Learning to Group and Order: Cross-Instance Self-Supervised RL for Vision-Centric MLLMs
Authors: Songming Yang, Hong-Tao Yu, Xiu-Shen Wei
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University · Key Laboratory of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Technology and Its Interdisciplinary Applications, Southeast University
Reinforcement learning (RL) post-training has become an important paradigm for improving multimodal large language models (MLLMs), especially with automatically verifiable rewards. Self-supervised visual pretext tasks provide such rewards without human annotations. However, existing methods mainly exploit within-instance structure, offering limited supervision for cross-instance discrimination and fine-grained comparison. We introduce Group-and-Order Self-Supervised Reinforcement Learning (GO-SSL), a cross-instance jigsaw framework for vision-centric MLLM post-training. Given two visual instances, GO-SSL mixes their local elements and trains the model to group them by instance of origin while recovering the order within each group, coupling instance-level comparison with spatial, temporal, or geometric structure recovery. This paired formulation turns the same unlabeled data into richer verifiable supervision through diverse pairings, shuffles, and a random-to-hard curriculum. We instantiate GO-SSL mainly on cross-image jigsaw tasks and further extend it to 3D depth and video temporal ordering. Across diverse benchmarks, GO-SSL consistently improves over the base MLLM and prior self-supervised post-training baselines, with clear gains in fine-grained perception and spatial understanding. Further evaluations across model scales and families support its generality. These results suggest that cross-instance comparison provides a useful self-supervised RL signal for improving transferable visual understanding in MLLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/SEU-VIPGroup/GO-SSL.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: GO-SSL: task construction and visual transfer. (a) Shuffled patches from two images are grouped by source and reordered to recover each image’s spatial layout. (b) A qualitative example of distinguishing visually similar object instances. (c) Category-wise benchmark averages for Qwen2.5-VL-7B and two GO-SSL variants, showing gains across all five categories.
Figure 2: Overview of GO-SSL. (a) Self-supervised task construction: local elements from paired images, RGB-D scenes, or videos are shuffled and assigned verifiable group-and-order targets. (b) RL post-training: the MLLM predicts source groups and their internal spatial, depth, or temporal order, and a deterministic verifier provides rewards.
Model
Omni3DBench
3DSRBench
BLINK
Static- EmbodiedBench
OmniSpatial
DA-2K
Avg.
count
test
rd-acc
test
test
test
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
17.14
57.42
77.42
46.50
42.66
54.45
49.27
Spatial-SSRL [ 17 ]
20.00
58.21
83.87
48.00
44.29
59.28
52.28
Visual Jigsaw(3D) [ 18 ]
5.71
58.13
82.26
47.00
45.99
71.56
51.78
3D GO-SSL
24.29
58.35
91.13
49.00
46.18
74.90
57.31
(Gain)
+7.15
+0.93
+13.71
+2.50
+3.52
+20.45
+8.04
Table 2: Accuracy on 3D benchmarks. GO-SSL applies grouping and ordering to cross-scene depth.
Model
AoTBench
TUNABench
VideoMME
TempCompass
VSI-Bench
Video-TT
Avg.
vqa
test
wo subs
mc
yorn
test
test
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
45.52
53.14
57.44
71.77
73.46
32.79
36.90
53.00
Visual Jigsaw(Video) [ 18 ]
51.67
55.10
58.07
73.10
74.68
35.39
38.90
55.27
Video GO-SSL
55.75
55.45
58.84
73.29
76.20
35.55
39.30
56.34
(Gain)
+10.23
+2.31
+1.40
+1.52
+2.74
+2.76
+2.40
+3.34
Table 3: Evaluation results on video benchmarks under the 16-frame setting. Video GO-SSL extends group-and-order learning to cross-video temporal ordering and improves temporal/video understanding over baselines.
Axis
Variant
Training setting
D&V
Spatial
Comp.
Gen.
Ext.
Avg.
