Image-to-text (I2T) understanding and text-to-image (T2I) generation are dual tasks in unified multimodal models (UMMs). Reconstructive post-training couples these tasks, but existing reconstruction-based methods remain perception-centric and provide limited supervision for reasoning about structure, intent, and transformation. We propose ReasonUni, a reasoning-augmented reconstructive post-training framework that extends this coupling beyond perception. Given an original image and an editing instruction, the UMM first reasons about what and how to edit and describes the target state, then generates the corresponding target image conditioned on this understanding output. To jointly optimize both modules, we introduce TreeGRPO, a tree-structured reinforcement learning method that samples multiple reasoning paths and candidate images per path, then aggregates visual rewards to update both modules under a unified objective. Experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate consistent gains in both understanding and generation, showing that reasoning-augmented reconstruction yields genuine mutual gains for UMMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Overview of the ReasonUni architecture and method (left). Given an input image and reasoning-required editing instruction, the UMM infers and describes the target state, then generates candidate edited images conditioned on these descriptions. TreeGRPO formulates this process as a hierarchical branch–leaf structure: reasoning paths form branches, generated images form leaves, and visual rewards are aggregated and propagated to optimize understanding and generation jointly (right).
Figure 3: Flat vs. tree-structured sampling. Left (Flat): each reasoning path and its generated image form an independent sample. Right (Tree): each of K reasoning paths branches into M generated images, enabling group-relative comparisons across branch-level mean rewards and among image rewards within each branch. Even when a branch has a low mean reward, images scoring above that branch mean receive positive generation advantages.
Method
Understanding
Generation
MMBench
MMVP
CV-Bench
MathVerse
DPGBench
WISE
GenEval ++
X-Omni-SFT
74.40
48.67
67.98
17.01
65.25
24.00
7.50
+ UAE
74.40
50.67
67.06
17.51
72.61
24.00
6.43
+ UAE †
75.26
51.33
66.87
17.64
65.49
26.00
6.43
+ Ours
75.60
52.67
68.85
17.77
78.59
37.00
23.21
Gain ( ↑ )
+1.20
+4.00
+0.87
+0.76
+13.34
+13.00
+15.71
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on multimodal understanding and generation. We benchmark our method against X-Omni and UAE Yan et al. (2025a) under the SFT and RL initialization settings. The gray † row uses the same training data as ReasonUni, while the unmarked UAE rows use UAE’s original training data. Bold denotes the best results. Gain indicates the absolute improvement over the corresponding X-Omni baseline.
Method
General
Vision-Centric
Hallucination
OCR
Knowledge
Math
MMB
SEED
MMStar
MMT
VStar
MMVP
CVB.
POPE
Hallu.
OCRB.
MMMU
MathV.
Show-o Xie et al. (2024)
47.9
–
–
–
–
50.0
–
73.8
–
–
25.1
–
Emu3 Wang et al. (2024b)
58.5
68.2
–
–
51.8
36.6
–
85.2
–
68.7
31.6
–
VILA-U Wu et al. (2024b)
66.6
57.1
–
–
38.7
22.0
–
85.8
–
–
32.2
–
Janus Pro Chen et al. (2025c)
79.2
72.1
–
–
–
–
–
87.4
–
59.5
41.0
–
MetaMorph Tong et al. (2025b)
75.2
71.8
–
–
44.0
48.3
–
–
–
–
41.8
–
Table 2: Comparison with state-of-the-art unified models. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation across six domains, including General (MMBench Liu et al. (2023) , SEED-Bench Li et al. (2023a) , MMStar Chen et al. (2024) , MMT Ying et al. (2024) ), Vision-Centric (VStar Wu & Xie (2024) , MMVP Tong et al. (2024b) , CV-Bench Tong et al. (2024a) ), Hallucination (POPE Li et al. (2023b) , HallusionBench Guan et al. (2024) ), OCR (OCRBench Liu et al. (2024b) ), Knowledge (MMMU) Yue et al. (2024) , and Math (MathVerse Zhang et al. (2024) ). – denotes results not reported in original papers.
Model
Perception
Reasoning
Overall
CoarseP.
FP-Cross
FP-Single
AttributeR.
LogicalR.
RelationR.
