Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 21 references

ChronoVision: Temporal Reasoning via Latent State Reconstruction

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ChronoVision claims that a 9B vision-language model trained to reconstruct an event's final visual state in latent space, rather than reason in text alone, achieves 74.8% in-domain and 71.6% out-of-domain accuracy on a six-frame…

desk verdict Worth reviewing, but the IntPhys2 transfer claim is currently unverifiable; the Vbvr-VQA result is structurally strong but the table averages don't sum. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05631 v1 pith:DW2HM627 submitted 2026-08-06 cs.CV

Yifan Shen , Jian Xu , Boyi Li , Yuner Zhang , Tianjiao Yu , Bingxuan Li , Houze Yang , Rushi Wang
show 1 more author
Xu Cao
This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords temporalreasoninglatentstatereconstructionframeorderingvisualmultimodallargelanguagemodelsreinforcementlearningintuitivephysicsvideo
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

ChronoVision argues that vision-language models fail at multi-step temporal reasoning because they reason in words, and words cannot faithfully carry continuous visual transformations such as rotations, fluid motion, or block stacking. The remedy is to train the model to reconstruct, in latent space, the visual appearance of the event's final state before producing an answer, alongside an attention mechanism that focuses on the regions that actually change. To demonstrate this, the paper introduces Vbvr-VQA, which converts video reasoning into a strict six-frame chronological-ordering task where random guessing succeeds with probability $1/720$, and reports 74.8% in-domain and 71.6% out-of-domain exact-match accuracy from a 9B model, surpassing much larger proprietary systems. It further reports 55.0% overall accuracy on the cross-domain IntPhys2 benchmark, versus 48.5% for its base model. The paper's thesis, if correct, is that latent visual-state prediction, rather than larger scale or longer text reasoning, is what unlocks genuine temporal and physical reasoning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Reconstructive Visual Head (RVH), a two-layer MLP that maps the language backbone's hidden states for the six shuffled candidate frames to a predicted latent representation of the final transformed state, trained by MSE against the frozen visual encoder's embedding of the true final frame. Around it sit two supporting mechanisms: the ROI Attention Locating module, which applies an attention-condensation loss at one designated intermediate layer so that <LOCATE>-query attention concentrates inside ground-truth bounding boxes of the dynamic regions, and the reinforcement-learning stage, which uses GRPO with a composite reward of outcome exact-match, latent-process cosine alignment, and attention-entropy focus. The paper's apparatus also includes Vbvr-VQA itself, a benchmark that turns video clips into six-frame ordering problems with $6! = 720$ possible permutations, making chance performance negligible and linguistic shortcutting difficult.