Baseline
Qwen2.5-VL
–
70.41
55.40
61.59
55.42
31.71
56.75
Spatial-SSRL
–
72.44
59.09
62.94
55.47
33.71
59.04
Visual Jigsaw
–
74.08
58.17
63.02
56.08
32.77
59.13
Objective
Group only
Two images, 2 × 2; grouping only
71.08
55.66
62.12
55.52
32.07
57.14
Order only
Single image, 2 × 2; ordering only
71.63
58.17
62.74
55.61
33.37
58.43
G&O-Random †
Random pairs, 2 × 2; group + order
74.88
59.83
62.56
56.39
34.34
60.19
Table 4: Ablation studies of GO-SSL. Each trained variant is listed once. “D&V”, “Spatial”, “Comp.”, “Gen.”, and “Ext.” denote detail understanding and visual perception, spatial understanding and reasoning, compositional understanding, general multimodal benchmarks, and extra benchmarks, respectively. Avg. is computed over the same 14 benchmark metrics as Table 1 . Bold indicates the best result within each axis group.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Models
Reasoning
Benchmark
Avg.
V*
VSR
OmniSpatial
SugarCrepe++
DA-2K
TUNABench
3B Models
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
×
75.39
77.27
45.08
61.26
52.03
50.35
60.23
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
✓
67.54
68.34
40.05
50.49
54.16
48.11
54.78
7B Models
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
×
76.96
77.31
42.66
61.59
54.45
53.14
61.02
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison of answer-only and reasoning-based evaluation prompting. Reasoning “ × ” denotes direct answer-only prompting, while Reasoning “ ✓ ” denotes CoT-style prompting. “Avg.” is computed over the listed benchmarks.
Method
Modality
Task form
Supervision multiplicity
Extra SFT
Tuning params
RL steps
Global batch
Rollout group
Spatial-SSRL [ 17 ]
Image / RGB-D
Multi-task single-source SSL
≈T⋅n(T=5)
Yes
Full
360
128
5
Visual Jigsaw-Image [ 18 ]
Image
Single-source ordering
n
No
Full
1000
256
16
Visual Jigsaw-3D [ 18 ]
RGB-D
Single-source ordering
n
No
Full
800
128
16
Visual Jigsaw-Video [ 18 ]
Video
Single-source ordering
n
No
Full
1000
128
16
GO-SSL-Image
Image
cross-instance group + order
(2n)
No
LoRA
1000
64
8
GO-SSL-3D
RGB-D
cross-instance group + order
(2n)
No
LoRA
1000
64
8
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of self-supervised RL post-training recipes. Supervision multiplicity follows the definition in Sec. 3.1 .
Model
D&V
Spatial
Comp.
General
Extra
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
68.63
53.02
61.26
49.45
29.39
54.18
Spatial-SSRL-3B
70.08
55.66
60.94
50.22
32.33
56.05
GO-SSL-3B
70.78
56.37
61.31
50.69
32.51
56.62
LLaVA-OneVision-7B
LLaVA-OV-7B
66.83
51.79
56.74
56.42
23.88
53.12
Appendix
Table 7: Generalization across model scales and families. D&V denotes detail understanding and visual perception; Comp., General, and Extra denote the corresponding benchmark categories. LLaVA-OV abbreviates LLaVA-OneVision.
Model
Omni3D Bench
3DSRBench
BLINK
Static- EmbodiedBench
Omni Spatial
DA-2K
LLaVA-OV-7B
56.00
57.42
62.10
36.50
44.36
55.03
LLaVA-OV-7B + GO-SSL-3D
58.67
58.81
67.74
39.50
45.27
63.15
Appendix
Table 8: 3D evaluation on LLaVA-OneVision-7B (LLaVA-OV-7B). GO-SSL improves all six benchmark scores, indicating cross-backbone transfer. The benchmark subsets and evaluation metrics are consistent with Table 2 .
