Unified multimodal models can both generate and understand images within a single set of weights, offering an opportunity to use image synthesis as training supervision for visual comprehension. However, existing visual chain-of-thought methods rely on human-annotated helper images during training and require slow image generation at test time. We present SelfThinker, the first self-evolving framework that turns a unified model's self-generated visual thoughts into stronger understanding without human image annotations. Given a visual problem, SelfThinker samples candidate helper images from its generation pathway and uses its frozen understanding pathway to score each candidate via conditional pointwise mutual information. High-utility visual thoughts then refine the generator via flow matching and serve as privileged teacher context for on-policy self-distillation. At inference, SelfThinker reasons directly from the original image in text without generating intermediate images. Although trained only on small synthetic visual-search and navigation datasets, SelfThinker transfers broadly to natural-image and spatial benchmarks, raising the seven-benchmark average of ThinkMorph-7B from 52.7 to 64.0 (+11.3 points). Controlled image-perturbation probes further show that SelfThinker surpasses ThinkMorph-7B by up to 40.4 points and its pretrained BAGEL-7B backbone by up to 23.2 points across fine-grained and spatial perception tasks. Our code is available at https://github.com/zhangquanchen/SelfThinker.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of SelfThinker . The upper-left Self-Evolution panel summarizes the closed loop of imagining candidate visual thoughts, verifying reliable ones, and evolving into a stronger model. Imagine : a shared UMM with Generation and Understanding pathways produces candidate visual thoughts and decoded answers. Verify : the frozen Understanding pathway scores each candidate by its log-likelihood utility, calibrates the acceptance threshold against thoughts from other problems, and selects the top verified thought under the ground-truth answer or majority vote. Evolve : the verified thought is distilled into the Student Understanding pathway via on-policy token-level JSD distillation from the EMA Teacher ( SelfThinker ), supported by flow-matching generator refinement ( SelfThinker -Gen). No human image annotation is used
Method
Visual thoughts
Self-generated imagery
No image annotations
Thought verification
Text-only inference
Visual Sketchpad ( Hu et al., 2024 )
✓
×
×
×
×
MVoT ( Li et al., 2025 ) , ThinkMorph ( Gu et al., 2025 )
✓
✓
×
×
×
Visual-OPSD ( Li et al., 2026a ) , Vision-OPD ( Yuan et al., 2026 )
✓
×
×
×
✓
u-OPSD ( Li et al., 2026b ) , Canon ( Gkountouras et al., 2026 )
×
×
✓
×
✓
SelfThinker (ours)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Table 1: Comparison of SelfThinker with related visual-thought and self-distillation methods across five key properties: reasoning with intermediate visual thoughts, learning from the model’s own self-generated visual thoughts rather than external tools or curated datasets, operating without human image annotations (bounding boxes, masks, or path overlays), explicitly verifying candidate visual thoughts, and supporting text-only inference at test time
Method
VSP
ChartQA
V*
MMVP
SAT
BLINK
CV-B.
Average
Δ
ThinkMorph-7B ( Gu et al., 2025 )
1.2
52.7
53.9
79.0
55.3
53.6
73.4
52.7
–
SelfThinker (Nav)
2.0
78.1
63.4
80.3
58.0
60.3
78.0
60.0
+7.3
SelfThinker (Mix)
5.5
74.7
70.2
79.3
54.7
58.0
83.5
60.8
+8.1
SelfThinker (Vote)
13.0
81.9
67.0
80.0
60.0
59.3
82.4
63.4
+10.7
SelfThinker
15.8
80.1
70.2
82.3
60.0
58.2
81.7
64.0
+11.3
Δ vs. ThinkMorph-7B
+14.6
+27.4
+16.3
+3.3
+4.7
+4.6
+8.3
+11.3
–
Table 2: Main results on seven multimodal benchmarks under a unified judge (Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507) and text-only decoding. SelfThinker variants distill verified visual thoughts from synthesized navigation ( Nav ), combined ( Mix ), or visual-search pools (under label-free rollout Vote or ground-truth answer direction) into single-image text reasoning. Bold marks the best score in each column and Δ gives the gain over ThinkMorph-7B. CV-B.: CV-Bench
Figure 2: Per-benchmark and average scores of ThinkMorph-7B, SelfThinker (Nav), SelfThinker (Mix), and SelfThinker under the unified judge and text-only decoding. Numbers above the bars indicate the gains of SelfThinker over ThinkMorph-7B
