Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has become a standard reasoning strategy in Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs), showing strong performance in complex vision-language tasks such as reasoning segmentation. However, our analysis reveals that indiscriminate CoT usage can lead to degraded performance by inducing unnecessary reasoning, a phenomenon we term overthinking. In reasoning segmentation, overthinking often leads to misalignment between the query's intent and visual grounding. To address this, we propose Difficulty-Aware Chain-of-Thought (DA-CoT), a training-free adaptive framework that selectively triggers CoT based on the input's intrinsic difficulty. We find that the entropy of the model's attention maps reliably reflects task difficulty: low entropy indicates confident, localized grounding, while high entropy suggests uncertainty and potential benefit from CoT. DA-CoT uses this entropy signal to determine whether to apply CoT prompting. Additionally, we introduce a Bidirectional Rethinking mechanism that enables the model to automatically flip its reasoning decision when the initial output fails, enhancing robustness by recovering from failures induced by overthinking and underthinking. DA-CoT demonstrates its effectiveness by achieving state-of-the-art performance on the Reasoning Segmentation benchmarks while significantly improving inference efficiency.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of pretrained MLLMs applied to reasoning segmentation in a training-free manner, with and without Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. The CoT-prompted model fails due to overthinking caused by excessive spatial reasoning, while the model without CoT correctly identifies the bicycle.
Figure 2: Qualitative examples illustrating the contrasting effects of CoT prompting in reasoning segmentation. Left : CoT-detrimental cases, where CoT leads to misgrounding by overthinking spatial reasoning; without CoT, the model correctly identifies the target with concentrated attention and low entropy. Right : CoT-beneficial cases, where CoT enhances performance in ambiguous scenarios by guiding reasoning towards the correct region, as reflected in high-entropy attention maps. The visualized attention entropy (bottom right of each map) provides an intrinsic signal that distinguishes when CoT is helpful or harmful.
Figure 3: Attention entropy predicts sample difficulty and per-sample CoT benefit using Qwen2.5VL-7B. (a) Mean attention entropy of easy vs. difficult samples on the proxy set ( n=1,000 ) at the three layers selected in Sec. 4 ; error bars: ±1 SEM; *: Mann–Whitney Up<0.05 . (b) Per-sample Δ IoU vs. attention entropy (z-scored within each split) on held-out ReasonSeg val+test (invalid outputs score IoU =0 ); gray: individual samples, red: octile means with 95% CI. (c) ROC for predicting ΔIoU>0 from entropy alone (ties excluded). (d) Mean IoU per entropy quartile with and without CoT, computed over each mode’s valid outputs (bars, left axis), and per-mode model-failure rates (dashed, right axis; Sec. C.1 ).
Figure 4: Overview of the proposed DA-CoT framework during inference. The aggregated attention entropy Hagg , computed over the pre-identified layers L , is used to adaptively decide whether to trigger CoT reasoning. If Hagg≥τ , the model follows the Difficulty-Aware Prompting Path with CoT for structured reasoning; otherwise, it takes the direct path without CoT for efficient inference. When the initial reasoning path fails to produce a valid output, a discrete flipping signal activates the Bidirectional Rethinking Path , enabling re-evaluation and recovery from overthinking or underthinking. The final bounding boxes or point prompts are then passed to the segmentation head to produce the reasoning-aware segmentation result.
Figure 5: Distribution of aggregated attention entropy Hagg over the proxy set. The curve exhibits an S-shaped trend with two elbow points that divide samples by reasoning difficulty. Samples below the first elbow correspond to easy and small-object cases with confident grounding, those between elbows represent medium-complexity examples with larger objects, and those beyond the second elbow correspond to difficult reasoning cases that require CoT prompting. The second elbow is selected as the decision threshold τ for adaptive CoT activation.
Threshold Strategy
All-CoT
First Elbow
Median
Second Elbow
All-Non-CoT
gIoU
66.7
67.3
67.8
68.2
62.1
CoT Usage (%)
100.0
90.8
49.2
21.2
0.0
Table 1: Comparative analysis of entropy threshold selection strategies. Performance (gIoU in %) and CoT usage are measured without Bidirectional Rethinking. Evaluation is performed on the proxy set described in Section 3.2 .
Method
ReasonSeg
val
test
Avg.
Training-based methods
OVSeg [ 18 ]
28.5
26.1
27.3
ReLA [ 19 ]
22.4
21.3
21.9
SAM4MLLM [ 5 ]
46.7
-
-
LISA-7B-LLaVA1.5 [ 16 ]
53.6
48.7
51.2
Table 2: Performance comparison with zero-shot models on ReasonSeg benchmark. Performance is reported as gIoU. † denotes performance re-evaluated by [ 10 ] .
