Think, Compress, Answer: Reinforcement Learning for Multimodal Grounding via Reasoning Compression
Authors: Jinbae Seo, Hyeongjun Kwon, Jiyoung Lee, Hyunsung Jang, Namkoo Ha, Jungin Park, Kwanghoon Sohn
Organizations: Yonsei University · School of AI and Software, Ewha Womans University · LIG Defense & Aerospace · Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST)
Extended reasoning has substantially improved multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on tasks requiring compositional and relational inference. However, multimodal grounding imposes a distinct requirement: reasoning must ultimately converge on a target-specific compact representation that supports precise localization. As reasoning trajectories grow longer, they often expand into broad scene narratives and peripheral relational details, which can dilute grounded perceptual evidence and lead to ambiguous or incorrect predictions. Motivated by the information bottleneck principle, we propose Think-Compress-Answer (TCA), a reinforcement learning framework that decomposes multimodal grounding into three phases: free-form reasoning, target-aware context compression, and answer generation conditioned on the compressed context. TCA is optimized through a multi-stage Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with progressive rewards that establish the structured output protocol, minimize reasoning-specific information while preserving target-relevant content, and directly improve localization accuracy. This staged design enables MLLMs to retain the benefits of extended reasoning while distilling it into the minimal context required for grounding. Experiments across six multimodal grounding benchmarks show that TCA attains substantial zero-shot performance gains, demonstrating the effectiveness of reasoning compression.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation of Think-Compress-Answer. Given multimodal inputs, ( b ) standard CoT and ( c ) answer-reward-only RL methods identify the correct entity but drift during localization. ( d ) Our Think-Compress-Answer distills reasoning into a concise, faithful cue, yielding accurate grounding. The predicted bounding boxes and center points in (a) and the output from each method (b–d) are matched in color.
Figure 2: Overview of Think-Compress-Answer. The model generates N grouped responses [T,c,a] per input. Stage 1 establishes the required output protocol, Stage 2 encourages reasoning compression, Stage 3 uses a judge MLLM to promote compression fidelity and target relevance, and Stage 4 improves grounding accuracy. The stage-specific rewards are converted into group-relative advantages to progressively update the model.
Method
MLLM
Dec.
RefCOCO
RefCOCO+
RefCOCOg
val
tA
tB
val
tA
tB
val
test
Supervised, Fine-Tuning
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B Qwen Team (2025a)
Qw2.5OM-7B
SAM2 ∗
76.2
78.0
71.3
69.4
75.1
62.7
71.5
70.5
Supervised, Embedding-Guided
LISA Lai et al. (2024)
LLaVA-7B
SAM
74.1
76.5
71.1
62.4
67.4
56.5
67.9
70.6
PixelLM Ren et al. (2024)
LLaVA-7B
Pix.Dec.
73.0
76.5
68.2
66.3
71.7
58.3
69.3
70.5
Table 1: Referring expression segmentation on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg. We report the performance (cIoU) evaluated on validation, testA, and testB splits for RefCOCO and RefCOCO+, and validation and test splits for RefCOCOg. * employs a frozen decoder (Dec.) only for mask prediction.
Method
MLLM
Dec.
RY-VOS
RD17
MeViS
Supervised, Fine-Tuning
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B Qwen Team (2025a)
Qw2.5OM-7B
SAM2 ∗
69.3
76.8
53.3
Supervised, Embedding-Guided
VISA Yan et al. (2024)
ChatUniVi-7B
SAM †
61.5
69.4
43.5
ViLLa Zheng et al. (2025)
Vicuna-7B
E2E
67.5
74.3
49.4
Sa2VA Yuan et al. (2025)
IntVL2.5-8B
SAM2
70.7
75.2
46.0
Table 2: Referring video object segmentation on Ref-YouTube-VOS, Ref-DAVIS17, and MeViS. We report J&F evaluated on the validation set of each benchmark. * employs a frozen decoder (Dec.) only for mask prediction. † additionally employs an external XMem tracker for temporal mask propagation.
