Balancing Efficiency and Efficacy: Training-Free Attention-Guided Switching Between Explicit and Latent Thoughts for MLLMs

Bin Chen; Haoqian Kang; Jinpeng Wang; Ke Chen; Kuofeng Gao; Liupeng Li; Yaowei Wang; Zhenyu Lu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Balancing Efficiency and Efficacy: Training-Free Attention-Guided Switching Between Explicit and Latent Thoughts for MLLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that multimodal LLM reasoning becomes faster and more accurate by switching between latent and explicit thought using the model's own vision-to-text attention ratio, training-free.

desk verdict A genuine new routing signal for training-free multimodal reasoning, but the evaluation is too loose — missing seed variance, a token-budget control, and hyperparameter decontamination — to back the large reported gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03450 v1 pith:U5O6AB65 submitted 2026-08-04 cs.MM cs.AIcs.CLcs.CV

Haoqian Kang , Liupeng Li , Kuofeng Gao , Jinpeng Wang , Zhenyu Lu , Bin Chen , Ke Chen , Yaowei Wang This is my paper

classification cs.MMcs.AIcs.CLcs.CV

keywords multimodallargelanguagemodelslatentreasoningchain-of-thoughtattentionroutingtraining-freeinferenceperception-reasoningdecouplingvision-to-textratioefficiency

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Explaining how a multimodal LLM should balance 'thinking in words' with 'thinking in continuous vectors', this paper tries to establish that the right switch signal is the model's own vision-to-text attention ratio, not output entropy. The proposed training-free strategy, AGS, routes perception-heavy decoding steps into the latent embedding space (probability-weighted soft tokens) to preserve visual detail, and keeps logic-heavy steps in explicit text to preserve deductive structure. Across six benchmarks and two model families (Qwen3-VL-Thinking and InternVL3.5, 2B-8B), AGS reports both higher accuracy and far fewer autoregressive steps than explicit CoT or entropy-based routing—on Qwen3-VL-8B, accuracy rises from 51.7% to 58.8% while average steps drop from 2214 to 953. If correct, this means substantial efficiency gains and hallucination reduction are available at inference time without retraining.

What carries the argument

Vision-to-text attention ratio $R_{A,t} = A_{V,t}/A_{T,t}$, where $A_{V,t}$ and $A_{T,t}$ are the averages (over layers and heads) of attention from the current query token to visual and text tokens, each normalized by its token count. It is used with a phase-wise dynamic threshold (the ratio of the first token in the current reasoning phase) to decide whether the next step is generated as explicit text or as a latent probability-weighted embedding $W^\top p_t$; two constraints, minimum explicit window $W=512$ and maximum switch budget $C=4$, keep the trajectory coherent and terminating.

What would settle it

Route the same decoding trajectories with a permuted or monotonic-scheduled attention-ratio signal that preserves the same switching frequencies; if accuracy remains roughly the same, the specific attention signal is not what carries the gains. A more direct test: have human annotators label whether each step's text refers to a visual detail, and check whether steps with $R_{A,t}$ above threshold are the same steps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that token-level entropy is the wrong routing signal for latent-vs-explicit reasoning in multimodal models because it conflates perceptual ambiguity (can't see the image clearly) with logical uncertainty (can't work out the deduction), and that the cross-modal attention ratio $R_{A,t}$—the per-step attention paid to visual tokens divided by attention paid to text tokens, averaged over layers and heads and normalized by token counts—cleanly separates perception-dominant from logic-dominant steps. On that signal the paper builds AGS, which switches to latent reasoning (probability-weighted embedding $W^\top p_t$) when $R_{A,t}$ is at or above the phase's reference value, a

