Generative visual verifiers play a crucial role in advancing multimodal intelligence. To enhance the robustness of visual verifiers in complex multimodal scenarios involving compositional requirements, we move beyond conventional binary verifiers that produce only True/False discrete judgments and introduce a verifier that automatically decomposes complex prompts or environmental rules into fine-grained components and assigns pointwise scores to provide a continuous and more informative critique signal. Our experiments further demonstrate that these structured and interpretable outputs improve the verifier's generalization to out-of-domain multimodal critic tasks. To train this verifier, we introduce a Decoupled RL training strategy that jointly optimizes sub-question-level binary judgment and global alignment scoring, using precise local feedback to develop fine-grained verification capabilities that provide a foundation for reliable continuous scoring at the global level. Under a general reinforcement learning framework, we first empirically demonstrate that the proposed pointwise graded verifier significantly outperforms binary verifiers in traditional text-to-image scenarios. We then extend our investigation to rule-governed generative world modeling where generative models are leveraged for world simulation and world reasoning under explicit rules. From a theoretical standpoint, we further show that a pairwise verification paradigm yields more accurate critiques than the pointwise formulation when ground-truth images are available, with empirical results on diverse structured world-modeling tasks such as Maze and Sudoku further validating the effectiveness of our approach. Overall, our findings suggest a key insight: the transition from generative models to structured world-modeling agents critically hinges on the availability of accurate pairwise graded visual verifiers.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Panels (a)–(d) highlight the advantages of the graded verifier over the binary verifier as a generative reward model, while panels (e)–(h) show that pairwise verification provides more reliable and accurate feedback signals than pointwise verification.
Figure 2: Overview of our training pipeline. Stage 1 trains the Decomposed Graded Verifier with decoupled reinforcement learning to produce fine-grained continuous rewards. Stage 2 introduces a pairwise judgment paradigm that provides cleaner and more reliable reward signals for generative model reinforcement learning.
Methods
Concept Existence
Object Relation
World Dynamics
Image Annotation
State Value Evaluation
STEM
Overall
Obj.
Attr.
Abs.P.
Spat.
N-Spat.
S-Phy
D-Phy
BBox
Point
Count
Maze
F.Lake
Robot.
GUI
Chart
LaTeX
Qwen3-VL-8B
0.710
0.690
0.562
0.642
0.716
0.604
0.593
0.831
0.741
0.489
0.420
0.693
0.671
0.787
0.540
0.773
0.654
+ RL(Binary)
0.732
0.727
0.579
0.713
0.754
0.600
0.596
0.843
0.770
0.566
0.434
0.674
0.645
0.782
0.526
0.795
0.671
+ SFT(Binary)
0.689
0.695
0.620
0.654
0.703
0.546
0.627
0.802
0.735
0.504
0.414
0.714
0.661
0.792
0.538
0.802
0.656
+SFT(Binary) + RL(Binary)
0.735
0.721
0.554
0.719
0.748
0.521
0.636
0.840
0.765
0.532
0.446
0.687
0.682
0.799
0.553
0.814
0.672
+SFT(Graded)
0.724
0.709
0.535
0.679
0.657
0.613
0.596
0.817
0.752
0.543
0.427
0.661
0.576
0.769
0.656
0.830
0.659
Table 1: Performance on ViVerBench of the Binary Verifier and Graded Verifier.
Figure 3: Qualitative visualization of traditional text-to-image generation.
Methods
GenEval
CLIPScore
Single Obj.
Two Obj.
Counting
Colors
Position
Attri. Bind.
Overall
Stable-Diffusion-3.5-medium
0.99
0.78
0.69
0.79
0.25
0.45
0.66
32.8
+RL(UnifiedReward)
0.99
0.84
0.75
0.86
0.36
0.55
0.73
33.7
+RL(Discrete Binary Verifier)
0.99
0.80
0.72
0.81
0.29
0.47
0.68
33.1
+RL(Decomposed Graded Verifier)
1.00
0.90
0.79
0.89
0.41
0.63
0.77
34.4
FLUX.1-dev
0.99
0.85
0.61
0.84
0.22
0.58
0.68
33.2
Table 2: Performance on GenEval and CLIPScore under different reward models.