Figure 3: Analysis of the distilled student. a Percentage of outputs that state a final answer before the image slot under the benchmark protocol, for ThinkMorph-7B and SelfThinker . b Image-condition probe at 512 thinking tokens for pretrained BAGEL-7B, ThinkMorph-7B, and SelfThinker across V*, MMVP, CV-Bench-2D, and CV-Bench-3D. Full bar height gives accuracy with the real problem image, and the pale base below the horizontal tick gives accuracy on its pixel scramble, so the upper saturated segment represents the visual gain
Task and direction
Yield
Top-1 AUC
Win rate (%)
Margin (nats)
Navigation, answer direction
0.674
0.821
57.0
2.10
Visual search, answer direction
0.578
0.660
54.1
0.20
Visual search, vote direction (label-free)
0.578
0.647
54.5
0.21
accurate-vote subset (93% of items)
0.583
0.654
54.9
0.23
Table 3: Reliability verification on the diagnostic splits (500 items each). Yield is the fraction of items with a verified thought, Top-1 AUC compares the top intrinsic thought with the mean of mismatched utilities, Win rate is the percentage of intrinsic thoughts that outscore their paired mismatched thought, and Margin is the mean utility difference in nats
Figure 4: What intrinsic verification measures. a Ground-truth thoughts of ThinkMorph’s training tasks and of fresh navigation maps, verified against mismatched ground-truth thoughts. b Utility u (nats) on fresh navigation for verified intrinsic thoughts v⋆ , programmatic GT path overlays, all self-generated candidates, and mismatched thoughts from other maps. Dots show means and vertical bars show interquartile ranges
Figure 5: Verified visual thoughts on diagnostic items. Each row shows the problem, the programmatic reference thought (dashed green frame, not used by verification), and the six intrinsic visual thoughts sorted by utility u (nats). The dark blue frame marks the verified top thought, and light blue frames mark other thoughts exceeding the item’s 95th-percentile mismatched threshold printed above each row. Row 1: the verified thought draws the shortest path. Row 2: the verified thoughts re-render the scene consistently. Rows 3 and 4 (visual search): marking the queried target scores highest, whereas boxes on distractor objects score lowest
Method
Configuration
Average
Δ vs. ThinkMorph-7B
ThinkMorph-7B
Base interleaved model
52.7
–
SelfThinker (Nav)
On-policy self-distillation with verified navigation thoughts
60.0
+7.3
SelfThinker (Mix)
On-policy self-distillation with combined navigation and visual-search thoughts
60.8
+8.1
Prompt-OPSD
Visual-search distillation with transition prompt only (no second image)
60.7
+8.0
Noise-OPSD
Visual-search distillation with uniform RGB noise in place of the thought
61.8
+9.1
SelfThinker (Vote)
Visual-search distillation with thoughts verified via majority voting (label-free)
63.4
+10.7
Table 4: Ablation of the self-evolving understanding update across training task pools, teacher contexts, and supervision directions. Average gives the seven-benchmark mean and Δ gives the improvement over ThinkMorph-7B
Task
Method
Margin (nats)
Win rate (%)
Top-1 AUC
Yield
Navigation
ThinkMorph-7B
2.10
57.0
0.821
0.674
Navigation
Rand-RFT
2.06
57.3
0.825
0.659
Navigation
SelfThinker -Gen
2.96
60.0
0.847
0.694
Visual search
ThinkMorph-7B
0.20
54.1
0.660
0.578
Visual search
SelfThinker -Gen
0.27
54.4
0.675
0.632
Table 5: Ablation of the supporting generation update on the diagnostic splits (500 items per task). Each generator draws six visual thoughts per item, and the frozen ThinkMorph-7B understanding pathway scores them. SelfThinker -Gen improves every verification metric over both ThinkMorph-7B and Rand-RFT
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Pool
Problem image
Question and answer
Reference thought
Navigation
Frozen-Lake grid, 4×4 to 8×8 , 12–28% holes, 192×192 px
Move sequence along the unique shortest path (2–14 moves, mean 5.1)
Colour of a target shape or shape of a target colour (13 classes)
Red bounding box
Appendix
Table 6: Synthesized problem pools built outside the training data of ThinkMorph-7B. Each pool contains 1,500 training items and 500 diagnostic items. Programmatic reference thoughts are used only as diagnostic baselines and never enter verification or model training
Setting
SelfThinker -Gen (generation update)
SelfThinker (understanding update)
Trainable pathway
Generation and understanding (shared decoder)
Understanding; generation pathway unused
Objective
Flow matching on thought latents (weight 1.0), cross-entropy on answer (0.25)
Token-level JSD, β=0.5 , temperature 1.0, top- k 256, per-token clip 0.05
Teacher
–
EMA of the student, decay 0.995
Student sampling
–
Temperature 1.0, up to 128 new tokens, one image skip
Table 7: Training hyperparameters for SelfThinker -Gen and SelfThinker . Both updates start from ThinkMorph-7B and run on one node with eight NVIDIA H20 GPUs
Method
VSP
ChartQA
V*
MMVP
SAT
BLINK
CV-B.