Load-bearing premise

That a high vision-to-text attention ratio genuinely indicates a perception-heavy step needing latent processing, rather than reflecting positional bias, task difficulty, or context length—since the switching policy's correctness rests entirely on this reading, and the paper supports it with one illustrative example and a table-level ablation rather than a controlled analysis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Exploiting internal attention is a training-free substitute for learned latent-reasoning models: AGS outperforms the trained LEAD baseline on four benchmarks under checkpoint-controlled comparison.
Explicit CoT's accuracy-versus-latency trade-off is not inherent; it can be relieved by routing only perception-heavy steps into latent space.
Entropy-based latent/explicit routing should be avoided in MLLMs; the attention ratio beats it by 4 points average accuracy while using fewer steps (Table 3).
The gains hold across model families with very different chain lengths, suggesting the mechanism is not an artifact of one model's verbosity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same routing signal might generalize beyond latent/explicit switching—e.g., deciding when a model should zoom into an image region, call a tool, or emit a clarifying question—because $R_{A,t}$ reads where the model is seeking information.
The phase-wise dynamic threshold depends on the first token of a phase; if robust to initialization, one could replace it with a calibrated global threshold and make AGS a drop-in inference wrapper for any white-box MLLM.
Because $R_{A,t}$ normalizes by visual/text token counts, its distribution will shift with vision-encoder token counts (e.g., higher-resolution patches), so cross-architecture transfer may require re-normalization or per-architecture thresholds.
A testable prediction is that attention-ratio spikes mark failures of visual grounding—steps where the model looks hard at the image but still emits text; if so, $R_{A,t}$ could serve as a real-time hallucination detector.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

AGS is the first training-free method I've seen that uses cross-modal attention ratios rather than output entropy to decide when an MLLM should think in latent space and when it should write out tokens. That's a real contribution. The motivation is sound: token entropy conflates visual ambiguity with reasoning uncertainty, and the paper's diagnosis of why SwiReasoning transfers poorly to MLLMs is credible. The method is simple and plug-and-play: compute a per-step ratio of normalized attention to visual vs. text tokens, compare it to a phase-anchored threshold, and route perception-heavy steps through probability-weighted soft embeddings. No training, no architecture changes.

The reported gains are large and consistent. On Qwen3-VL-8B, AGS cuts average generation steps from 2214 to 953 and raises accuracy from 51.7 to 58.8 across six benchmarks; InternVL3.5 also improves, though more modestly. The ablation against entropy routing on four benchmarks shows a real accuracy edge, and the LEAD comparison under a fixed checkpoint is the right kind of control.

That said, the evidence is not yet tight enough to trust the magnitude. All results are single-run with multinomial sampling at temperature 0.6; no error bars, so seed luck is not ruled out. W and C are selected via ablations on M3CoT, which then appears in the main results. There's no truncation or token-budget baseline, so some of the efficiency gain could just come from generating fewer tokens, not from the routing policy being smart. The paper reports steps but claims 'latency' in the abstract; wall-clock time per latent step is never examined.

The load-bearing premise — that R_A,t cleanly separates perception from logic — is supported only by one hand-picked example and a two-row ablation. The context-length drift concern is legitimate: A_T,t normalizes by |I_t|, which grows during generation, so R_A,t has a built-in temporal trend that the phase-anchored threshold does not correct. Without a control that holds the latent-step budget fixed, the gains cannot be uniquely attributed to the attention-ratio policy.

These are fixable issues: add multiple seeds, tune hyperparameters on a held-out set or report sensitivity across benchmarks, add a token-budget control, and address the drift concern directly. This is for researchers working on inference-time efficiency and interpretable decoding for MLLMs; the attention-ratio signal is genuinely worth taking seriously. I would send it to peer review, but I would not accept it without the missing controls.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Attention-Guided Switching (AGS), a training-free inference strategy for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) that switches between explicit text decoding and latent soft-embedding decoding based on a vision-to-text attention ratio R_A,t (Eqs. 5–6). The authors argue that token-level entropy conflates perceptual ambiguity with logical uncertainty, whereas their attention ratio can identify perception-dominant decoding steps and route them through probability-weighted continuous embeddings (Eq. 4) while keeping logic-dominant steps in explicit token space. The method is evaluated on Qwen3-VL-Thinking and InternVL3.5 at 2B/4B/8B scales across six multimodal reasoning benchmarks plus POPE, reporting consistent accuracy gains and large reductions in autoregressive generation steps. The central claims are that AGS improves both accuracy and efficiency relative to explicit CoT and to an entropy-based routing baseline, and that it does so without training or architectural modification.

