Grounded reasoning, where a model outputs text coordinates of relevant locations in chain-of-thought reasoning, is a common strategy for solving complex visual reasoning problems. However, the benefits and limitations of grounded reasoning are understudied. We study where and why grounded reasoning is most useful. To do so, we introduce a chain-of-thought analysis method to measure how much a model uses its outputted grounding in its thinking trace and perform a detailed ablation study of a grounded reasoning training recipe. We find that grounded reasoning improves counting but shows no significant gain over baselines without coordinate grounding across a wide range of spatial reasoning and perception benchmarks. Using several synthetic tasks, we show that grounded reasoning is most useful when a task requires undescribable references, which are visual concepts that are difficult to describe in language. However, we observe that many existing visual reasoning benchmarks are solvable with only describable text references. To close this gap, we introduce BrickVision, a new benchmark that requires undescribable visual references to solve.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Visual grounding is useful as an undescribable reference . When objects in a task are uniquely identifiable in text (e.g. through a label, descriptor, or position), we say that a textual reference is available. When textual references are available, grounded reasoning performs no better than text reasoning. When no unique text description is available (e.g. in dense counting or tracing tasks), we say the task requires maintaining undescribable references . Grounded reasoning significantly outperforms text reasoning when the task requires undescribable references.
Figure 2: Decode Grounding Corruption . We introduce a CoT analysis technique to analyze whether a model uses its grounding. Instead of editing CoT after generation, we randomize the model’s outputted points during decoding and reset the KV-cache.
Model
MultihopSpatial
SpatialMQA
V ∗
CountQA
Open models
TreeVGR-7B-CI
−0.62±0.33
−0.50±0.28
+0.55±0.71
−0.18±0.26
TreeVGR-7B-RL
−0.17±0.22
−0.21±0.19
−0.08±0.35
−3.19±0.22
iVGR-8B
−0.93±0.29
−0.41±0.32
−0.99±0.51
−2.64±0.29
DeepEyes-7B
+0.63±0.24
+0.02±0.26
−0.68±0.38
−0.50±0.24
Ours (format type)
Table 1: Grounding usage experiments. We report change in mean performance (% acc) for our coordinate corruption experiments. Many open models don’t rely on their grounding for spatial reasoning and perception. Our retrained models (below) are more reliant on their grounding outputs.
Figure 3: Training Coordinate Randomization . We randomize varying percentages of coordinates in the SFT set and report task performance and grounding usage. While grounding usage decreases with more randomization, task performance remains relatively flat, except on counting.
Benchmark
Appended
Reflection
Δ
SMQA
0.529
0.527
−0.2±1.2
MHS
0.544
0.539
−0.5±1.2
V ∗
0.839
0.844
+0.5±4.5
MME-RW
0.533
0.531
−0.2±1.0
TreeBench
0.451
0.467
+1.6±2.0
CountQA
0.300
0.327
+2.7±1.9
Table 2: Appended vs reflection performance . The reflection reasoning style yields significantly better performance on counting.
SFT
RL
Benchmark
n
Ungrounded
Grounded
Δ
Ungrounded
Grounded
Δ
Spatial reasoning
SMQA
1076
0.537
0.527
−1.0±2.1
0.571
0.562
−0.9±1.8
MHS
1500
0.551
0.539
−1.3±1.3
0.615
0.588
−2.7±1.9
EmbSpatial
3640
0.730
0.733
+0.2±0.7
0.791
0.775
−1.7±0.9
VSR
1222
0.803
0.801
−0.2±1.5
0.789
0.733
−5.5±1.3
Table 3: Training recipe comparison . We report the performance of grounded reasoning and text-only reasoning training recipes after SFT and RL training phases. Deltas that exclude 0 from the confidence interval are highlighted. We find that grounding provides a statistically significant benefit on counting, but not on spatial reasoning or perception.
Figure 4: Synthetic Probe Tasks . We use three synthetic tasks to study where grounded reasoning improves over pure text reasoning. We find that grounding performs significantly better than text reasoning when no text-labels are available, but worse when given text labels. Zoom in for detail.
Figure 5: BrickVision . Samples from each task distribution of our BrickVision evaluation set. BrickVision tasks involve iterative comparison across objects difficult to describe in language, and require precise answers in the form of a point or integer.
Model
Crop ID
Fine-grained counting
Duplicate
Unpaired
Overall
GPT-6 Astra ( OpenAI, 2026b )
90.0
25.2
74.8
84.8
68.7
Claude Opus 5.5 ( Anthropic, 2026a )
40.4
16.8
19.6
27.6
26.1
GPT-5.6 Sol ( OpenAI, 2026a )
35.2
8.4
11.6
20.4
18.9
Gemini 3.8 Flash ( Google DeepMind, 2026b )
20.4
15.2
8.8
17.6
15.5
Claude Opus 5 ( Anthropic, 2026b )
26.8
10.4
8.4
11.6
14.3
Qwen3.8-Max ( Qwen Team, 2026b )
6.4
2.0
13.2
12.4
8.5
Table 4: VLM performance on BrickVision . Many frontier models struggle on BrickVision, suggesting limited ability to maintain undescribable visual references. Models trained with in-domain grounding data perform better than text reasoning, demonstrating the benefit of grounded reasoning.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
SFT
RL
Epochs
1
5
Batch
64
512 × 8
LR
10−5
10−5
Warmup
cosine, 3%
constant
Weight decay
0
0.01
KL / clip
–
0.01 / 0.2
Appendix
Table 5: Training hyperparameters .
Bench
n
Point
Box
Box − Point
Spatial Reasoning
SMQA
1076
0.527
0.509
−1.9±1.5
MHS
1500
0.539
0.525
−1.4±1.2
EmbSpatial
3640
0.733
0.728
−0.4±1.2
VSR
1222
0.801
0.797
−0.4±2.1
OmniSpatial
1533
0.470
0.467
−0.3±1.7
Appendix
Table 6: Point versus box grounding after SFT. We report the box minus point accuracy delta with 95% confidence intervals computed as in Appendix A . Bold deltas exclude 0.
Figure 6: SFT format ablation . We compare the appended and reflection SFT formats. We find that the reflection format generally leads to better grounding usage, and use this format in our SFT data.
Figure 7: Incorrect TreeVGR samples . Selected samples from the TreeVGR dataset illustrating errors in data such as incorrect box labeling or uninformative boxes.
Figure 8: Probe reasoning traces . We provide examples of our reasoning data used in our “Arrow Following” task to illustrate the difference between text traces and grounded traces.
Figure 9: Benchmark construction . Our benchmark combines procedural generation with conditional image generation to produce realistic images aligned with the original synthetic ground truth.
Figure 10: Restyling drift . Without locking the aspect ratio or prompting Nano-Banana with bounding boxes, we find that the restyled image drifts from the original, making the segmentation map ground truth (visualized as an overlay) incorrect.
Visually grounded reasoning links visual evidence to multi-step conclusions and actions, aiming to make multimodal systems accurate, auditable, and robust.
Visual thinking should not only sound right; it should show its evidence. While recent vision-language models (VLMs) can produce natural-language reasoning traces, these traces often leave the supporting image regions implicit, making them hard to verify and difficult to supervise. We introduce visually grounded thinking, a reasoning process in which models interleave natural-language thoughts with explicit point or box groundings of the visual evidence used at each step. This lets the model express intermediate reasoning in language while grounding key objects in the image regions they refer to. To train this behavior, we construct a scalable synthesis pipeline that distills correct visual reasoning traces, extracts the visual objects required by the traces, grounds them with a SAM3-based agent, and derives aligned point and box supervision from the resulting masks. We further propose grounding-aware reinforcement learning, which combines answer correctness rewards with dense grounding rewards that score whether generated object references match the correct image evidence. Across two counting benchmarks and four spatial reasoning benchmarks, adding visually grounded thinking to Gemma3-4B-IT consistently improves performance over the original model and the non-grounded thinking baseline. On spatial reasoning, the visually grounded thinking 4B models match, and in some cases surpass, Gemma3-27B-IT from the same model family. Our analysis shows that point grounding is well suited to counting, while box grounding benefits most from explicit grounding rewards on spatial tasks. Overall, our results show that VLMs think better when their intermediate thoughts are tied to the image regions that make them true.
Existing visual grounding benchmarks primarily evaluate alignment between image regions and literal referring expressions, where models can often succeed by matching a prominent named category. We explore a complementary and more challenging setting of scenario-based visual grounding, where the target must be inferred from roles, intentions, and relational context rather than explicit naming. We introduce Referring Scenario Comprehension (RSC), a benchmark designed for this setting. The queries in this benchmark are paragraph-length texts that describe object roles, user goals, and contextual cues, including deliberate references to distractor objects that often require deep understanding to resolve. Each instance is annotated with interpretable difficulty tags for uniqueness, clutter, size, overlap, and position which expose distinct failure modes and support fine-grained analysis. RSC contains approximately 31k training examples, 4k in-domain test examples, and a 3k out-of-distribution split with unseen object categories. We further propose ScenGround, a curriculum reasoning method serving as a reference point for this setting, combining supervised warm-starting with difficulty-aware reinforcement learning. Experiments show that scenario-based queries expose systematic failures in current models that standard benchmarks do not reveal, and that curriculum training improves performance on challenging slices and transfers to standard benchmarks.
Ruozhen He, Nisarg A. Shah, Qihua Dong +3
Rice University · Johns Hopkins University · Northeastern University
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have made remarkable progress across visual perception tasks, yet spatial reasoning remains a persistent weakness, especially for questions that require reasoning over visual space. Recent spatial-reasoning methods incorporate generated grounding, where models predict bounding boxes, masks, or other localization outputs for task-relevant objects as part of their reasoning trace. However, these approaches typically optimize final-answer correctness alone, allowing correct answers to be rewarded even when the model does not reason from confidently localized task-relevant objects. We introduce SpatialCORE (Spatially COnfident REasoning), a post-training framework that turns the model's own confidence in generated grounding into a learning signal for spatial reasoning. Its central idea is to reinforce grounding that is both accurate and confident, encouraging the model to reason from confidently localized task-relevant objects. SpatialCORE realizes this through a self-regulating spatial reward that weights each predicted bounding box's matching quality by its coordinate-token confidence. An answer gate further ties grounding optimization to final-answer correctness. SpatialCORE achieves state-of-the-art results among open-source and specialized spatial reasoning models across diverse benchmarks, and transfers effectively in zero-shot settings to unseen data distributions. The source code is available at https://github.com/rafiibnsultan/SpatialCORE.
Rafi Ibn Sultan, Xiangyu Zhou, Md. Sajid Alam Chowdhury +4
Department of Computer Science, Wayne State University · Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The Ohio State University +1