X-Omni-RL
84.12
66.43
77.13
76.88
48.31
73.91
74.31
+UAE
84.46
67.13
79.18
77.39
51.69
73.91
75.43
+Ours
84.46
67.83
78.50
78.39
55.08
74.78
75.96
Gain( ↑ )
+0.34
+1.40
+1.37
+1.51
+6.77
+0.87
+1.65
Table 3: Fine-grained analysis on MMBench. We report detailed performance across Perception (Coarse-Perception, Fine-grained Cross-instance, Fine-grained Single-instance) and Reasoning (Attribute Reasoning, Logical Reasoning, Relation Reasoning) sub-tasks. Our method improves both perception and reasoning capabilities, and the gains in reasoning are more significant.
Model
Color
Pos/Cnt
Col/Pos
Col/Cnt
Mul-Cnt
Pos/Size
Count
Overall
Janus-Pro Chen et al. (2025c)
45.0
7.5
30.0
12.5
12.5
35.0
30.0
24.60
T2I-R1 Jiang et al. (2025a)
67.5
7.5
35.0
20.0
30.0
25.0
32.5
31.10
BLIP3o Chen et al. (2025a)
25.0
12.5
60.0
12.5
22.5
57.5
25.0
30.70
OmniGen2 Wu et al. (2025b)
55.0
12.5
27.5
20.0
45.0
25.0
42.5
32.50
Bagel Deng et al. (2025)
32.5
25.0
32.5
25.0
37.5
47.5
60.0
37.10
X-Omni-RL
25.0
32.5
47.5
15.0
45.0
55.0
60.0
40.00
Table 4: Performance comparison on GenEval ++ . This benchmark evaluates fine-grained image generation capabilities across compositional attributes (e.g., Color, Position, Count). Our method achieves the highest overall score among the compared models.
MM-P
MM-R
Und. Avg
Gen. Avg
Time
X-Omni-RL
75.89
66.36
52.66
42.50
—
Latent (Ours)
76.93
69.42
54.26
47.40
25 h
SigLIP-2
76.92
67.84
52.77
45.92
60 h
DINOv3
75.78
66.93
53.26
43.97
60 h
MSE
76.91
67.54
53.43
42.29
58 h
GPT-4.1
75.08
66.58
52.38
44.15
68 h
Table 5: (a) Reward design: latent reward vs. alternative formulations. (b) Sampling strategy: K/M sweep and flat GRPO comparison under matched budget. MM-P/R denote MMBench Perception/Reasoning. Und. Avg averages MMBench, MMVP, CV-Bench, and MathVerse; Gen. Avg averages WISE and GenEval++. Both are equally weighted means of percentage scores.
Figure 4: Comparison of reconstruction rewards. Across these examples, the latent reward produces the same preference ordering over candidate reconstructions as SigLIP2 and DINOv3, while operating directly on visual tokens without image decoding or external re-encoding.
Figure 5: Vehicle text-removal case. We compare the intermediate target-state descriptions and final reconstructions under the same edit instruction. The baseline retains the target text, whereas ReasonUni removes the largest text string on the vehicle’s front while preserving non-target details such as the license plate.
Figure 6: Qualitative results on WISE. For knowledge-focused prompts, ReasonUni generates more semantically accurate concepts than the baseline. The illustrated examples cover animal recognition, instrument categories, art-related knowledge, and historical technology.
Figure 7: Case studies across RL training steps. Starting from a baseline model, ReasonUni progressively improves instruction-following edits as TreeGRPO training proceeds (Step 200 → 800). Top: the model increasingly captures long-term wear patterns on boots. Bottom: the model more accurately removes the rider in the center of the scene together with the vehicle.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8: Visualization of synthesized reasoning editing samples . We construct the dataset by leveraging image-conversation pairs from LLaVA-NeXT-Data Liu et al. (2024a) . Left : The source image and the original multi-turn dialogue serving as context. Right : The pair of source and edited images, with the synthesized instruction displayed below. The instruction is derived from the dialogue to guide the editing process. Each entry forms a complete tuple (Isrc,Chist,Tinstr,Iedit) , where the editing command is semantically grounded in the conversation history.