Significance. If the reported results hold, AGS would be a practical and interpretable training-free intervention for MLLM reasoning, with the attention-ratio metric being a novel white-box routing signal. The paper includes several strengths: a clearly specified mechanism, experiments across two model families and multiple scales, a checkpoint-controlled comparison with LEAD, ablations of the two hyperparameters, and a promise of open-source code. The efficiency gains are large, particularly for Qwen3-VL-Thinking (e.g., 8B: 2214→953 steps with accuracy rising from 51.7% to 58.8%). However, the evaluation lacks statistical rigor, and the load-bearing assumption that the attention ratio reliably reflects perception versus logic phases is supported only by anecdotal evidence. The significance is therefore conditional on additional controlled experiments.

major comments (4)

[§4.1, Table 1, Table 2] All results are reported from a single generation run per condition, despite the use of multinomial sampling at temperature 0.6. Several reported gains are small (e.g., InternVL3.5-4B average +0.6 points, POPE gains of 0.1–1.1 points), and without error bars, multiple seeds, or paired significance tests, the consistency of these improvements is not established. This is especially important for the efficiency/accuracy trade-off claims, where a single noisy run can materially change the reported conclusion.
[§4.4, Table 4, Figure 4] The hyperparameters W=512 and C=4 are selected using M3CoT (Table 4 and Figure 4), and M3CoT then appears as a benchmark in the main results in Table 1. This makes the M3CoT row and the choice of global hyperparameters optimistically biased. The paper should either report results with hyperparameters chosen without M3CoT, use a separate validation split, or provide evidence that the chosen W and C are robust across benchmarks and not dataset-specific.
[§3.2–3.3, Fig. 2, Table 3] The central premise that R_A,t identifies perception-dominant steps is weakly supported. The only direct evidence is one hand-picked example (Fig. 2) and a two-row ablation (Table 3) that compares attention-ratio routing against entropy routing without controlling for the number, position, or phase distribution of latent steps. Moreover, R_A,t normalizes by |I_t|, which grows during generation, so the ratio has a built-in context-length trend; the phase-anchored threshold tau_k = R_A,t_k does not detrend within a phase. To substantiate the claim, the authors should provide (a) a budget-matched comparison in which the number and positions of latent steps are held fixed and only the routing signal is varied, and (b) an evaluation of R_A,t against human-annotated perception/logic phases or an oracle routing policy.
[§3.3, Eqs. (7)–(8)] The termination guarantee is not formally correct as written. In Eq. (7), once c_{t-1} >= C, the model is forced to explicit mode, and Eq. (8) injects estop only when c_t = C and c_{t-1} < C. But c_t increments only on mode transitions; if the model remains in latent mode with R_A,t >= tau_k, c_t does not increase and the budget is never reached. Thus a long or infinite latent phase is not prevented by the stated mechanism. The authors should either revise the switching rule so that the budget bounds time spent in a single latent phase, or provide a corrected proof of deterministic termination.

minor comments (4)

[Figure 4 caption] The caption contains a long block of /uni... escape sequences, garbling the text. This should be cleaned up before any publication.
[Figure 5 caption] The caption reads “Explicit CoT Hybrid CoT,” but the text refers to the method as AGS. Please harmonize the terminology.
[§3.1, Eq. (5)] It should be stated explicitly whether the attention weights \alpha^{(l,h)}_{t,j} are post-softmax and normalized over all in-context keys, since this affects the interpretation of the ratio.
[§4.1] The phrase “state-of-the-art performance” is used despite the absence of comparisons with the most recent trained latent-reasoning MLLMs other than LEAD; consider softening the claim or adding more baselines.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: attention-ratio routing is defined from model attention and validated on external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. The vision-to-text attention ratio R_A,t (Eqs. 5–6) is computed directly from per-layer/head attention weights over visual and textual token index sets; it is not fitted to downstream accuracy or generation-step counts. The routing rule (Eqs. 7–8) is a deterministic function of R_A,t, a phase-anchored threshold tau_k = R_A,t_k, and two explicit hyperparameters W and C. The latent embedding (Eq. 4) is a standard probability-weighted vocabulary embedding, adopted from existing work rather than being derived from the paper's own outputs. None of these quantities is defined in terms of the benchmark accuracies or efficiency metrics that are reported as results, so there is no equation-level circularity. The main results are external benchmark comparisons against Explicit CoT and LEAD using the same checkpoints, and the reported gains are measured rather than constructed. Self-citations in the related-work section are not load-bearing for the method's derivation. The only methodological caveat is that W and C are selected using M3CoT (Table 4 and Figure 4) while M3CoT also appears in the headline results of Table 1; this is benchmark-selection leakage, not a circular derivation, and it does not affect the independent derivation of the attention-ratio routing signal. The illustrative validations in Figures 2 and 6 are anecdotal but not circular. Overall, the central claim has independent content and is not forced by definition or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or ontological entities are introduced. The 'vision-to-text attention ratio' is a derived statistic, not an entity. The main load-bearing assumptions are the reliability of the attention ratio as a perception/reasoning separator and the validity of latent soft embeddings in pretrained MLLMs; the W and C hyperparameters are fitted on one benchmark.