Average
Δ
ThinkMorph-7B
1.2
52.7
53.9
79.0
55.3
53.6
73.4
52.7
–
Understanding evolution: navigation and mixed pools
SelfThinker (Nav)
2.0
78.1
63.4
80.3
58.0
60.3
78.0
60.0
+7.3
SelfThinker (Mix)
5.5
74.7
70.2
79.3
54.7
58.0
83.5
60.8
+8.1
Understanding evolution: visual-search pool and teacher controls
Prompt-OPSD
3.3
77.7
68.6
79.7
56.7
58.4
80.6
60.7
+8.0
Appendix
Table 8: Per-benchmark breakdown of task-pool variants, teacher-context controls, and SelfThinker under the unified judge and text-only decoding. Δ gives the improvement in the seven-benchmark average relative to ThinkMorph-7B. CV-B.: CV-Bench
Figure 6: Comparison of SelfThinker variants and teacher-context controls. a Gain in the seven-benchmark average relative to ThinkMorph-7B across navigation, mixed-pool, and visual-search distillation runs. b Per-benchmark gains relative to ThinkMorph-7B for Prompt-OPSD, Noise-OPSD, and SelfThinker
Figure 7: Answer consensus versus imagery on visual search (500 diagnostic items). a Items split by answer agreement (vote share at least 0.8) and visual agreement (mean pairwise cosine similarity of the six thoughts, median split), with the vote accuracy of each cell. b Paired win rate against mismatched thoughts under the answer direction, the vote direction, and the accurate-vote subset. c Utility difference u(self)−u(mismatched) for thoughts whose trace answered correctly versus wrongly
Figure 8: Improvements in the generation pathway under SelfThinker -Gen. a Utility margin (nats) of navigation thoughts drawn by ThinkMorph-7B, Rand-RFT, and SelfThinker -Gen on the 500-item diagnostic split. b Bounding-box generation rate and above-threshold pass rates on visual search before and after SelfThinker -Gen
Method
Own
None
Neutral
True ans.
Thought only
Own − None
ThinkMorph-7B
45.9
39.7
38.0
40.7
35.4
+6.1
SelfThinker (Nav)
92.9
92.9
91.2
96.4
89.1
+0.0
SelfThinker (Vote)
95.4
95.3
95.3
99.7
93.0
+0.1
SelfThinker
99.0
98.9
98.9
99.5
96.5
+0.1
Appendix
Table 9: Context interventions on the 1,092 verified visual-search items (accuracy in %). Own: the item’s verified visual thought as second image. None: no second image (single-image deployment). Neutral: a neutral sentence appended. True ans.: the ground-truth answer appended. Thought only: the verified visual thought replaces the problem image. The last column reports the difference between Own and None, measuring single-image internalization
Figure 9: Context interventions on the 1,092 verified visual-search items across ThinkMorph-7B, SelfThinker (Nav), SelfThinker (Vote), and SelfThinker under five conditions (accuracy in %). Rows compare providing the item’s verified thought as second image, no second image (single-image deployment), appending a neutral sentence or the ground-truth answer, or replacing the problem image with the verified thought alone
Method
real
real †
wrong †
gray
scr.