Figure 4: Qualitative visualization of rule-governed world-modeling tasks.
Methods
Maze
Sudoku
Aux. Line Construction
Sequence Prediction
Word Search
3D Projection
Normal
Hard
Normal
Hard
Normal
Hard
Normal
Hard
Normal
Hard
Normal
Hard
Qwen-Image-Edit-2509
17.31
8.73
22.21
5.62
16.79
7.32
9.18
4.33
6.28
2.46
3.86
1.71
+ SFT
56.77
18.96
63.62
29.99
57.62
26.84
46.53
27.96
37.36
17.29
42.94
23.37
+SFT+RL(Pointwise)
67.81
34.78
77.74
50.71
66.98
37.49
61.27
34.18
50.92
26.94
52.19
33.16
+SFT+RL(Pairwise)
85.31
51.92
89.97
62.99
76.19
46.12
73.48
63.64
62.18
34.27
69.28
47.51
Table 3: Performance comparison on game-based image-to-image tasks for world modeling.
Methods
RISEBench
UniREdit-Real
UniREdit-Game
Overall
T
C
S
L
Overall
AM
ST
PI
PR
Avg.
SI
SR
LHP
LPS
Avg.
Qwen-Image-Edit-2509
2.4
7.8
14.0
1.2
6.7
70.04
68.49
67.26
64.11
67.48
52.31
32.96
42.46
37.89
41.41
53.16
+ SFT
3.5
7.8
16.0
5.9
8.6
70.56
68.68
67.55
64.98
67.94
66.92
47.48
56.06
43.98
53.61
59.14
+ SFT + RL(Pointwise)
5.9
8.9
18.0
12.9
11.7
71.24
68.73
68.38
65.77
68.53
68.73
49.16
60.32
56.41
58.66
62.37
+ SFT + RL(Pairwise)
7.1
10.0
19.0
23.5
15.0
71.87
69.02
68.72
66.08
68.92
70.23
51.33
68.93
63.53
63.51
65.15
Table 4: Performance comparison on RISEBench and UniREditBench.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Training dynamics of pairwise and pointwise verification across six rule-governed tasks. Each panel shows validation scores and the score gap between the two methods.
Methods
Annotation Source
GPT-5.5
Gemini-3.1-Pro
Human
Qwen3-VL-8B
68.5
69.5
67.0
+ SFT(Graded)
76.0
76.5
74.5
+ SFT(Graded) + RL(Graded)
94.5
96.0
94.0
Appendix
Table 5: Sub-question-level verification accuracy (%) on 200 held-out samples.
Methods
GenEval
CLIPScore
Single Obj.
Two Obj.
Counting
Colors
Position
Attri. Bind.
Overall
Qwen-Image-2512
0.99
0.90
0.77
0.86
0.38
0.52
0.74
34.1
+RL(Discrete Binary Verifier)
1.00
0.92
0.79
0.87
0.42
0.55
0.76
34.4
+RL(Decomposed Graded Verifier)
1.00
0.96
0.85
0.92
0.51
0.69
0.82
35.3
Appendix
Table 6: Performance of Qwen-Image-2512 on GenEval and CLIPScore under different reward models.
Methods
Concept Existence
Object Relation
Image Annotation
Overall (16 tasks)
Obj.
Attr.
Spat.
N-Spat.
BBox
Point
Count
InternVL3-8B
0.513
0.578
0.667
0.619
0.750
0.619
0.604
0.594
+SFT(Graded)
0.526
0.585
0.652
0.632
0.757
0.611
0.618
0.606
+SFT(Graded)+RL(Graded)
0.678
0.684
0.707
0.724
0.821
0.665
0.649
0.652
Appendix
Table 7: Performance on ViVerBench with InternVL3-8B as the verifier backbone. We report seven selected sub-metrics with notable improvements after Decoupled RL. Overall denotes the mean score across all 16 task categories, including those not displayed.
Number of Sub-questions
Mean Alignment Error ↓
≤10
0.083
11–20
0.039
21–30
0.072
Appendix
Table 8: Effect of the number of sub-questions on global score estimation on 200 held-out test samples. Lower mean alignment error is better.