free parameters (3)

W (minimum explicit maintenance window) = 512
Chosen via ablation on M3CoT (Table 4) where it gives the best accuracy-efficiency trade-off; the same benchmark appears in the main results.
C (maximum switch budget) = 4
Chosen via ablation on M3CoT (Figure 4) where it gives the highest accuracy; the same benchmark appears in the main results.
Sampling temperature = 0.6
Used for explicit token generation (multinomial sampling); set without reported sensitivity analysis.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Token-level entropy conflates perceptual ambiguity with logical uncertainty in multimodal reasoning.
Stated in the introduction and used to motivate the attention-ratio metric; supported only by an unreported preliminary experiment.
domain assumption The vision-to-text attention ratio reliably indicates whether the current decoding step is perception-dominant or logic-dominant.
Core assumption behind AGS; supported qualitatively by Figure 2 and the Table 3 ablation, but no systematic validation across tasks.
domain assumption Feeding probability-weighted soft embeddings (W^T p_t) back into a pretrained MLLM yields stable latent reasoning without distributional collapse.
Standard in latent reasoning (SoftCoT, etc.), but for MLLMs the paper provides only one representative cosine-similarity trace (Figure 6).
domain assumption The model's attention maps are accessible at inference time (white-box access).
Required to compute R_A,t; holds for open-source HuggingFace models used here, but not for API-only MLLMs.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Balancing Efficiency and Efficacy: Training-Free Attention-Guided Switching Between Explicit and Latent Thoughts for MLLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U5O6AB65

@misc{pith2026260803450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Balancing Efficiency and Efficacy: Training-Free Attention-Guided Switching Between Explicit and Latent Thoughts for MLLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U5O6AB65}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03450}
}

read the original abstract

Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) requires both fine-grained visual perception and rigorous logical deduction. Explicit text-based Chain-of-Thought (CoT) is computationally expensive and prone to visual hallucinations, while existing latent reasoning methods typically require costly training. Furthermore, directly adapting training-free LLM reasoning mechanisms to the multimodal setting yields unstable performance. We identify that this failure stems from their reliance on token-level entropy, which fundamentally conflates perceptual ambiguity (e.g., unclear visual details) with logical uncertainty (e.g., complex reasoning steps). To overcome this bottleneck, we present a novel training-free inference strategy for MLLMs that explicitly decouples perception and reasoning. We propose a novel metric, the vision-to-text attention ratio, to dynamically gauge the model's cognitive focus. Guided by this metric, our proposed framework, Attention-Guided Switching (AGS), adaptively triggers latent reasoning for perceptual tokens to preserve high-fidelity visual information in the continuous space, while enforcing explicit text generation for logical tokens to maintain structural anchoring. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance, significantly improving both accuracy and inference efficiency by reducing autoregressive steps and latency. Code is released at https://github.com/swordAndSnow/MM26-AGS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03450 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Illustration of AGS. The overall inference process (left) shows the model dynamically shifting its reasoning mode based on the calculated vision-to-text attention ratio, 𝑅𝐴,𝑡 . High 𝑅𝐴,𝑡 value triggers a switch from explicit logic to latent perception, while low 𝑅𝐴,𝑡 value causes a transition from latent perception back to explicit logic, as visualized in the bottom-right plots. The specific calculation for the 𝑅𝐴,𝑡… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Ablation study on the maximum mode transition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Qualitative comparison between standard Explicit CoT (left) and our proposed Hybrid CoT (right) on a spatial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Step-wise cosine similarity between consecutive in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, Zesen Cheng, Lianghao Deng, Wei Ding, Chang Gao, Chunjiang Ge, et al . 2025. Qwen3-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631(2025)

arXiv 2025
[2]

Hardy Chen, Haoqin Tu, Fali Wang, Hui Liu, Xianfeng Tang, Xinya Du, Yuyin Zhou, and Cihang Xie. 2025. Sft or rl? an early investigation into training r1-like reasoning large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11468(2025)

arXiv 2025
[3]

Qiguang Chen, Libo Qin, Jin Zhang, Zhi Chen, Xiao Xu, and Wanxiang Che

work page
[4]

Zihui Cheng, Qiguang Chen, Xiao Xu, Jiaqi Wang, Weiyun Wang, Hao Fei, Yidong Wang, Alex Jinpeng Wang, Zhi Chen, Wanxiang Che, et al. 2025. Visual thoughts: A unified perspective of understanding multimodal chain-of-thought.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15510(2025)

arXiv 2025
[5]

Yihe Deng, Hritik Bansal, Fan Yin, Nanyun Peng, Wei Wang, and Kai-Wei Chang
[6]

Kaixuan Fan, Kaituo Feng, Haoming Lyu, Dongzhan Zhou, and Xiangyu Yue

work page
[7]

Jun Gao, Yongqi Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Wenjie Li. 2025. Interleaved-modal chain-of- thought. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. 19520–19529

work page 2025
[8]

Kuofeng Gao, Yang Bai, Jindong Gu, Shu-Tao Xia, Philip Torr, Zhifeng Li, and Wei Liu. 2024. Inducing high energy-latency of large vision-language models with verbose images. InICLR

work page 2024

Show all 64 references

[9]

Sophiavl-r1: Reinforcing mllms reasoning with thinking reward.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17018(2025)

2025
[10]

Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Ruoyu Zhang, Shirong Ma, Xiao Bi, et al. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incen- tivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948(2025)

2025 arXiv
[11]

Shibo Hao, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Xian Li, Zhiting Hu, Jason Weston, and Yuandong Tian. 2024. Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06769(2024)

2024 arXiv
[12]

Yunhao Gou, Kai Chen, Zhili Liu, Lanqing Hong, Xin Jin, Zhenguo Li, James T Kwok, and Yu Zhang. 2025. Reasoning-Aligned Perception Decoupling for Scal- able Multi-modal Reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04559(2025)

2025
[13]

Siyuan Huang, Xiaoye Qu, Yafu Li, Yun Luo, Zefeng He, Daizong Liu, and Yu Cheng. 2025. Spotlight on token perception for multimodal reinforcement learn- ing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09285(2025)

2025
[14]

Wenxuan Huang, Bohan Jia, Zijie Zhai, Shaosheng Cao, Zheyu Ye, Fei Zhao, Zhe Xu, Xu Tang, Yao Hu, and Shaohui Lin. 2025. Vision-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in multimodal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06749 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[15]

Yushi Hu, Weijia Shi, Xingyu Fu, Dan Roth, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A Smith, and Ranjay Krishna. 2024. Visual sketchpad: Sketching as a visual chain of thought for multimodal language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (2024), 139348–139379

2024
[16]

Xin Lai, Junyi Li, Wei Li, Tao Liu, Tianjian Li, and Hengshuang Zhao. 2025. Mini- o3: Scaling up reasoning patterns and interaction turns for visual search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07969(2025)

2025 arXiv
[17]

Bangzheng Li, Ximeng Sun, Jiang Liu, Ze Wang, Jialian Wu, Xiaodong Yu, Hao Chen, Emad Barsoum, Muhao Chen, and Zicheng Liu. 2025. Latent visual rea- soning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24251(2025)

2025 arXiv
[18]

Hongrui Jia, Chaoya Jiang, Shikun Zhang, and Wei Ye. 2025. Decoupling Rea- soning and Perception: An LLM-LMM Framework for Faithful Visual Reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.23322(2025)

2025 arXiv
[19]

Liupeng Li, Haoqian Kang, Zhenyu Lu, Jinpeng Wang, Bin Chen, Ke Chen, and Yaowei Wang. 2026. CVSearch: Empowering Multimodal LLMs with Cognitive Vi- sual Search for High-Resolution Image Perception.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23655 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[20]

Yunheng Li, Hangyi Kuang, Hengrui Zhang, Jiangxia Cao, Zhaojie Liu, Qibin Hou, and Ming-Ming Cheng. 2026. Rethinking Token-Level Policy Optimization for Multimodal Chain-of-Thought.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22847(2026)

2026
[21]

Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Dong Guo, Renrui Zhang, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Kaichen Zhang, Peiyuan Zhang, Yanwei Li, Ziwei Liu, et al. 2024. Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03326(2024)