Figure 9: Additional instruction-based editing cases. We compare baseline and ReasonUni target-state descriptions and reconstructions across floral, maritime, and street scenes. Across the three cases, ReasonUni better matches the displayed edited references while introducing fewer unrelated changes.
Figure 10: Qualitative results on GenEval++ . Compared with the baselines, ReasonUni better preserves compositional attributes, object counts, and spatial relations.
Figure 11: Qualitative results on WISE. For knowledge-focused prompts, ReasonUni generates more semantically accurate concepts than the baseline, including animal recognition, instrument category, art-related knowledge, and historical technology.
Method
Understanding
Generation
MMBench
MMVP
CVBench
MathVerse
DPGBench
WISE
Geneval++
X-Omni-SFT
74.4
48.67
67.98
17.01
65.25
24
7.5
+TreeGRPO
75.51
50.00
69.20
16.75
77.24
34
20.36
+TreeGRPO +Reasoning
75.60
52.67
68.85
17.77
78.59
37.00
23.21
X-Omni-RL
74.31
50.67
68.26
17.39
82.29
45
40
+TreeGRPO
75.86
50.67
67.91
17.36
82.98
45
43.21
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation study of proposed components. We evaluate the effectiveness of TreeGRPO and reasoning augmentation across the SFT and RL settings.
Method
General
Vision-Centric
Hallucination
OCR
Knowledge
Math
MMB
SEED
MMStar
MMT
VStar
MMVP
CVB.
POPE
Hallu.
OCRB.
MMMU
MathV.
Show-o Xie et al. (2024)
47.9
–
–
–
–
50.0
–
73.8
–
–
25.1
–
Emu3 Wang et al. (2024b)
58.5
68.2
–
–
51.8
36.6
–
85.2
–
68.7
31.6
–
VILA-U Wu et al. (2024b)
66.6
57.1
–
–
38.7
22.0
–
85.8
–
–
32.2
–
Janus Pro Chen et al. (2025c)
79.2
72.1
–
–
–
–
–
87.4
–
59.5
41.0
–
MetaMorph Tong et al. (2025b)
75.2
71.8
–
–
44.0
48.3
–
–
–
–
41.8
–
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison with SOTA unified models. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation, including General (MMBench Liu et al. (2023) , SEED-Bench Li et al. (2023a) , MMStar Chen et al. (2024) , MMT Ying et al. (2024) ), Vision-Centric (VStar Wu & Xie (2024) , MMVP Tong et al. (2024b) , CV-Bench Tong et al. (2024a) ), Hallucination (POPE Li et al. (2023b) , HallusionBench Guan et al. (2024) ), OCR (OCRBench Liu et al. (2024b) ), Knowledge (MMMU) Yue et al. (2024) , and Math (MathVerse Zhang et al. (2024) ). “–” denotes results not reported in original papers.
Method
DPGBench
WISE
GenEval++
Rel.
Attr.
Other
Overall
Cult.
Time
Phys.
Overall
Pos/Cnt
Pos/Size
Cnt
Overall
Harmon Wu et al. (2025c)
-
-
-
-
38
48
44
41
-
-
-
-
Show-o Xie et al. (2024)
-
-
-
-
28
40
46
35
-
-
-
-
Emu3 Wang et al. (2024b)
90.22
86.84
83.15
80.60
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Janus-Pro Chen et al. (2025c)
89.32
89.40
89.48
84.19
30
37
42
35
7.5
35.0
30.0
24.60
MetaQuery Pan et al. (2025)
-
-
-
82.05
56
55
63
55
-
-
-
-
Appendix
Table 9: Comparisons on generation benchmarks. We report performance on DPGBench Hu et al. (2024) , WISE Niu et al. (2025b) , and GenEval++ Ye et al. (2025) . Compared to the baseline and other unified models, our approach demonstrates favorable performance, showing consistent gains in attribute binding, world knowledge, and complex query alignment.
Model
Cultural
Time
Space
Biology
Physics
Chemistry
Overall
Harmon
38
48
52
37
44
29
41
Show-o
28
40
48
30
46
30
35
Janus Pro
30
37
49
36
42
26
35
MetaQuery-XL
56
55
62
49
63
41
55
UniWorld-V1
53
55
73
45
59
41
55
OmniGen2
42
52
64
43
50
34
47
Appendix
Table 10: Performance comparison on WISE. WISE assesses knowledge-grounded generation across six domains: Cultural, Time, Space, Biology, Physics, and Chemistry. ReasonUni improves over X-Omni-RL in every domain and achieves an overall score of 48.
