Image-based spatial reasoning requires perception, decomposition, and inference, but the stage that limits accuracy can change during training. Answer-level rewards neither localize failures to individual stages nor provide discriminative group-relative feedback when all rollouts receive the same reward. Process supervision provides intermediate feedback, but fixed weights cannot adapt reward allocation to these changing bottlenecks. To address this gap, we propose CALIPER, an adaptive process-reward framework supported by SpatialTrace, a corpus of stage-decomposed spatial reasoning traces. CALIPER jointly estimates the associations between stage-wise reference coverage and answer correctness through within-group ridge regression, using these associations as utility proxies to gradually update reward weights. The resulting process reward supervises all rollout groups, including uniformly failing ones. Because utility estimates can become unreliable when answer-discriminative groups are scarce, a closed-loop harness monitors estimator reliability and validation performance to guide checkpoint rollback, rollout diversification, and early stopping. Extensive experiments across eight benchmarks and three backbones show that CALIPER achieves the highest mean under both one-shot and harness training, with consistent gains over fixed allocation across RL optimizers. Further analyses confirm the benefits of adaptive reward allocation and harness control, with favorable scaling in model/data size.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Outcome-only rewards (a), as in GRPO ( Shao et al., 2024 ) and DeepSeek-R1 ( Guo et al., 2025 ) , supervise final answers. Reference-assisted verification (b) improves grading but retains uniform-reward degeneracy. Process supervision (c) combines human-labeled feedback ( Lightman et al., 2024 ) or Math-Shepherd scores ( Wang et al., 2024b ) with fixed weights. CALIPER (d) adapts these weights from estimated utility.
Figure 2: SpatialTrace examples (left) and source composition (right).
Figure 3: CALIPER scores stages against reference traces, estimates utility from groups with mixed answer correctness, and updates the policy using rewards for every group. Validation and estimator diagnostics guide continuation, rollback, rollout diversification or stopping.
Method
Harness
3DSR
MMB
MME-RW
MMStar
Omni3D
RoboSp
SAT
SpatEval
Avg
Δ
1st
Qwen3-VL-4B ( Bai et al., 2025a )
Direct (No RL)
✗
55.00
89.00
49.00
61.00
38.90
43.92
75.00
56.00
58.48
✗
1
CoT (No RL)
✗
59.00
92.00
47.50
67.00
31.85
44.72
73.50
68.50
60.51
✗
0
[0.5pt/1.5pt]
✗
60.50
91.00
46.00
66.50
33.70
46.15
76.00
70.00
61.23
0
Outcome Reward
✓
58.00
91.00
50.50
64.50
33.65
46.72
76.00
70.50
61.36
+0.13
0
[0.5pt/1.5pt]
✗
61.00
92.00
47.50
68.00
33.95
47.13
77.00
68.00
61.82
1
Table 1: Main results (%). Avg is the mean, and 1st counts wins (ties included). Bold / underline mark best/second-best scores. Δ compares protocols.
Method
BLINK
RealWorld QA
Emb Spatial
View Spatial
Avg
Direct (no RL)
80.50
73.00
76.50
37.50
66.88
CoT (no RL)
83.00
75.00
69.50
43.00
67.63
Outcome Reward
84.00
71.50
72.50
41.50
67.38
Reference-Assisted
85.00
71.50
73.00
43.00
68.13
Process Reward Model
80.50
72.00
72.00
45.00
67.38
Frozen α
83.00
74.50
73.00
41.50
68.00
Table 2: Qwen3-VL-4B OOD accuracy (%).
Figure 6
Figure 5: Reward-component (a) and framework (b) ablations. Gaps are in percentage points.
Figure 6: Hyperparameter sensitivity.
Figure 7: Qualitative effects of adaptive stage supervision.
Figure 8: Scaling with model size, training data, update budget and trace coverage.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Family
Source datasets
Items
Primary reasoning demand
3D metric
3DSRBench, Omni3D-Bench, SAT-Spatial-VQA-5k
310
Depth, orientation and metric relations
General multimodal
MMBench, MME-RealWorld-Lite, MMStar
310
Object grounding and open-domain relations
Region-level spatial
RoboSpatial-Home, SpatialEval, SpatialRGPT-Bench
310
Placement and local spatial relations
Physical reasoning
SeePhys
250
Physical quantities and plausibility
Total
Ten source datasets
1,180
Single-image questions with verifiable answers
Appendix
Table 4: SpatialTrace source families and reasoning demands.
Question Validity item, binary “Given the image and the question, can an attentive reader determine a single answer from visible evidence?” positive The image contains the objects and relations the question asks about, and one answer follows from them. failure The evidence is occluded or outside the frame, the reference frame is unspecified, or several answers remain defensible.
Perception Fidelity perception, three-point ordinal “Does each observation report objects, attributes or positions that are visible in the image and needed for the question?” positive Faithful reports only visible content and covers the evidence the answer depends on. failure Partial is correct but omits one needed object or relation. Unfaithful describes absent objects, misreads a position or orientation, or states the answer in place of evidence.
Decomposition Adequacy decomposition, three-point ordinal “Would answering these subquestions in order suffice to answer the original question?” positive Adequate covers every object, quantity and reference frame the answer depends on. failure Partial misses one of them. Inadequate restates the question, targets irrelevant objects, or answers the subquestions itself.
Inference Soundness inference, five-point Likert “How well does the inference derive the reference answer from the recorded observations?” positive 5 every step follows from the observations and reaches the reference answer, 4 it is sound apart from one minor gap. failure 3 it reaches the answer through one weakly supported step, 2 it relies on facts absent from the perception stage or on unjustified numerical precision, 1 it contradicts the observations or reaches a different answer.
Alignment Agreement item, binary “Judging from the image, is the reference answer supported at its stated precision?” positive The judgment, made before the recorded answer alignment is shown, matches that record. failure The rater finds an unsupported label or unjustified precision that the record accepts, or rejects a recorded concern.
Appendix
Table 5: Rubric used by the SpatialTrace raters.
Criterion
Items
Positive ratings
Positive (%)
α
Question validity
100
269/300
89.7
0.785
Perception fidelity
95
226/285
79.3
0.715
Decomposition adequacy
94
217/282
77.0
0.640
Inference soundness
95
212/285
74.4
0.808
Alignment agreement
100
255/300
85.0
0.765
Appendix
Table 6: Human assessment of SpatialTrace references.
Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) performs coarse-grained credit assignment in reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) by assigning the same advantage to all tokens in a rollout. Process reward models can provide finer-grained supervision, but they require step-level annotation or additional reward modeling. We show that hidden-state distributions contain a useful signal for local reasoning quality that can be extracted using only outcome-level correctness labels available in RLVR. Specifically, within each GRPO group, the Wasserstein distance between span-level hidden state distributions of correct and incorrect rollouts increases around regions where their local reasoning quality diverges. This association holds both across examples and within individual trajectories, suggesting that hidden-state distributional divergence can serve as a self-supervision signal for fine-grained credit assignment. We formalize this observation with a separation theorem showing that, under mild structural assumptions, post-divergence spans have larger Wasserstein distances than pre-divergence spans whenever the population-level distributional gap exceeds finite-sample noise. Motivated by this result, we propose Span-level Hidden state Enabled Advantage Reweighting (SHEAR), which modifies GRPO by using span-level Wasserstein distances to scale token-level advantages, amplifying updates on tokens whose hidden states are more separated from the opposing group. The method requires no additional model and only minimal changes to the training pipeline. Experiments on five mathematical reasoning benchmarks and five code generation benchmarks show improvements over standard GRPO and strong performance relative to supervised process reward models, while requiring no additional annotation or reward model training.
Xinzhu Chen, Wei He, Huichuan Fan +7
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Meituan · Tianjin University +3
Contemporary reinforcement learning with verifiable reward methods post-train language models on multi-step reasoning by assigning a single outcome reward uniformly across all tokens in a trajectory. Such uniform assignment ignores which steps contributed to success or failure. Improving credit assignment can address this limitation by enabling targeted refinement of faulty reasoning steps, rather than updating entire trajectories uniformly. Resets are one such simple mechanism, enabling more precise credit assignment by returning to an intermediate state and resampling counterfactual continuations, so that outcome differences can be attributed to decisions made at that point. We propose two such methods: Random-Reset Policy Optimization (RRPO), where reset states are drawn randomly from reasoning steps, and Self-Reset Policy Optimization (SRPO), where the model self-localizes the erroneous step in an incorrect trajectory and resets there. We analyze these methods within the Conservative Policy Iteration (CPI) framework. Extending CPI with a credit-assignment oracle that targets improvable states yields provable improvements over random resets. Across models and reasoning benchmarks, SRPO consistently outperforms standard GRPO and RRPO by sampling multiple suffix continuations at a self-localized reset and learning from their rewards, using only the model itself with no external supervision.
Ankur Samanta, Akshayaa Magesh, Ayush Jain +7
1Meta AI · 2Columbia University · *Work done at Meta +2
Current Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit remarkable general capabilities but significantly underperform in spatial reasoning tasks. Existing approaches treat this gap as a knowledge deficit, relying on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to ingest labeled spatial data from external vision sources or synthetic engines. In contrast, we argue that for many tasks, spatial reasoning capabilities are already present in pre-trained LRMs but require alignment through logical coherence under geometric 2D and 3D constraints. In this work, we propose a self-supervised reinforcement learning (RL) framework that targets the internal reasoning process without requiring ground-truth annotations. By formalizing the notion of consistency verifiers -- reward functions that check for geometric and semantic consistency under transformations -- we demonstrate that models can improve their spatial reasoning abilities. We use both image transformations, like flipping, and textual transformations, like swapping the order of objects in the question, and propose a new optimal transport-based RL strategy, OT-GRPO, which is a minimal-matching variant of group relative policy optimization tailored to pairwise verifiers. We show that this label-free consistency training approaches the accuracy of models trained with ground-truth supervision and achieves similar generalization across diverse tasks and data domains.
Theo Uscidda, Marta Tintore Gazulla, Maks Ovsjanikov +2
CREST, ENSAE, Institut Polytechnique de Paris · Google Zurich · Google DeepMind