Method
ReferringSeg
COCO
COCO+
COCOg
Avg.
Training-based methods
LAVT [ 43 ]
75.8
68.4
62.1
68.8
ReLA [ 19 ]
76.5
71.0
66.0
71.2
LISA-7B-LLaVA1.5 [ 16 ]
76.5
67.4
68.5
70.8
PixelLM-7B [ 31 ]
76.5
71.7
70.5
72.9
Table 3: Performance comparison on Referring Expression Segmentation benchmark. Performance is reported as cIoU. † denotes performance re-evaluated by [ 10 ] .
Method
LogicVista
MMVP
Qwen2.5VL-7B [ 2 ] (All-Non-CoT)
37.81
58.00
Qwen2.5VL-7B [ 2 ] (All-CoT)
44.30
55.33
VisionReasoner-7B [ 23 ]
38.93
56.00
Seg-Zero-7B [ 22 ]
38.93
58.67
DA-CoT-7B
45.64
59.33
Table 4: Performance comparison on LogicVista and MMVP. We report accuracy for LogicVista and pair accuracy for MMVP.
Method
ReasonSeg
val
test
Avg.
Seg-Zero-7B † [ 22 ]
62.0
58.3
60.2
Seg-Zero-7B + Ours
66.2 ( ↑ 4.2)
64.6 ( ↑ 6.3)
65.4 ( ↑ 5.2)
VisionReasoner-7B [ 23 ]
66.3
63.6
65.0
VisionReasoner-7B + Ours
67.4 ( ↑ 1.1)
65.6 ( ↑ 2.0)
66.5 ( ↑ 1.5)
Qwen2.5VL-7B [ 2 ]
63.0
60.7
61.9
Table 5: Scalability and robustness of the proposed method on larger and more recent MLLMs. Performance is reported as gIoU. † denotes performance re-evaluated by [ 10 ] .
Method
ReasonSeg (gIoU)
ReferringSeg (cIoU)
val
test
RefCOCO
RefCOCO+
RefCOCOg
Qwen2.5VL-7B
63.0
60.7
73.5
68.2
60.4
+ DA-CoT
65.2 ( ↑ 2.2)
64.0 ( ↑ 3.3)
77.6 ( ↑ 4.1)
72.0 ( ↑ 3.8)
69.6 ( ↑ 9.2)
+ BiReT
68.0 ( ↑ 2.8)
64.6 ( ↑ 0.6)
77.7 ( ↑ 0.1)
72.4 ( ↑ 0.4)
70.7 ( ↑ 1.1)
Table 6: Ablation study on our proposed components: DA-CoT and BiReT. The baseline applies the CoT prompt to all samples.
Method
time/img (sec)
gIoU (Test)
LISA-7B [ 16 ]
7.0
48.7
Seg-Zero-7B [ 22 ]
7.0
58.3
VisionReasoner-7B [ 23 ]
7.0
63.6
Qwen2.5VL-7B [ 2 ] (All-Non-CoT)
3.2
58.0
Qwen2.5VL-7B [ 2 ] (All-CoT)
9.9
60.7
DA-CoT-7B (w/o BiReT)
4.4
64.0
Table 7: Inference latency and performance on the ReasonSeg test. All-CoT and All-Non-CoT denote applying CoT or direct prediction to all samples, respectively.
Threshold Strategy
val
test
CoT Usage (%)
All-CoT
63.0
60.7
100.0
First Elbow
63.9
61.0
76.1
Median
64.6
61.9
51.6
Second Elbow
65.2
64.0
35.0
All-Non-CoT
59.9
58.0
0.0
Table 8: Ablation study on entropy threshold selection for ReasonSeg without Bidirectional Rethinking. Reported in gIoU.
Method
Selected Layers
Threshold ( τ )
ReasonSeg (gIoU)
LogicVista
MMVP
val
test
Avg.
Qwen2.5VL-7B [ 2 ] (All-Non-CoT)
-
-
59.9
58.0
59.0
37.81
58.00
Qwen2.5VL-7B [ 2 ] (All-CoT)
-
-
63.0
60.7
61.9
44.30
55.33
DA-CoT (default)
23, 24, 25
6.21
68.0
64.6
66.3
45.64
59.33
DA-CoT (OK-VQA [ 26 ] )
16, 24, 25
6.14
67.2
65.0
66.1
44.52
62.00
DA-CoT (A-OKVQA [ 33 ] )
16, 23, 25
6.07
66.8
64.7
65.8
45.86
61.33
Table 9: Transfer of the selected layers and threshold across proxy sources. Parameters determined on each source via the procedure of Sec. 4.2 are fixed and directly applied to all benchmarks.