Figure 5
Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons for referring video object segmentation on Ref-YouTube-VOS.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Value
Framework
ms-swift
Precision
bfloat16
Attention
FlashAttention
Learning rate
1×10−6
Optimizer
AdamW
LR scheduler
Cosine
Appendix
Table A1: Hyperparameters for training
Figure A1: Prompt for (a) the structured answer block, (b) Compression fidelity in Stage 3.
Method
MLLM
Dec.
ReVOS
RefAVS (Seen)
RefAVS (Unseen)
J&F
J
F
J&F
J
F
J&F
J
F
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B Qwen Team (2025a)
Qw2.5OM-7B
SAM2
38.4
37.2
39.6
35.5
30.1
40.9
64.8
64.8
64.9
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B-SFT Qwen Team (2025a)
Qw2.5OM-7B
SAM2
55.4
53.0
57.8
69.9
67.7
72.0
77.0
77.0
77.1
Omni-R1 Zhong et al. (2025)
Qw2.5OM-7B
SAM2
47.6
–
–
47.2
43.0
51.4
74.2
71.3
77.0
TCA ( Ours )
Qw2.5OM-7B
SAM2
60.5
57.7
62.2
70.7
68.0
73.4
78.8
78.7
78.8
Appendix
Table B1: Reasoning video object segmentation on the ReVOS Yan et al. (2024) benchmark and referring audio-visual segmentation on the RefAVS Wang et al. (2024) benchmark. We report region similarity ( J ), contour accuracy ( F ), and their average ( J&F ). We use SAM2 as the decoder.
Method
MLLM
Dec.
RefCOCO
RefCOCO+
RefCOCOg
val
tA
tB
val
tA
tB
val
test
Oracle with GT
SAM Kirillov et al. (2023)
–
SAM
82.6
84.1
81.3
82.0
84.1
81.3
80.4
81.4
SAM2 Ravi et al. (2024)
–
SAM2
83.2
84.9
81.9
83.0
84.9
81.9
81.0
81.8
SAM3 Carion et al. (2025)
–
SAM3
26.4
26.5
27.4
26.4
26.5
27.5
34.3
35.1
SAM3 + Carion et al. (2025)
–
SAM3 +
76.1
75.8
75.4
76.4
75.8
75.4
72.9
73.8
Appendix
Table B2: Referring expression segmentation on RefCOCO Yu et al. (2016) , RefCOCO+ Yu et al. (2016) , and RefCOCOg Mao et al. (2016) benchmarks. We report the performance (cIoU) evaluated on validation, testA, and testB splits for RefCOCO and RefCOCO+, and validation and test splits for RefCOCOg. For SAM3, + denotes joint text-and-bounding-box prompting, whereas the standard setting uses text-only prompting.
Method
MLLM
Dec.
ReVOS
RefAVS (Seen)
RefAVS (Unseen)
J&F
J
F
J&F
J
F
J&F
J
F
Oracle with GT
SAM Kirillov et al. (2023)
-
SAM
–
–
–
93.3
91.4
95.2
91.9
93.0
90.8
SAM2 Ravi et al. (2024)
-
SAM2
79.6
76.8
82.6
92.2
90.4
94.1
92.0
92.5
91.6
SAM3 Carion et al. (2025)
-
SAM3
25.5
24.1
26.8
66.6
65.3
67.9
71.4
71.4
71.3
SAM3 + Carion et al. (2025)
-
SAM3 +
30.9
30.1
31.6
71.6
70.3
72.0
76.5
75.1
77.8
Appendix
Table B3: Reasoning video object segmentation on the ReVOS Yan et al. (2024) benchmark and referring audio-visual segmentation on the RefAVS Wang et al. (2024) benchmark. We report region similarity ( J ), contour accuracy ( F ), and their average ( J&F ).
Method
MLLM
Dec.
RY-V
RD17
MeViS
Oracle with GT
SAM2 Ravi et al. (2024)
-
SAM2
86.8
87.4
81.8
SAM3 Carion et al. (2025)
-
SAM3
43.3
51.3
34.5
SAM3 + Carion et al. (2025)
-
SAM3 +
46.7
52.7
40.5
LLM-3B with SAM2
Qwen2.5-Omni-3B Qwen Team (2025a)
Qw2.5OM-3B
SAM2
32.4
53.1
21.2
Appendix
Table B4: Referring video object segmentation on the Ref-YouTube-VOS (RY-V) Seo et al. (2020) , Ref-DAVIS17 (RD17) Khoreva et al. (2018) , and MeViS Ding et al. (2023a) benchmarks. We report the performance ( J&F ) evaluated on the validation set of each benchmark. + indicates that the pre-trained frozen decoder (Dec.) takes both a text and bounding box coordinates as inputs.
LLM Judge
RY-V
RD17
MeViS
ReVOS
RefAVS(U)
Qw3VL-8B
72.3
78.9
55.8
60.5
78.8
Qw2.5VL-7B
71.9
78.1
54.5
58.5
77.6
Qw2.5VL-32B
71.4
78.5
53.6
58.7
77.2
Llama3.2Vi-11B
70.5
74.6
52.9
57.6
76.8
Appendix
Table B5: Ablation on the LLM judge. We report J&F on the referring video object segmentation benchmarks, the RefAVS Unseen test split, and the ReVOS validation split. We use SAM2 as the decoder.
S1
S2
S3
S4
RefCOCO
RefCOCO+
RefCOCOg
val
tA
tB
val
tA
tB
val
test
✗
✗
✗
✗
74.5
75.8
69.1
66.5
71.2
60.5
71.8
71.2
✓
✗
✗
✗
75.6
77.2
70.6
68.2
73.5
61.8
72.9
72.1
✓
✓
✗
✗
76.2
77.9
71.0
68.4
74.1
62.4
73.2
72.8
✓
✓
✓
✗
76.8
78.5
70.8
69.5
74.8
63.1
72.9
73.3
✓
✗
✗
✓
77.5
79.6
71.6
70.8
76.2
64.2
73.9
73.8
Appendix
Table B6: Performance with respect to variants of the stages on the referring expression segmentation benchmarks. We report cIoU evaluated on validation, testA, and testB splits for RefCOCO and RefCOCO+, and validation and test splits for RefCOCOg. We use SAM2 as the decoder.
S1
S2
S3
S4
J&F
ReVOS
RefAVS (U)
✗
✗
✗
✗
48.8
64.8
✓
✗
✗
✗
50.5
69.0
✓
✓
✗
✗
55.7
73.3
✓
✓
✓
✗
58.2
75.6
✓
✗
✗
✓
56.6
74.9
Appendix
Table B7: Performance with respect to variants of the stages on ReVOS and RefAVS. We report J&F on the ReVOS validation set and the RefAVS Unseen test split. We use SAM2 as the decoder.
Figure B1: Performance at each stage on (a) RefCOCO testA, (b) ReVOS, and (c) RefAVS Unseen.
Figure B2: Compressed-context token distribution and reward dynamics. (a) Distribution of compressed-context lengths across optimization stages. (b) Compression-rate reward during Stage 2. (c) Compression-fidelity reward during Stage 3.
Figure B3: Qualitative examples on RefAVS, ReVOS and R-VOS benchmarks.
Figure B4: Impact of compression. TCA extracts target-relevant context from the reasoning path, yielding a more precise mask.
Figure B5: Failure case from RefAVS. When the reasoning phase identifies a related but incorrect object, compression preserves the erroneous target context and cannot recover the correct localization.