Unified multimodal models (UMMs) unify visual understanding and generation within a single architecture. However, conventional training relies on image-text pairs (or sequences) whose captions are typically sparse and miss fine-grained visual details, even when they use hundreds of words to describe a simple image. We introduce Reconstruction Alignment (RECA), a resource-efficient post-training method that leverages visual understanding encoder embeddings as dense "text prompts", providing rich supervision without captions. Concretely, RECA conditions a UMM on its own visual understanding embeddings and optimizes it to reconstruct the input image with a self-supervised reconstruction loss, thereby realigning understanding and generation. Despite its simplicity, RECA is broadly applicable: across autoregressive, masked-autoregressive, and diffusion-based UMMs, it consistently improves generation and editing fidelity. With only 27 GPU hours, post-training with RECA substantially improves image generation performance on GenEval (0.73 → 0.90) and DPGBench (80.93 → 88.15), while also boosting editing benchmarks (ImgEdit 3.38 → 3.75, GEdit 6.94 → 7.27). Notably, RECA surpasses much larger open-source models and applies broadly across diverse UMM architectures, establishing it as an efficient and general post-training alignment strategy for UMMs.
Ji Xie, Trevor Darrell, Luke Zettlemoyer +1
1UC Berkeley · University of Washington · 3Duke University
Unified multi-modal models (UMMs) have shown promising interleaved text-image reasoning capabilities, yet effectively optimizing such multi-turn generation via reinforcement learning (RL) remains an open challenge. Existing approaches apply RL exclusively to text steps, relegating image generation to supervised surrogates, preventing policy gradients from propagating through the full interleaved trajectory across heterogeneous modalities. This leaves the potential of RL for UMMs largely untapped. In the paper, we introduce BRAID (Bridging inteRleAved multI-modal reasoning as a unified Decision process), a simple framework that casts multi-turn text-image-text reasoning as a unified Markov decision process (MDP), enabling joint optimization of textual and visual generation via a single, principled RL objective. BRAID computes a shared trajectory-level advantage and propagates it coherently into both text tokens and image denoising paths, each optimized through its modality-native policy gradient mechanism. To further address long-horizon credit assignment, BRAID employs a vision-language model (VLM) judge that scores each intermediate image on its reasoning utility, supplying dense turn-level feedback to sharpen learning at critical visual branches. Experiments on spatial reasoning and visual perception benchmarks show that BRAID consistently outperforms various baselines, confirming that a unified MDP formulation with vision-thinking guidance is essential for effective multi-modal reasoning.
Zican Hu, Xuyang Hu, Yiming Liu +10
Nanjing University · Shanghai AI Laboratory · Tsinghua University +5
Unified multimodal models (UMMs) aim to integrate multimodal understanding and generation within a unified architecture, yet it remains unclear to what extent textual and visual modalities are aligned. To investigate this question, we use reasoning-guided image generation as a diagnostic task, where models produce textual reasoning first and then generate images. We introduce UReason, a benchmark for evaluating reasoning-to-generation alignment in this paradigm, consisting of 2,000 human-curated and human-verified instances spanning five reasoning-intensive tasks: Code, Arithmetic, Spatial, Attribute, and Text. To enable controlled analysis, we develop an evaluation framework that compares direct generation, reasoning-guided generation, and decontextualized generation, which conditions only on the refined prompt extracted from reasoning. Across eight widely used open-source UMMs, while we find that reasoning-guided generation yields improvements over direct generation, somewhat surprisingly, decontextualized generation consistently outperforms reasoning-guided generation by a large margin. Our further analyses suggest that the intended visual semantics in textual reasoning are not reliably reflected in the generated images, despite their unified design and training. Overall, UReason serves as a practical litmus test for reasoning-to-generation alignment and provides a challenging benchmark for developing next-generation, more tightly aligned UMMs.
Cheng Yang, Chufan Shi, Bo Shui +7
University of California San Diego · University of Southern California · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign +1