Organizations: Peking University · ByteDance · Wangxuan Institute of Computer Technology · National Engineering Research Center of New Electronic Publishing Technologies
While Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has significantly advanced multimodal reasoning, existing frameworks suffer from a critical "perception-reasoning gap." Due to an over-reliance on seemingly relevant visual tokens, even minor perceptual perturbations can propagate through the reasoning process, leading to compounding hallucinations. To address this issue, we propose MIRA, a training framework that improves robustness to erroneous visual contexts while enhancing logical reasoning ability. By injecting filtered, deceptive visual contexts during training, we construct challenging "hard traps" that stress-test the model's robustness to misleading information. Furthermore, we introduce a group-wise reflection-triggering mechanism that enables the model to autonomously detect and rectify inconsistencies between visual cues and logical constraints, which is ultimately internalized as an intrinsic policy behavior. Importantly, MIRA does not rely on human annotations. Experimental results across multiple reasoning and perception benchmarks show that MIRA yields an average 7% improvement on in-domain benchmarks, with consistent improvements on vision-centric benchmarks. These findings highlight that active error recovery is essential for robust multimodal reasoning. Comprehensive ablation studies and analyses further provide insights into why MIRA is effective.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of MIRA. MIRA consists of two parts. The top illustrates the construction of deceptive visual context using the policy model and an expert model. The bottom shows the training process; compared to GRPO, the key changes are modified inputs and the use of intra-group triggers.
Math Benchmarks
General / Visual Benchmarks
Avg.
MathVista
MathVerse
MathVision
WeMath
MMMUpro
HalluBench
FREAK
General-purpose Models
GPT-4o
62.6
50.4
31.6
67.6
53.2
73.5
33.4
53.2
InternVL2.5-8B
59.6
34.8
19.2
56.3
33.2
67.5
29.7
42.9
InternVL3-8B
71.6
47.7
29.5
62.9
41.9
67.5
29.7
50.1
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
68.2
46.7
24.3
61.4
38.5
65.7
30.0
47.8
Table 1: Evaluation results of different reasoning methods. All results are reproduced using our evaluation scripts. Detailed evaluation settings are provided in Appendix D . Results of Vision-R1 on MathVision and WeMath are omitted due to potential training data contamination. Best (green) and second-best (blue) results among open-source multimodal reasoning methods are highlighted. Averages are computed over available benchmarks, excluding missing entries.
Backbone
Method
MathVista
MathVerse
MathVision
WeMath
Qwen2-VL-7B
GRPO
62.0
35.6
18.9
48.1
MIRA
63.5
36.5
19.1
49.5
Qwen3-VL-4B
GRPO
77.1
59.6
45.4
75.6
MIRA
77.8
61.6
47.0
78.7
Qwen3-VL-8B
GRPO
78.0
66.1
51.1
79.1
MIRA
79.9
66.1
52.9
81.2
Table 2: Results on additional backbones (%). Each MIRA/GRPO pair uses the same source data and training configuration.
Configuration
MathVista
MathVerse
MathVision
WeMath
Avg.
Expert Model Ablation (Expert Type)
GPT 5.4
75.2
53.8
29.0
70.7
57.18
GPT 5.4-mini
74.3
52.5
29.7
69.6
56.53
GPT 5.1-mini
74.2
53.1
29.0
69.0
56.33
Data Ratio Sensitivity (Augmentation Ratio)
0 (GRPO ∗ )
71.5
51.0
28.4
68.0
54.7
Table 3: Comparison across benchmarks with different expert models and data ratio settings. Data ratio sensitivity experiment is conducted with 14K dataset. Refer Appendix D.3 for details.
Setting
MathVista
MathVerse
WeMath
MathVision
Avg.
MIRA (full)
75.2
53.8
70.7
29.0
57.2
w/o correction reward
73.8
53.2
70.7
29.0
56.7
+ full trigger
73.6
52.6
68.8
28.4
55.8
- remove trigger
70.9
51.8
68.8
29.0
55.1
- remove context (GRPO)
72.9
51.5
68.8
29.3
55.6
Table 4: Ablation study on reward design and trigger mechanisms.
Table 6
Figure 3: Comparison between vanilla GRPO and MIRA. Left: training accuracy comparison; Middle: ratio of groups that the variance is 0; Right: accuracy comparison between normal samples and augmented samples. the reported result of MIRA is trained using GPT-5.4 as the expert model.
Figure 4: Training case of MIRA. Notice that in this case no triggers are inserted. The model autonomously corrects both erroneous context and reasoning errors. Incorrect and correct parts are highlighted in red and green, respectively.
(a) Controlled inputs
Recall
SRR
Aug. acc.
Normal acc.
Base
27.42
36.33
19.48
43.51
MIRA
42.96
59.54
50.66
68.69
(b) Benchmark
Method
Accuracy
RR
SRR
FCR
MathVista
GRPO
72.9
4.1
85.4
0.30 (3/1000)
MIRA
75.2
5.4
66.7
0.20 (2/1000)
MathVerse
GRPO
51.5
8.9
57.8
0.30 (12/3940)
Table 6: Quantitative reflection results on controlled and real inputs (%).