Model
Training Domain
Image-side Benchmarks
3D-side Benchmarks
HRBench4K
HRBench8K
V*
VSR
SugarCrepe++
DA-2K
BLINK
Omni3DBench
test
test
test
test
test
test
rd-acc
count
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
–
68.50
65.38
76.96
77.31
61.59
54.45
77.42
17.14
Image GO-SSL
Image
71.50
69.88
81.68
80.42
63.17
61.70
81.45
21.43
(Gain)
+3.00
+4.50
+4.72
+3.11
+1.58
+7.25
+4.03
+4.29
3D GO-SSL
3D
69.38
67.88
80.10
78.95
62.14
74.90
91.13
24.29
Appendix
Table 9: Cross-domain transfer evaluation of GO-SSL variants. Image GO-SSL and 3D GO-SSL are evaluated on both image-side and 3D-side benchmarks. The results show that each variant is strongest in its own training domain, while still transferring non-trivially to the other domain.
Figure 3: Additional ablation studies. (a) Reward weight ablation on the image-side GO-SSL objective. (b) Video GO-SSL under different input-frame settings. (c) Order-only versus full Group+Order variants for video and 3D GO-SSL.
Pairing Strategy
D&V
Spatial
Comp.
Gen.
Extra
Avg.
CLIP-near + DINO-far
74.47
62.26
63.17
56.20
33.54
60.85
DINO-near + MAE-far
74.22
61.12
62.69
56.43
34.38
60.49
Difference
-0.25
-1.14
-0.48
+0.23
+0.84
-0.36
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison of feature-space pairing strategies under identical 1,000-step training budgets. CLIP-near + DINO-far corresponds to CLIP-Blind-600 in the main experiments. Differences are computed as DINO-near + MAE-far minus CLIP-near + DINO-far.
Variant
Final 200 steps
D&V
Spatial
Comp.
Gen.
Extra
Avg.
CLIP-Blind-600
2×2
74.47
62.26
63.17
56.20
33.54
60.85
CLIP-Blind- 2×3
2×3
75.94
61.15
61.99
56.39
34.15
60.90
CLIP-Blind- 3×3
3×3
76.19
61.11
61.95
56.53
34.26
60.99
Appendix
Table 11: Effect of progressively finer image layouts. All variants share 400 random 2×2 steps followed by 400 CLIP-Blind 2×2 steps; only the layout of the final 200 CLIP-Blind steps differs. Avg. is computed over 14 benchmarks.
Model
OC-Cpr
OC-Grp
VAW
State
StateAttr
Vis. Corr.
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
62.22
54.00
27.94
12.12
22.77
30.81
Visual Jigsaw
66.67
54.00
61.76
72.73
65.35
41.28
GO-SSL
71.94
62.00
75.00
84.85
78.22
43.60
Appendix
Table 12: Targeted evaluation of cross-instance discrimination. GO-SSL denotes the CB-2 × 3 variant in Table 1 . All values are accuracies (%).
Figure 4: GO-SSL task examples across image, 3D, and video domains.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of occlusion-based sensitivity maps on fine-grained spatial matching examples. Compared with Qwen2.5-VL-7B and Visual Jigsaw, GO-SSL better localizes the visual evidence relevant to the queried description and produces correct answers. It also corrects a failure case of Spatial-SSRL in the second example, where object saliency alone is insufficient for precise spatial-relation judgment.
Figure 6: Qualitative examples on image-side tasks. GO-SSL gives correct predictions on perspective taking, dynamic reasoning, spatial interaction, and complex logic, where the base model and prior self-supervised post-training baselines often fail.
Figure 7: Qualitative examples on 3D-oriented visual understanding tasks. 3D GO-SSL gives correct predictions on physical contact reasoning, object counting, and relative depth estimation, where the base model and prior self-supervised post-training baselines often fail.
Figure 8: Qualitative examples on video understanding tasks. Video GO-SSL correctly answers questions requiring action intention reasoning, final-state tracking, and dynamic scene understanding, while the base model and video jigsaw baseline fail in these cases.