2024 arXiv
[22]

Jinda Lu, Junkang Wu, Jinghan Li, Kexin Huang, Shuo Yang, Guoyin Wang, Jiancan Wu, Xiang Wang, and Xiangnan He. 2026. Bridging Perception and Reasoning: Token Reweighting for RLVR in Multimodal LLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25077(2026)

2026
[23]

Pan Lu, Hritik Bansal, Tony Xia, Jiacheng Liu, Chunyuan Li, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Hao Cheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Mathvista: Evaluating mathematical reasoning of foundation models in visual contexts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02255(2023)

2023 arXiv
[24]

Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual in- struction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems36 (2023), 34892–34916

2023
[25]

Zhenyu Lu, Liupeng Li, Jinpeng Wang, Haoqian Kang, Yan Feng, Ke Chen, and Yaowei Wang. 2026. SegCompass: Exploring Interpretable Alignment with Sparse Autoencoders for Enhanced Reasoning Segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.22658(2026)

2026 arXiv
[26]

Zhenyu Lu, Liupeng Li, Jinpeng Wang, Haoqian Kang, Manyuan Zhang, Yan Feng, Ke Chen, and Yaowei Wang. 2026. AffIn-Space: Learning Affine-Invariant Repre- sentations for 3D Spatial Understanding with MLLMs. InForty-third International Conference on Machine Learning. https://ope...

2026
[27]

Pan Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Tanglin Xia, Liang Qiu, Kai-Wei Chang, Song-Chun Zhu, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. 2022. Learn to explain: Multi- modal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering.Advances in neural information processing systems35 (2...

2022
[28]

Fanqing Meng, Lingxiao Du, Zongkai Liu, Zhixiang Zhou, Quanfeng Lu, Daocheng Fu, Botian Shi, Wenhai Wang, Junjun He, Kaipeng Zhang, et al. 2025. Mm-eureka: Exploring visual aha moment with rule-based large-scale reinforce- ment learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07365(2025)

2025 arXiv
[29]

Tan-Hanh Pham and Chris Ngo. 2025. Multimodal chain of continuous thought for latent-space reasoning in vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.12587 (2025)

2025
[30]

Ruilin Luo, Zhuofan Zheng, Yifan Wang, Yiyao Yu, Xinzhe Ni, Zicheng Lin, Jin Zeng, and Yujiu Yang. 2025. Ursa: Understanding and verifying chain-of-thought reasoning in multimodal mathematics.arXiv e-prints(2025), arXiv–2501

2025
[31]

Yuxuan Qiao, Haodong Duan, Xinyu Fang, Junming Yang, Lin Chen, Songyang Zhang, Jiaqi Wang, Dahua Lin, and Kai Chen. 2024. Prism: A framework for decoupling and assessing the capabilities of vlms.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (2024), 111863–111898

2024
[32]

Carmelo Scribano, Mohammad Mahdi, Nedyalko Prisadnikov, Yuqian Fu, Giorgia Franchini, Danda Pani Paudel, Marko Bertogna, and Luc Van Gool. 2026. Accel- erating Vision Foundation Models with Drop-in Depthwise Convolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.22132(2026)

2026 arXiv
[33]

Runqi Qiao, Qiuna Tan, Guanting Dong, MinhuiWu MinhuiWu, Chong Sun, Xi- aoshuai Song, Jiapeng Wang, Zhuoma Gongque, Shanglin Lei, Yifan Zhang, et al
[34]

InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

We-math: Does your large multimodal model achieve human-like mathe- matical reasoning?. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 20023–20070
[35]

Zhaochen Su, Peng Xia, Hangyu Guo, Zhenhua Liu, Yan Ma, Xiaoye Qu, Jiaqi Liu, Yanshu Li, Kaide Zeng, Zhengyuan Yang, et al. 2025. Thinking with images for multimodal reasoning: Foundations, methods, and future frontiers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23918(2025)

2025 arXiv
[36]

Wenhui Tan, Jiaze Li, Jianzhong Ju, Zhenbo Luo, Ruihua Song, and Jian Luan
[37]

Hao Shao, Shengju Qian, Han Xiao, Guanglu Song, Zhuofan Zong, Letian Wang, Yu Liu, and Hongsheng Li. 2024. Visual cot: Advancing multi-modal language models with a comprehensive dataset and benchmark for chain-of-thought rea- soning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Sy...

