Latent Reasoning in Continuous Space for Unified Multimodal Models
Organizations: KAIST · POSTECH · RLWRLD
Abstract
Unified Multimodal Models (UMMs) achieve remarkable success on diverse multimodal understanding and generation tasks, yet they still struggle to effectively leverage language-based chain-of-thought reasoning for image generation. As a result, existing reasoning-augmented UMMs often fail to inherit the test-time scaling and fine-grained controllability observed in large language models. We attribute this failure to a fundamental modality mismatch: reasoning is performed in a discrete token space, whereas image generation operates in a continuous space. To bridge this gap, we introduce a Latent Reasoning framework in Continuous space (LARC), which alleviates the token-level bottleneck by reasoning over continuous hidden states. Specifically, the training framework consists of two stages: (i) curriculum supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and (ii) information-gain reinforcement learning (RL). First, the curriculum SFT stage gradually converts token-level reasoning into latent reasoning. Subsequently, the information-gain RL stage self-evolves latent reasoning without ground truth supervision. Experiments across diverse text-to-image generation benchmarks show that LARC consistently improves generation quality, prompt following, and compositional fidelity. Notably, LARC achieves state-of-the-art performance on GenEval with a 7%p gain over BAGEL and demonstrates clear test-time scaling behavior, outperforming token-based generation under both parallel and sequential test-time scaling strategies.
Figures & tables
| Type | Method | Single Obj. | Two Obj. | Counting | Colors | Position | Attr. Binding | Overall |
| Reference | GPT-4o [ 23 ] | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.85 | 0.92 | 0.75 | 0.61 | 0.84 |
| SD3-medium [ 8 ] | 0.99 | 0.94 | 0.72 | 0.89 | 0.33 | 0.46 | 0.74 | |
| FLUX.1-dev [ 30 ] | 0.99 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.20 | 0.47 | 0.67 | |
| UMM | Discrete UMM | |||||||
| Janus-Pro [ 5 ] | 0.99 | 0.89 | 0.59 | 0.90 | 0.79 | 0.66 | 0.80 | |
| Emu3 [ 64 ] | 0.98 | 0.71 | 0.34 | 0.81 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.54 | |
| Type | Method | Global | Entity | Attribute | Relation | Other | Overall |
| Reference | SD3-medium [ 8 ] | 87.90 | 91.01 | 88.83 | 80.70 | 88.68 | 84.08 |
| FLUX.1-dev [ 30 ] | 82.10 | 89.50 | 88.70 | 91.10 | 89.40 | 84.00 | |
| UMM | Discrete UMM | ||||||
| Janus-Pro [ 5 ] | 86.90 | 88.90 | 89.40 | 89.32 | 89.48 | 84.19 | |
| Emu3 [ 64 ] | 85.21 | 86.68 | 86.84 | 90.22 | 83.15 | 80.60 | |
| Continuous UMM | |||||||
| Method | NP | T&P | Short | Medium | Long | Overall |
| Discrete UMM | ||||||
| Janus-Pro [ 5 ] | 0.557 | 0.533 | 0.609 | 0.548 | 0.515 | 0.552 |
| BLIP-o3 [ 4 ] | 0.719 | 0.671 | 0.754 | 0.712 | 0.674 | 0.706 |
| Continuous UMM | ||||||
| Show-o2 [ 68 ] | 0.825 | 0.778 | 0.825 | 0.819 | 0.807 | 0.811 |
| BAGEL [ 6 ] | 0.776 | 0.734 | 0.782 | 0.769 | 0.759 | 0.764 |
| Method | LC-T | LC-I | PSNR | SSIM | LPIPS |
| Janus-Pro [ 5 ] | 19.769 | 0.801 | 21.192 | 0.856 | 0.097 |
| Emu3 [ 64 ] | 19.536 | 0.803 | 22.036 | 0.868 | 0.092 |
| Show-o2 [ 68 ] | 20.350 | 0.831 | 24.661 | 0.919 | 0.065 |
| BAGEL [ 6 ] | 20.434 | 0.842 | 24.370 | 0.917 | 0.069 |
| Uni-CoT [ 43 ] | 20.215 | 0.837 | 23.925 | 0.904 | 0.088 |
| LARC (ours) | 22.509 | 0.880 | 25.710 | 0.953 | 0.049 |
| Method | MME [ 14 ] | MMB [ 39 ] | MMMU [ 72 ] | MIRA [ 75 ] |
| Janus-Pro [ 5 ] | 1567.1 | 79.2 | 41.0 | 4.9 |
| Emu3 [ 64 ] | 1487.3 | 67.4 | 31.6 | 4.1 |
| Show-o2 [ 68 ] | 1620.5 | 79.3 | 48.9 | 6.9 |
| BAGEL [ 6 ] | 1687.0 | 85.0 | 55.3 | 7.5 |
| Uni-CoT [ 43 ] | 1691.7 | 85.4 | 55.5 | 10.6 |
| LARC (ours) | 1725.3 | 88.1 | 56.2 | 11.7 |
| Method | Reasoning space | T2I gen. | Comp. gen. | Image editing | Visual reasoning |
| Baseline [ 6 ] | Discrete | 0.81 | 0.76 | 20.43 | 7.5 |
| Token-level Reasoning | Discrete | 0.82 | 0.79 | 20.81 | 7.1 |
| Latent Reasoning | Continuous | 0.83 | 0.81 | 21.46 | 9.7 |
| Method | T2I gen. | Comp. gen. | Image editing | Visual reasoning |
| Baseline [ 6 ] | 0.81 | 0.76 | 20.43 | 7.5 |
| Naive | 0.83 | 0.79 | 21.02 | 9.9 |
| Interleaved (ours) | 0.83 | 0.81 | 21.46 | 9.7 |
| Method | T2I gen. | Comp. gen. | Image editing | Visual reasoning |
| Baseline [ 6 ] | 0.81 | 0.76 | 20.43 | 7.5 |
| Stage 1 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 21.46 | 9.7 |
| Stage 1 & 2 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 22.51 | 11.7 |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Hyperparameter | Stage 1 (SFT) | Stage 2 (RL) |
| Optimizer | AdamW | AdamW |
| Algorithm | - | GRPO |
| Learning rate | 1e-5 | 1e-6 |
| Global batch size | - | 64 |
| Max number of tokens | - | |
| Weight decay | 0.0 |
| Source dataset | Task | # samples |
| FLUX-Reason [ 12 ] | Text-to-Image | 500K |
| WEAVE [ 10 ] | Text-to-Image | 100K |
| ScaleEdit [ 3 ] | Image Editing | 400K |
| Total | – | 1M |
| Method | ||||||
| BAGEL [ 6 ] + Best-of- | 46.5 | 92.8 | 187.1 | 275.5 | 367.7 | 469.0 |
| LARC (ours) | 46.8 | 46.9 | 47.0 | 47.3 | 47.6 | 48.0 |
| Cos. Sim. | GenEval | OneIG-Bench | MIRA | |
| 0.97 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 9.8 | |
| 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.84 | 10.9 | |
| (ours) | 0.79 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 11.7 |
| 0.71 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 11.4 | |
| 0.65 | 0.82 | 0.82 | 10.6 |
Continuous Latent Reasoning
Continuous latent reasoning studies how models can compute through continuous hidden states instead of spelling out every reasoning step.
See all 82 papers