Figure 9: Qualitative examples of visually grounded reasoning across diverse scenarios. Compared with the base model and prior self-supervised post-training baselines, GO-SSL gives more reliable answers on instance-level recognition, spatial reasoning, and video understanding, suggesting benefits beyond low-level spatial matching.
Reinforcement learning (RL) with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has demonstrated the great potential of enhancing the reasoning abilities in multimodal large language models (MLLMs). However, the reliance on language-centric priors and expensive manual annotations prevents MLLMs' intrinsic visual understanding and scalable reward designs. In this work, we introduce SSL-R1, a generic self-supervised RL framework that derives verifiable rewards directly from images. To this end, we revisit self-supervised learning (SSL) in visual domains and reformulate widely-used SSL tasks into a set of verifiable visual puzzles for RL post-training, requiring neither human nor external model supervision. Training MLLMs on these tasks substantially improves their performance on multimodal understanding and reasoning benchmarks, highlighting the potential of leveraging vision-centric self-supervised tasks for MLLM post-training. We think this work will provide useful experience in devising effective self-supervised verifiable rewards to enable RL at scale. Project page: https://github.com/Jiahao000/SSL-R1.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) perform well on many vision-language tasks but often struggle with vision-centric problems that require fine-grained visual perception. Recent evidence suggests that this limitation arises not from weak visual representations, but from under-utilization of visual information during instruction tuning, where many tasks can be partially solved using language priors alone. We propose a simple and lightweight approach that augments visual instruction tuning with a small number of visually grounded self-supervised tasks expressed as natural language instructions. By reformulating classical self-supervised pretext tasks, such as rotation prediction, color matching, and cross-view correspondence, as image-instruction-response triplets, we introduce supervision that cannot be solved without relying on visual evidence. Our approach requires no human annotations, no architectural modifications, and no additional training stages. Across multiple models, training regimes, and benchmarks, injecting only a small fraction (3-10%) of such visually grounded instructions consistently improves performance on vision-centric evaluations. Our findings highlight instruction tuning with visually grounded SSL tasks as a powerful lever for improving visual perception in MLLMs through simple adjustments to the training data distribution. Code available at: https://github.com/sirkosophia/V-GIFT
Sophia Sirko-Galouchenko, Monika Wysoczanska, Andrei Bursuc +2
Sorbonne Universite, CNRS, ISIR, F-75005 Paris, France · Institut universitaire de France (IUF)
Fine-grained visual perception remains a bottleneck during post-training of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), as perceptual errors can constrain gains from reasoning-focused optimization. Although image-caption pre-training improves perception, its influence can weaken as subsequent stages change data mixtures and objectives. Continuing caption supervision during post-training is challenging because subjective, information-dense descriptions complicate verifiable reward design. We present PerceptRL, which strengthens perception at two complementary levels. Perception RL uses a multi-agent pipeline to extract verified errors from dense image captions and convert the corresponding visual facts into QA pairs with fixed answer labels and rule-based rewards. Chain QA links correlated errors, while multiple-choice QA combines unrelated errors. A specialized route targets high-error domains with tailored verification, and a domain-agnostic general route covers errors beyond these domains. Perception Agentic RL addresses fine-grained and dense cases unresolved by single-turn Perception RL through multi-turn inspection with visual tools. We observe coordinate drift even in models trained to use tools, where incorrect crops or annotations distort evidence and propagate errors. Coordinate Injection corrects spatial operations in cold-start trajectories, while a grounding-aware process reward supervises intermediate spatial fidelity alongside final-answer correctness. Training proceeds through shared cold-start SFT, single-turn Perception RL, and multi-turn Perception Agentic RL. Across seven benchmarks under a shared tool-use protocol, PerceptRL achieves 71.6% average accuracy, surpassing the base model with the same tools and the strongest evaluated frontier VLM by 15.7 and 5.2 percentage points, respectively.
Tongkun Guan, Zhibo Yang, Mingkun Yang +3
MoE Key Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence, AI Institute, School of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China · Qwen