×2
×4
×8
×16
σ1
σ2
σ4
σ8
ChartQA, horizontal bars (444 items, 222 with a different previous image)
ThinkMorph-7B
32.2
13.1
8.6
5.0
5.6
30.6
10.1
4.7
3.8
32.7
20.5
4.1
4.7
SelfThinker (Nav)
51.4
33.3
11.7
9.7
10.1
48.9
19.4
–
–
48.2
36.7
10.8
10.1
Prompt-OPSD
63.3
52.7
9.0
11.7
10.4
59.0
24.5
12.4
–
60.1
45.0
14.4
–
Noise-OPSD
66.2
58.1
14.4
12.6
10.8
62.4
26.6
12.6
–
67.1
46.8
18.2
14.4
SelfThinker
67.3
52.3
14.9
10.4
11.3
64.9
25.7
11.7
13.7
68.9
52.3
18.2
12.8
Appendix
Table 10: Image-condition probe on ChartQA and V*. Accuracy (%) under each condition of the problem image (256 thinking tokens). real † and wrong † : real image and another item’s image on the subset whose previous row shows a different image. scr.: pixels in random order. ×k : mosaic with k -pixel blocks. σk : Gaussian blur with σ=k pixels. Dashes: not run
Figure 10: Conditions of the image-condition probe, illustrated on a ChartQA horizontal-bar item and a CV-Bench-2D item. The problem image is replaced by another item’s image, a gray canvas, its pixels in random order, a 2×2 or 4×4 tile permutation, a mosaic with square blocks of 4 or 16 pixels, or a Gaussian blur with σ of 2 or 8 pixels at the native resolution shown under each benchmark name
Figure 11: Image-condition probe at 256 thinking tokens across ThinkMorph-7B, SelfThinker (Nav), Prompt-OPSD, Noise-OPSD, and SelfThinker . a Accuracy with the real problem image. b – d Visual sensitivity (accuracy gain in percentage points of the real problem image over pixel scramble, another item’s distinct image, and Gaussian blur with σ=8 pixels)
Method
real
real †
wrong †
gray
scr.
×2
×4
×8
×16
σ1
σ2
σ4
σ8
MMVP (300 items)
ThinkMorph-7B
44.7
44.7
47.7
49.0
45.3
45.3
47.3
49.7
47.0
47.3
51.7
46.3
50.0
SelfThinker (Nav)
69.3
69.3
40.0
48.3
45.0
69.7
61.7
53.0
49.7
67.7
68.7
63.3
57.3
Prompt-OPSD
67.0
67.0
36.7
49.7
49.0
66.7
61.0
54.0
–
68.0
65.0
62.3
56.7
Noise-OPSD
73.3
73.3
29.0
49.3
48.7
70.3
61.3
56.7
–
72.7
69.3
62.7
54.7
SelfThinker
78.0
78.0
26.7
48.7
46.3
74.0
62.7
53.3
52.7
79.7
72.3
63.0
62.7
Appendix
Table 11: Image-condition probe on MMVP and CV-Bench. Accuracy (%) under each condition of the problem image (256 thinking tokens). real † and wrong † : real image and another item’s image on the subset whose previous row shows a different image. scr.: pixels in random order. ×k : mosaic with k -pixel blocks. σk : Gaussian blur with σ=k pixels. Dashes: not run
Method
real
scr.