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Baseline
Venue
Data Scale
R1-Onevision [ Yang et al., 2025b ]
ICCV’2025
R1-Onevision-155K
Vision-R1 [ Huang et al., 2026 ]
ICLR’2026
200K SFT + 10K RL
MM-Eureka [ Meng et al., 2025 ]
-
MMK12 (15.6K)
PAPO [ Wang et al., 2026b ]
ICLR’2026
ViRL-39K
Perception-R1 [ Xiao et al., 2026 ]
ICLR’2026
Geometry3K
SophiaVL-R1 [ Fan et al., 2026 ]
ICLR’2026
SophiaVL-130K
Appendix
Table 7: Summary of baselines, including venue, data scale, and data source.
Figure 5: The statistics of training data.
Training Configuration
RL Configuration
Training epochs
2
Rollout number
8
Gradient accumulation steps
4
KL Coefficient
0.004
Effective batch size
128
Rollout Engine
vLLM
Sequence length cutoff
5,000
Temperature
1.0
Optimizer
AdamW
Trigger Configuration
Learning rate
1×10−6
Rollouts with trigger K
4
Appendix
Table 8: Training hyperparameters we used for main results.
Metric
No trigger
Seven triggers (mean ± std.)
Reflection rate
42.2
90.36±3.22
SRR
39.8
56.64±1.07
Accuracy
42.2
54.73±1.18
Appendix
Table 9: Trigger wording sensitivity on 500 augmented examples (%). Variability is across seven English phrasings.
Figure 6: The pre-defined triggers set of intra-group trigger.
Figure 7: The prompt we used for expert modification in data construction.
Figure 8: The system prompt we used for training.
Figure 9: The system prompt we used for evaluation.
Multimodal large language models via reinforcement learning (RL) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in complex visual reasoning tasks, yet they remain limited in long-horizon multimodal scenarios, often suffering from visual hallucination and logical error. Current methods typically pre-encode high-dimensional visual scenes into discrete textual proxies to facilitate downstream reasoning. As the reasoning chain unfolds, however, the inherent information asymmetry between text and visual scenes tends to erode visual grounding, resulting in misguided reasoning and erroneous outputs. To address this issue, we introduce IVR-R1 (Iterative Visual-grounded Reasoning), a novel RL training framework that facilitates dynamic visual re-alignment that actively rectifies reasoning trajectories to guide policy optimization. Specifically, by leveraging a reward-driven screening mechanism to identify flawed rollouts, IVR-R1 executes a fine-grained, step-level error attribution within the multimodal context. By iteratively cross-referencing intermediate reasoning states against pristine visual priors, a Re-Reasoning Loop enables automated trajectory rectification, effectively synthesizing expert-level demonstrations that serve as high-fidelity reasoning templates for the policy model. Our experiments across diverse multimodal benchmarks demonstrate that IVR-R1 consistently outperforms existing reinforcement learning methods, establishing a superior paradigm for maintaining logical and visual consistency in complex multimodal reasoning.
Chenghao Li, Fusheng Hao, Xikai Zhang +5
Hangzhou International Innovation Institute, Beihang University · Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Integration Technology, Shenzhen · Kuaishou Technology +1
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become an effective paradigm for improving the reasoning capability of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). However, existing RLVR methods primarily rely on trajectory-level outcome rewards, which assign identical learning signals across all generated tokens. This coarse-grained credit assignment is fundamentally mismatched to multimodal reasoning, where only a sparse subset of tokens is causally grounded in visual evidence. Consequently, these pivotal perceptual tokens receive weak supervision and are often overwhelmed by language priors or reasoning-template tokens. To address this limitation, we propose Perception-Reinforced Policy Optimization (PRPO), a token-level reinforcement learning framework that explicitly identifies and reinforces pivotal perceptual tokens within long-horizon multimodal reasoning trajectories. PRPO introduces Robust Visual Dependency (RVD), a principled metric that identifies tokens whose predictions are both visually grounded and perturbation-stable, filtering out brittle or noisy visual tokens. Based on RVD, we further propose Perceptual Advantage Reshaping (PAR), a token-level credit assignment technique that amplifies perceptually informative tokens while preserving stable gradients for non-perceptual tokens. Extensive experiments on seven multimodal reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that PRPO consistently outperforms strong LVLM baselines across both 3B and 7B model scales, achieving average gains of 23.3% and 21.1%, respectively. PRPO achieves state-of-the-art performance with improved training efficiency and stronger cross-task generalization. Our findings highlight the importance of fine-grained credit assignment for scalable multimodal reinforcement learning.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a promising paradigm for advancing complex reasoning in large language models, and recent work extends RLVR to multimodal large language models (MLLMs). This transfer, however, surfaces a faithfulness challenge: faithful perception of task-relevant visual evidence and faithful use of that evidence during reasoning, leading to unsatisfactory gains on multimodal benchmarks. Specifically, existing perception supervision often operates on textual descriptions rather than natively on image regions, and faithful use is largely overlooked, exposing the perception-reasoning disconnect where correctly perceived evidence is dropped or contradicted during reasoning. To close these gaps, we propose Faithful-MR1, a training framework that anchors and reinforces visual attention to address both halves of faithful multimodal reasoning. The Anchoring stage turns perception into an explicit pre-reasoning subtask, supervising a dedicated <Focus> token's attention directly against image regions rather than through textual descriptions. The Reinforcing stage exposes faithful use through counterfactual image intervention, rewarding answer-correct trajectories that concentrate visual attention where vision causally matters. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Faithful-MR1 outperforms recent multimodal reasoning baselines on both Qwen2.5-VL-Instruct 3B and 7B backbones while using substantially less training data.
Changyuan Tian, Zhicong Lu, Huaxing Liu +7
AMAP, Alibaba Group · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Tsinghua University +1