2024
[38]

Dachuan Shi, Abedelkadir Asi, Keying Li, Xiangchi Yuan, Leyan Pan, Wenke Lee, and Wen Xiao. 2025. SwiReasoning: Switch-Thinking in Latent and Explicit for Pareto-Superior Reasoning LLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05069(2025)

2025
[39]

Qixun Wang, Yang Shi, Yifei Wang, Yuanxing Zhang, Pengfei Wan, Kun Gai, Xianghua Ying, and Yisen Wang. 2025. Monet: Reasoning in latent visual space beyond images and language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21395(2025)

2025
[40]

Weiyun Wang, Zhangwei Gao, Lixin Gu, Hengjun Pu, Long Cui, Xingguang Wei, Zhaoyang Liu, Linglin Jing, Shenglong Ye, Jie Shao, et al. 2025. Internvl3. 5: Ad- vancing open-source multimodal models in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18265(2025)

2025 arXiv
[41]

Think silently, think fast: Dynamic latent compression of llm reasoning chains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16552(2025)

2025
[42]

Jintao Tong, Shilin Yan, Hongwei Xue, Xiaojun Tang, Kunyu Shi, Guannan Zhang, Ruixuan Li, and Yixiong Zou. 2026. SwimBird: Eliciting Switchable Reasoning Mode in Hybrid Autoregressive MLLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06040(2026)

2026
[43]

Ke Wang, Junting Pan, Weikang Shi, Zimu Lu, Houxing Ren, Aojun Zhou, Mingjie Zhan, and Hongsheng Li. 2024. Measuring multimodal mathematical reasoning with math-vision dataset.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (2024), 95095–95169

2024
[44]

Qiong Wu, Xiangcong Yang, Yiyi Zhou, Chenxin Fang, Baiyang Song, Xiaoshuai Sun, and Rongrong Ji. 2025. Grounded chain-of-thought for multimodal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12799(2025)

2025 arXiv
[45]

Yige Xu, Xu Guo, Zhiwei Zeng, and Chunyan Miao. 2025. Softcot: Soft chain- of-thought for efficient reasoning with llms. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). MM ’26, November 10–14, 2026, Rio de Jane...

2025
[46]

Xiasi Wang, Tianliang Yao, Simin Chen, Runqi Wang, Lei Ye, Kuofeng Gao, Yi Huang, and Yuan Yao. 2025. VLMInferSlow: Evaluating the Efficiency Robustness of Large Vision-Language Models as a Service. InACL

2025
[47]

Yaoting Wang, Shengqiong Wu, Yuecheng Zhang, Shuicheng Yan, Ziwei Liu, Jiebo Luo, and Hao Fei. 2025. Multimodal chain-of-thought reasoning: A comprehensive survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12605(2025)

2025 arXiv
[48]

Penghao Wu and Saining Xie. 2024. V*: Guided visual search as a core mechanism in multimodal llms. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 13084–13094

2024
[49]

Yi Yang, Xiaoxuan He, Hongkun Pan, Xiyan Jiang, Yan Deng, Xingtao Yang, Haoyu Lu, Dacheng Yin, Fengyun Rao, Minfeng Zhu, et al. 2025. R1-onevision: Advancing generalized multimodal reasoning through cross-modal formalization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Confere...

2025
[50]

Zeyuan Yang, Xueyang Yu, Delin Chen, Maohao Shen, and Chuang Gan. 2025. Machine mental imagery: Empower multimodal reasoning with latent visual tokens.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.17218(2025)

2025 arXiv
[51]

Yige Xu, Xu Guo, Zhiwei Zeng, and Chunyan Miao. 2025. Softcot++: Test-time scaling with soft chain-of-thought reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11484 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[52]

Zhongxing Xu, Zhonghua Wang, Zhe Qian, Dachuan Shi, Feilong Tang, Ming Hu, Shiyan Su, Xiaocheng Zou, Wei Feng, Dwarikanath Mahapatra, et al. 2026. Thinking in uncertainty: Mitigating hallucinations in mlrms with latent entropy- aware decoding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.13366(2026)

2026
[53]

Wenhao Yang, Yu Xia, Jinlong Huang, Shiyin Lu, Qing-Guo Chen, Zhao Xu, Weihua Luo, Kaifu Zhang, Yuanyu Wan, and Lijun Zhang. 2025. Deep But Reliable: Advancing Multi-turn Reasoning for Thinking with Images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17306(2025)