ReasonSeg
k=1
k=2
k=3
k=4
k=5
val
64.4
64.1
65.2
66.4
63.9
test
63.4
63.5
64.0
63.9
62.2
selected layers
23
23, 25
23-25
23-26
22-26
Table 10: Ablation study on the number of layers k without Bidirectional Rethinking.
Method
UniReT ( t =0.5)
UniReT ( t =0.7)
UniReT ( t =1.0)
BiReT (Ours)
Valid Recovery Rate
35.4%
38.7%
35.5%
97.2%
Correct Recovery Rate
0.9%
2.8%
2.8%
22.2%
Δ gIoU
+0.1
+0.1
+0.1
+0.6
Table 11: Comparison of recovery behavior and performance change on the ReasonSeg test set.
Figure 6: CoT prompt for DA-CoT
Method
ReasonSeg (gIoU)
ReferringSeg (cIoU)
val
test
RefCOCO
RefCOCO+
RefCOCOg
All-Non-CoT
59.9
58.0
63.2
58.0
57.2
All-CoT
63.0
60.7
73.5
68.2
60.4
Table 12: Quantitative validation of the structured CoT prompt design. Performance of the Qwen2.5VL-7B model is reported.
Formulation
Layers
τ
ReasonSeg (gIoU)
val / test
Default (head-averaged)
23, 24, 25
6.21
65.2 / 64.0
Per-head entropy
23, 24, 25
6.16
65.5 / 64.1
Table 13: Comparison between the default head-averaged entropy and the alternative per-head entropy formulation on ReasonSeg, reported without Bidirectional Rethinking. The two formulations yield identical layer selection and comparable performance.
Model
Selected Layers
Thresholds
Seg-Zero-7B [ 22 ]
8, 23, 24
5.95
VisionReasoner-7B [ 23 ]
23, 24, 25
6.32
Qwen2.5VL-7B [ 2 ]
23, 24, 25
6.21
Qwen2.5VL-32B [ 2 ]
44, 45, 58
5.15
Qwen2.5VL-72B [ 2 ]
63, 73, 74
5.93
Qwen3VL-8B [ 1 ]
8, 31, 33
5.09
Table 14: Layers and thresholds selected during the layer and threshold determination phase using the proxy set.
Setting
Layers
τ
ReasonSeg (gIoU)
val
test
Default proxy
23, 24, 25
6.21
65.2
64.0
5-seed random
23, 24, 25
6.23 ± 0.1
65.0 ± 0.3
64.2 ± 0.1
Category-balanced proxy
23, 24, 25
6.38
66.3
64.6
Target-cat.-disjoint proxy
23, 24, 25
6.06
65.0
64.0
Table 15: Robustness of DA-CoT to proxy set construction on the ReasonSeg benchmark, reported without Bidirectional Rethinking. Despite varying the sampling seed, category balance, and target-category coverage, the selected layers, threshold τ , and gIoU remain stable.
Method
ReasonSeg
Selected Layers ( L )
Threshold ( τ )
val
test
DA-CoT
68.0
64.6
23, 24, 25
6.21
DA-CoT (w/o proxy set)
67.6
64.2
23, 24, 25
6.24
Table 16: Comparison between DA-CoT and DA-CoT (w/o proxy set) on ReasonSeg benchmark. Performance is reported as gIoU.
Figure 7: Attention entropy vs. ground-truth target size on held-out ReasonSeg val+test. Annotations report the within-size-tercile AUC of entropy for per-sample CoT benefit.
Method
Venue
Base model
gIoU
cIoU
Training
LISA [ 16 ]
CVPR‘2024
LLaVA1.5-7B
48.7
48.8
✓
LISA [ 16 ]
CVPR‘2024
LLaVA1.5-13B
53.8
50.8
✓
Seg-Zero [ 22 ]
-
Qwen2.5-VL 3B
56.1
48.6
✓
RSVP [ 25 ]
ACL‘2025
Qwen2-VL 7B
56.6
51.6
×
RSVP [ 25 ]
ACL‘2025
Gemini-Flash
57.1
59.2
×
Seg-Zero † [ 22 ]
-
Qwen2.5-VL 7B
58.3
53.4
✓
Table 17: Performance comparison with zero-shot models on ReasonSeg test set. Performance is reported as gIoU and cIoU. † denotes performance re-evaluated by [ 10 ] .
Figure 8: Response format and rule-based failure detection criteria for BiReT. The mechanism triggers a flipping signal when structural components shown in red are incomplete or coordinate values shown in blue are missing.