×2
×4
×8
×16
σ2
σ4
σ8
2×2
4×4
8×8
16×16
V* (191 items)
BAGEL-7B
48.7
37.7
48.2
–
42.4
40.3
52.4
44.5
42.4
43.5
44.5
43.5
40.8
ThinkMorph-7B
34.0
36.6
35.6
–
34.6
36.1
36.1
35.1
35.1
37.2
36.1
37.7
36.1
SelfThinker (Nav)
56.0
38.2
57.6
–
–
38.2
56.5
53.9
–
52.9
54.5
50.8
44.0
SelfThinker
67.0
34.0
66.5
–
61.8
46.1
66.5
56.5
46.1
57.1
57.1
53.9
47.6
MMVP (300 items)
Appendix
Table 12: Image-condition probe at 512 thinking tokens across mosaic, Gaussian blur, and tile-permutation ladders, including the pretrained BAGEL-7B backbone. scr.: pixels in random order. ×k : mosaic with k -pixel blocks. σk : Gaussian blur with σ=k pixels. g×g : permutation of a g×g grid of intact image tiles. Dashes: not run
Figure 12: Accuracy across mosaic block sizes (top), Gaussian blur σ (middle), and g×g tile permutations (bottom) on V*, MMVP, CV-Bench-2D, and CV-Bench-3D for BAGEL-7B (512 tokens), ThinkMorph-7B, SelfThinker (Nav), and SelfThinker . Squares on the right mark the pixel-scramble baseline
Most unified large multimodal models (LMMs) that support both visual understanding and image generation still rely on curated post-training supervision, such as human annotations, preference labels, or external reward models. We ask whether a unified LMM can improve both abilities autonomously using only unlabeled images. We propose a self-evolving training framework with three internal roles: a Proposer that generates visual questions, a Solver that answers and evaluates them, and a Generator that synthesizes images. Training uses only self-derived consistency signals, without human annotations, preference labels, or task-trained external reward/judge models. To stabilize learning, we introduce Solver Token Entropy (STE), a continuous difficulty signal based on token-level prediction uncertainty that remains useful even when sample-level consistency becomes unreliable. For image generation, we design a multi-scale internal evaluation scheme that combines question-answer fidelity scoring with cycle-consistent captioning. This creates a solver-mediated coupling, where better visual understanding enables more reliable generation assessment and stronger internal training signals. The framework preserves the same role decomposition, reward logic, and training schedule across diffusion-based BLIP3o, rectified-flow BAGEL, and autoregressive VARGPT-v1.1 architectures, requiring only each backbone's native prompting and generation interface. Across eight understanding metrics, our method consistently improves over the corresponding base models. On BAGEL, it achieves a +3.5% absolute gain on MMMU and improves GenEval image generation performance from 82% to 85%. Code and models are publicly released.
''Thinking with Images'' has emerged as an effective paradigm for fine-grained visual reasoning: by explicitly zooming into relevant regions and reasoning over crops, models can access local evidence that is difficult to recover from a single global image. However, this benefit comes with redundant tool invocations and longer inference traces. Moreover, when such behaviors are learned mainly from outcome reward, the resulting intermediate crops or visual cues can be noisy or fail to faithfully capture task-relevant visual evidence. In this work, we ask whether the reasoning benefits of ''Thinking with Images'' can be internalized through Thinking with Imagination: an internal process that decides where to look and imagines what visual cues closer inspection would reveal without actually invoking tools. We propose Imagine-OPD, an on-policy self-distillation framework in which a teacher plays the role of a ''Thinking with Images'' reasoner during training: it receives privileged zoomed evidence views derived from annotated regions, and supervises the model's own imagination reasoning trajectories. Imagine-OPD does not require an external teacher or high-quality imagination demonstrations. Experiments on vision-centric benchmarks show that Imagine-OPD achieves the best average performance among compared models while significantly reducing inference overhead compared with ''Thinking with Images'' methods.
Yishuo Cai, Jiahui Liu, Yuanxin Liu +9
1State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University · 2Central South University · University of Science and Technology of China +2
Text-to-image generation has advanced rapidly with diffusion models, progressing from CLIP and T5 conditioning to unified systems where a single LLM backbone handles both visual understanding and generation. Despite the architectural unification, these systems frequently fail to faithfully align complex prompts during synthesis, even though they remain highly accurate at verifying whether an image satisfies those same prompts. We formalize this as the understanding-generation gap and propose UniReasoner, a framework that leverages the LLM as a universal reasoner to convert its understanding strength into direct generation guidance. Given a prompt, the LLM first produces a coarse visual draft composed of discrete vision tokens. It then performs a self-critique by evaluating the draft for prompt consistency, producing a grounded textual evaluation that pinpoints what needs to be corrected. Finally, a diffusion model is conditioned jointly on the prompt, the visual draft, and the evaluation, ensuring that generation is guided by explicit corrective signals. Each signal addresses a limitation of the other: the draft provides a concrete, scene-level anchor that reduces under-specification in text-only conditioning, while the evaluation turns verification into grounded, actionable constraints that correct omissions, hallucinations, and relational errors. Experiments show that UniReasoner improves compositional alignment and semantic faithfulness under the same diffusion backbone while maintaining image quality, demonstrating a practical way to exploit LLM reasoning to close the understanding-generation gap.