2025
[54]

Yi-Fan Zhang, Xingyu Lu, Shukang Yin, Chaoyou Fu, Wei Chen, Xiao Hu, Bin Wen, Kaiyu Jiang, Changyi Liu, Tianke Zhang, et al. 2025. Thyme: Think beyond images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11630(2025)

2025 arXiv
[55]

Zhen Zhang, Xuehai He, Weixiang Yan, Ao Shen, Chenyang Zhao, Shuohang Wang, Yelong Shen, and Xin Eric Wang. 2025. Soft thinking: Unlocking the reason- ing potential of llms in continuous concept space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15778 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[56]

Edward Yeo, Yuxuan Tong, Morry Niu, Graham Neubig, and Xiang Yue
[57]

Demystifying long chain-of-thought reasoning in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03373(2025)

2025 arXiv
[58]

Huanyu Zhang, Wenshan Wu, Chengzu Li, Ning Shang, Yan Xia, Yangyu Huang, Yifan Zhang, Li Dong, Zhang Zhang, Liang Wang, et al. 2025. Latent sketchpad: Sketching visual thoughts to elicit multimodal reasoning in mllms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.24514(2025)

2025
[59]

Renrui Zhang, Dongzhi Jiang, Yichi Zhang, Haokun Lin, Ziyu Guo, Pengshuo Qiu, Aojun Zhou, Pan Lu, Kai-Wei Chang, Yu Qiao, et al. 2024. Mathverse: Does your multi-modal llm truly see the diagrams in visual math problems?. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 169–186

2024
[62]

Kesen Zhao, Beier Zhu, Qianru Sun, and Hanwang Zhang. 2025. Unsupervised visual chain-of-thought reasoning via preference optimization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2303–2312

2025
[63]

thinking with images

Ziwei Zheng, Michael Yang, Jack Hong, Chenxiao Zhao, Guohai Xu, Le Yang, Chao Shen, and Xing Yu. 2025. Deepeyes: Incentivizing" thinking with images" via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14362(2025)

2025 arXiv
[64]

Sifan Zhou, Yichao Cao, Jiahao Nie, Yuqian Fu, Ziyu Zhao, Xiaobo Lu, and Shuo Wang. 2026. Comptrack: Information bottleneck-guided low-rank dynamic token compression for point cloud tracking. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 40. 13773–13781

2026
[2024]

InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

M3cot: A novel benchmark for multi-domain multi-step multi-modal chain-of-thought. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 8199–8221
[2025]

Openvlthinker: An early exploration to complex vision-language reasoning via iterative self-improvement.arXiv e-prints(2025), arXiv–2503

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, Zesen Cheng, Lianghao Deng, Wei Ding, Chang Gao, Chunjiang Ge, et al . 2025. Qwen3-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631(2025)

arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

Hardy Chen, Haoqin Tu, Fali Wang, Hui Liu, Xianfeng Tang, Xinya Du, Yuyin Zhou, and Cihang Xie. 2025. Sft or rl? an early investigation into training r1-like reasoning large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11468(2025)

arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

Qiguang Chen, Libo Qin, Jin Zhang, Zhi Chen, Xiao Xu, and Wanxiang Che

work page

[4] [4]

Zihui Cheng, Qiguang Chen, Xiao Xu, Jiaqi Wang, Weiyun Wang, Hao Fei, Yidong Wang, Alex Jinpeng Wang, Zhi Chen, Wanxiang Che, et al. 2025. Visual thoughts: A unified perspective of understanding multimodal chain-of-thought.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15510(2025)

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

Yihe Deng, Hritik Bansal, Fan Yin, Nanyun Peng, Wei Wang, and Kai-Wei Chang

[6] [6]

Kaixuan Fan, Kaituo Feng, Haoming Lyu, Dongzhan Zhou, and Xiangyu Yue

work page

[7] [7]

Jun Gao, Yongqi Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Wenjie Li. 2025. Interleaved-modal chain-of- thought. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. 19520–19529

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Kuofeng Gao, Yang Bai, Jindong Gu, Shu-Tao Xia, Philip Torr, Zhifeng Li, and Wei Liu. 2024. Inducing high energy-latency of large vision-language models with verbose images. InICLR

work page 2024