Figure 9: Qualitative examples of BiReT.
Metric
val
test
Trigger Rate (%)
5.0
4.6
Valid Recovery Rate (%)
80.0
97.2
Correct Recovery Rate (%)
70.0
22.2
Table 18: Efficiency and Efficacy of the BiReT Mechanism. Both recovery rates are computed over the triggered samples.
Method
ReasonSeg (gIoU)
time/img (sec)
val
test
Qwen 2.5-VL 7B
63.0
60.7
9.9
+ DA-CoT
65.2 ( ↑ 2.2)
64.0 ( ↑ 3.3)
4.4
+ BiReT
68.0 ( ↑ 2.8)
64.6 ( ↑ 0.6)
4.7
Table 19: Performance and latency are measured on the ReasonSeg Benchmark.
Failure Cause
Proportion (%)
Spatial confusion
50.3
Semantic drift
18.8
Visual hallucination
16.4
Format errors / others
14.5
Table 20: Failure-mode breakdown of 165 randomly sampled CoT-detrimental cross-over cases ( IoUNonCoT>0.5∧IoUCoT≤0.5 ) on ReasonSeg. Spatial confusion is the dominant failure mode, indicating that unnecessary reasoning most often derails grounding through spatial-logic errors.
The effectiveness of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) remains uncertain: across several visual reasoning benchmarks, CoT prompting often degrades performance compared to direct prompting. In this paper, we provide a systematic analysis of CoT behavior in three modern MLLM families across model scales on datasets requiring step-wise visual evidence. Our analysis identifies two recurring failure modes: premature answer commitment and limited direct visual-token access during rationale generation. We further find that standard CoT-style Supervised Fine-Tuning (CoT-SFT) can mitigate these issues only partially, while often increasing reliance on textual priors and reducing counterfactual visual dependence. Motivated by these findings, we propose Attentive-CoT (Att-CoT), an attention-guided fine-tuning objective that encourages CoT trajectories to delay answer commitment while maintaining sustained visual-token access. Att-CoT can be plugged into any CoT-SFT training run without architectural changes. Experiments on three visual reasoning benchmarks across six MLLMs show that Att-CoT enhances CoT performance over standard fine-tuning.
Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning has significantly improved the performance of large multimodal models in language-guided segmentation, yet its prohibitive computational cost, stemming from generating verbose rationales, limits real-world applicability. We introduce WISE (Wisdom from Internal Self-Exploration), a novel paradigm for efficient reasoning guided by the principle of thinking twice -- once for learning, once for speed. WISE trains a model to generate a structured sequence: a concise rationale, the final answer, and then a detailed explanation. By placing the concise rationale first, our method leverages autoregressive conditioning to enforce that the concise rationale acts as a sufficient summary for generating the detailed explanation. This structure is reinforced by a self-distillation objective that jointly rewards semantic fidelity and conciseness, compelling the model to internalize its detailed reasoning into a compact form. At inference, the detailed explanation is omitted. To address the resulting conditional distribution shift, our inference strategy, WISE-S, employs a simple prompting technique that injects a brevity-focused instruction into the user's query. This final adjustment facilitates the robust activation of the learned concise policy, unlocking the full benefits of our framework. Extensive experiments show that WISE-S achieves state-of-the-art zero-shot performance on the ReasonSeg benchmark with 58.3 cIoU, while reducing the average reasoning length by nearly \textbf{5×} -- from 112 to just 23 tokens. Code is available at WISE.
Qing Zhou, Shiyu Zhang, Yuyu Jia +4
Northwestern Polytechnical University, China · Northwest Institute of Nuclear Technology, China.
Reasoning segmentation aims to segment target objects described by complex language through joint visual-textual reasoning. Existing methods typically rely on either learned semantic tokens to bridge Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) and segmentation models, suffering from difficult cross-modal alignment, or explicit spatial prompts such as bounding boxes, which may lose holistic response semantics. To address these limitations, we propose Attention-Guided and CoT-Enhanced Coarse-to-Refined Reasoning Segmentation, termed CR-Seg, a two-stage framework for coarse-to-refined reasoning segmentation. Specifically, we design an Extract Attention Maps and Points (EAP) module to extract attention maps for coarse target localization and select informative points, both of which are fed into SAM for mask refinement. To alleviate reasoning--answer inconsistency, we further introduce Global-to-Local Chain-of-Thought (GLCoT), which guides the model to reason progressively from global scene context to local target details. Extensive experiments on reasoning segmentation benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of CR-Seg.
Yifan Cao, Xiaocui Yang, Faxian Wan +3
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northeastern University Shenyang 110819, China