Multimodal Large Language Models have made great progress in grounding tasks, yet existing methods still struggle to unify precise localization and complex reasoning. For one thing, text-based methods rely on coordinates or index prediction, severely limiting the perceptual capabilities of the model for dense visual objects. Meanwhile, latent token-based methods employ special tokens without inherent spatial references and use a decoding mechanism that lacks thinking steps, weakening high-level reasoning capabilities. Consequently, developing a unified framework that excels in both perception and reasoning remains challenging. To address this, we propose Mixture-of-Thought-Tokens (Motto), a new free-form multimodal grounding method that bridges the perception-reasoning gap, enabling MLLMs to empower diverse, arbitrary grounding queries. Specifically, we introduce Spatially-Grounded Thought Tokenization to explicitly align special tokens with spatial locations for clear spatial correspondence and visual interpretability. We further design a Context-Adaptive Chain-of-Tokens that dynamically switch grounding modes within an interleaved reasoning chain, achieving robust grounding across tasks of varying complexity. In addition, we construct PR-Bench, a new referring expression comprehension benchmark to evaluate the perception-reasoning gap. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Motto achieves state-of-the-art performance across diverse free-form grounding tasks.
Tianyi Gao, Han Fang, Tianyi Ding +9
State Key Laboratory of Human-Machine Hybrid Augmented Intelligence, Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Xi’an Jiaotong University · Xingchen AGI Lab, China Telecom Artificial Intelligence Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications +2
Recently, multimodal large-scale reasoning models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in solving complex tasks through long Chains-of-Thought (M-CoT). However, excessively long reasoning trajectories incur substantial computational costs and significant KV-cache pressure. Existing CoT compression and alignment paradigms mainly rely on static rules or single-dimensional preferences, lacking fine-grained cross-modal constraints; as a result, they are prone to inducing visual laziness and hallucinatory reasoning. To address these issues, we propose Modality-Contrastive Preference Optimization (MCPO), a highly sample-efficient two-stage length-compression method that requires fewer than 900 training samples. In the compression stage, we introduce a step-level Normalized Cross-Modal Mutual Information (NCMI) pruning algorithm, which automatically identifies and removes visual-independent reasoning steps by comparing the reasoning discrepancies between with-image and no-image contexts. This significantly reduces redundancy and hallucinatory content in the reasoning chains. In the alignment stage, the model first undergoes supervised fine-tuning to achieve domain-adaptive initialization, followed by optimization using an asymmetric multimodal length-controlled preference loss. This objective adopts a highly nonlinear odds-ratio formulation that provides steep gradients in the with-image context to reinforce length constraints for preferred trajectories, while applying a scaled, flat-gradient linear difference in the no-image context to maintain modality consistency, thereby achieving stable cross-modal preference alignment. Extensive experiments on mainstream base models such as Qwen3-VL-Thinking show that our method can reduce CoT length by up to 69.5% and achieve up to 3.34x end-to-end inference speedup while preserving original accuracy.
Reinforcement learning (RL) has recently delivered substantial gains in multimodal reasoning, opening a promising route for fine-grained visual perception. Yet for multi-image reasoning grounding (MRG), reasoning over real-world multi-image contexts toward pixel-precise localization, existing RL-based approaches overlook two characteristics intrinsic to this paradigm: a coarse-to-fine hierarchical reasoning pattern, and heterogeneously distributed task--sample difficulties. In this work, we present MG-Thinker, a post-training RL framework that advances a new MRG paradigm featuring such hierarchical reasoning, supported by a curated 25K MRG dataset with task-adaptive Chain-of-Thought (CoT) annotations that elicit multi-perspective evidence before conclusion. To remedy the heterogeneous task--sample difficulties, we further propose Bi-Axial DAPO (BiA-DAPO), which decomposes rollout advantages along an intra-group signal axis and an inter-group competence axis through two complementary mechanisms, both grounded on our defined candidate pool for stable group-level statistics. Extensive experiments show that MG-Thinker achieves state-of-the-art performance on multi-image reasoning grounding while consistently improving generalization across multi-image understanding and diverse multimodal benchmarks.
Heyu Huang, Chi Chen, Zonghao Guo +3
Huazhong University of Science and Technology Wuhan, China · Tsinghua University Beijing, China