified Entropy Distributions by Problem Scale. Comparisons of SFT and post-GRPO entropy across sizes 4, 6, and 9. The heavier-tailed distribution at larger sizes is consistent with increased uncertainty calibration on more complex reasoning paths.
Figure 12: Selected excerpts from Gemini-2.5-Pro’s reasoning trace. Ellipses omit routine intermediate deductions, while highlighted regions mark state inconsistencies, explicit backtracking, and the final false-positive validation.
Reinforcement learning (RL) with group relative policy optimization (GRPO) has become a widely adopted approach for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). While GRPO enables long-chain reasoning without a critic, it often suffers from sparse rewards on difficult problems and advantage vanishing when group-level rewards are too consistent for overly easy or hard problems. Existing solutions (sample expansion, selective utilization, and indirect reward design) often fail to maintain enough variance in within-group reward distributions to yield clear optimization signals. To address this, we propose DIVA-GRPO, a difficulty-adaptive variant advantage method that adjusts variant difficulty distributions from a global perspective. DIVA-GRPO dynamically assesses problem difficulty, samples variants with appropriate difficulty levels, and calculates advantages across local and global groups using difficulty-weighted and normalized scaling. This alleviates reward sparsity and advantage vanishing while improving training stability. Extensive experiments on six reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that DIVA-GRPO outperforms existing approaches in training efficiency and reasoning performance. Code: https://github.com/Siaaaaaa1/DIVA-GRPO
Haowen Gao, Zhenyu Zhang, Liang Pang +7
State Key Laboratory of AI Safety, Institute of Computing Technology, CAS, Beijing, China · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Kuaishou Technology, Beijing, China
Vision--Language Models (VLMs) have recently demonstrated promising performance on structured visual reasoning tasks, including grid-based puzzles. However, despite strong perceptual capabilities, these models lack explicit mechanisms for enforcing logical consistency and frequently generate assignments that violate underlying constraints. In this paper, we propose a neuro-symbolic approach that integrates formal constraint reasoning into the VLM solving process via a Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT) oracle. Rather than computing solutions directly, the symbolic component acts as a consistency validator and refinement engine. Candidate placements generated by the VLM are encoded as soft clauses in a partial MaxSAT formulation, while Sudoku constraints remain hard clauses. When inconsistencies arise, the MaxSAT solver identifies a largest mutually consistent subset of assignments, which is then translated into structured textual and visual feedback to guide subsequent refinements. We evaluate our approach on a Sudoku dataset across multiple open-source and closed-access VLMs. Results show that MaxSAT-based feedback improves logical consistency and increases the number of solved instances, particularly in full-board refinement mode. These findings demonstrate that symbolic optimisation can enhance the reliability of vision-language reasoning.
Pedro Orvalho, Guillem Alenyà, Felip Manyà
Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain · Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industrial (IRI-CSIC-UPC), Barcelona, Spain
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a prevailing paradigm for enhancing reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). However, relying solely on outcome supervision risks reward hacking, where models learn spurious reasoning patterns to satisfy final answer checks. While recent rubric-based approaches offer fine-grained supervision signals, they suffer from high computational costs of instance-level generation and inefficient training dynamics caused by treating all rubrics as equally learnable. In this paper, we propose Stratified Rubric-based Curriculum Learning (RuCL), a novel framework that reformulates curriculum learning by shifting the focus from data selection to reward design. RuCL generates generalized rubrics for broad applicability and stratifies them based on the model's competence. By dynamically adjusting rubric weights during training, RuCL guides the model from mastering foundational perception to tackling advanced logical reasoning. Extensive experiments on various visual reasoning benchmarks show that RuCL yields a remarkable +7.83% average improvement over the Qwen2.5-VL-7B model, achieving a state-of-the-art accuracy of 60.06%.
Yukun Chen, Jiaming Li, Longze Chen +10
Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Alibaba Group +1