What would settle it

Re-run the evaluation with an explicitly specified protocol: (1) IntPhys2 as a strict six-frame ordering task with chance $1/720$ rather than the paper's unspecified format, and (2) an OOD split built from entirely different task generators and rendering styles with all GPT-5-generated locate and bounding-box cues removed from the prompts. If accuracy under those conditions approaches chance while in-domain accuracy stays high, the generalization and physics-transfer claims are not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the bottleneck in visual temporal reasoning is the textual channel: language-based chain-of-thought loses the spatial information needed to track how a scene transforms. ChronoVision therefore trains a 9B multimodal model, during supervised fine-tuning, with a Reconstructive Visual Head that predicts the frozen visual encoder's embedding of the final chronological frame from the shuffled candidates under an MSE loss, while an ROI Attention Locating module condenses text-to-image attention onto ground-truth bounding-box regions using <LOCATE> semantic cues. Post-training applies GRPO with a composite reward, namely a sparse exact-match outcome reward, a latent-grounding process reward measuring cosine similarity between step-level reasoning states and candidate image features, and an attention-entropy focus reward, which the paper says suppresses compounding errors in long-horizon reasoning. On Vbvr-VQA the full pipeline reaches 74.8% in-domain and 71.6% out-of-domain exact-match accuracy, with ablations attributing +3.2%/+2.8% to the reconstructive head, +1.2% to ROI locating, and +3.2%/+2.8% to the RL stage, and it reports 55.0% on IntPhys2 against 48.5% for the base model. Appendix-level experiments with latent perturbation, latent patching, and linear probing are presented as evidence that the predicted latent sequence causally guides the reasoning rather than passively following the text.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the premise that the out-of-domain and IntPhys2 scores measure genuine transfer of physical understanding rather than the model picking up on visual style or annotation cues, since the OOD split comes from the same VBVR suite and the same GPT-5 annotation pipeline that produced the training data, and the IntPhys2 task format and chance level are never pinned down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the results are right, text-only chain-of-thought is the wrong substrate for visual temporal reasoning, and models should maintain a predicted latent visual state in parallel with their verbal reasoning.
  • Frame-ordering evaluation (720 permutations, exact match) makes random performance 0.14%, so the reported 74.8%/71.6% numbers, if reproduced, would be evidence that the model is not exploiting linguistic pattern matching in the question or options.
  • General-benchmark parity (MMMU 78.8 vs 78.4 and MathVista 85.9 vs 85.7 against the base 9B model) implies that the temporal-reasoning gains can be bought without sacrificing ordinary vision-language capability.
  • The latent-sequence interventions in the appendix, where patching a correct latent into an incorrect run shifts output toward the correct order, imply that the reconstructed final-state representation is a causal control signal rather than a side effect of correct answers.
  • The stated limitation that the framework relies on dense auxiliary supervision, including semantic locating cues and spatial bounding-box annotations, means the method as presented is not directly portable to unannotated video reasoning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the 55.0% IntPhys2 result is thinner evidence than it appears, because the paper never specifies the task format, and its remark that chance is 'approximately 50%' is consistent with a binary protocol rather than the six-frame ordering used on Vbvr-VQA; on a true 720-permutation ordering 55.0% would be extraordinary, whereas on a binary choice it is a modest 5-point margin.
  • My inference: the 'out-of-domain' split is within-family generalization, since it draws 50 unseen generators from the same VBVR suite whose training half was annotated by the same GPT-5 pipeline (Appendix A.1), so the 71.6% number likely overstates how the model would behave on genuinely unfamiliar rendering styles, object sets, or task suites.
  • My inference: the paper's own mechanism predicts a scaling test it does not run, namely that accuracy should improve with more intermediate candidate frames and degrade when the final frame is visually non-discriminative; a reader wanting to believe the mechanism could check that gradient directly.
  • My inference: nothing in the design requires the six-frame format, so if latent final-state reconstruction is the real driver, the same recipe should transfer to longer horizons and to continuous next-frame prediction, which would be a stronger demonstration than the fixed-length permutation task.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. ChronoVision proposes a 9B vision-language model for temporal reasoning, evaluated on Vbvr-VQA, a new benchmark derived from the Very Big Video Reasoning (VBVR) suite, where a model must order six shuffled frames into their correct chronological sequence. The method introduces a Reconstructive Visual Head (RVH) that predicts the latent representation of the final frame during supervised fine-tuning, an ROI Attention Locating module that condenses attention onto dynamically changing regions using semantic locate tokens and bounding-box supervision, and a post-training GRPO stage with a composite reward combining exact-match outcome reward, a latent-grounding process reward, and an unsupervised attention-focus reward. The paper reports 74.8% in-domain and 71.6% out-of-domain exact-match accuracy on Vbvr-VQA, 55.0% accuracy on IntPhys2, and comparable performance to the base Qwen 3.5 9B on standard multimodal benchmarks.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, the work has clear significance: the exact-match metric with a 1/720 chance floor makes the Vbvr-VQA accuracy a strong signal of genuine ordering ability on the evaluated distribution, and the ablation suite—including latent patching, state perturbation, and linear probing—is unusually thorough for a VLM paper. The claimed cross-domain transfer to IntPhys2, however, is currently unverifiable because the task format and evaluation protocol are underspecified, and the out-of-domain split on Vbvr-VQA is drawn from the same benchmark family and annotation pipeline as the training data, limiting the external-generalization reading. The significance is therefore moderate-to-high, contingent on the major clarifications below.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A.1] The description of the training and OOD splits is internally inconsistent. The appendix states that the training set is 1,000,000 samples generated by 100 distinct task generators, yet also states that the OOD split contains 'completely new task generators' that the model has never seen. If the OOD generators are among the 100 used for training, then the OOD claim is false; if they are not, the training set cannot contain all 100 generators as stated. Please clarify the exact overlap between training generators and the 50 OOD test generators, and define 'out-of-domain' precisely given that both splits come from the same VBVR suite and the same GPT-5 annotation pipeline.
  2. [Section 4.4, Table 4] The IntPhys2 evaluation is described as a frame-sequencing task ('requires models to sequence frames'), yet the text states that random chance is 'approximately 50%'. For six-frame ordering, chance is 1/720 ≈ 0.14%; 50% chance only matches a binary plausible/implausible forced-choice protocol. The paper provides no evaluation script, no number of test items per subset, and no confidence intervals, so the 55.0% result cannot currently be interpreted as evidence of generalized temporal-physics ordering. Please specify the exact task format and protocol; if it is the original binary IntPhys2 protocol, then the 'sequence frames' description is inaccurate and the conclusion that the model 'internalized generalized physical laws' in Section 4.4 is not supported by the reported 55.0%.
  3. [Tables 1 and 3] The category-wise accuracies do not average to the reported overall/avg columns. For example, in Table 3 the full-model OOD category scores 66.7, 75.0, 72.5, 64.0, and 74.0 have a simple mean of 70.4, not the reported 71.6; similar discrepancies appear in the in-domain rows and in Table 1 for several baselines. If the 'Avg.' column is a weighted overall computed over unequal per-category sample sizes, that weighting must be stated and the per-category sample sizes reported; as written, the arithmetic does not check, which undermines confidence in the numerical results.
  4. [Eq. (5), Section 3.4] The latent-grounding process reward Rlatent is defined as the maximum cosine similarity between the reasoning-step latent Z_k and any of the six candidate visual features V_i. Because the maximum is taken over all candidates, a latent representation that matches any arbitrary candidate—not necessarily the correct final state or the correct intermediate state—receives a high reward. The ablation attributes a 2.2% overall drop to removing this reward, but the objective as written does not enforce grounding to the true temporal process. Please clarify the intended mechanism or modify the reward to compare against the ground-truth final state or a temporally ordered target.
  5. [Table 4] The claim of 'state-of-the-art performance' on IntPhys2 is not supported by the evidence presented: the table compares only ChronoVision with a single Qwen 3.5 9B baseline, with no comparison to existing published results on IntPhys2, no error bars, and no per-subset sample sizes. Please provide the official IntPhys2 evaluation results for established baselines, or at minimum the number of test items in each of Easy, Medium, and Hard, along with confidence intervals.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 3] The figure caption refers to 'Claude Sonnet 4.5' and 'Grok 4.20 Beta', but the main results in Table 1 list 'Claude Opus 4.6' and no Grok model; the caption is inconsistent with the reported baseline set.
  2. [Section 4.4] The benchmark name is written inconsistently as 'IntPhys2' in the abstract and 'IntPhys 2' in Section 4.4; please use one spelling throughout.
  3. [Appendix C.2] There is a typo: 'we track the evolution if the latent sequence' should read 'evolution of the latent sequence'.
  4. [Appendix C.6] The word 'disaractor' appears in the description of the latent intervention result; it should be 'distractor'.
  5. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'More implementation details will be in Appendix B' should be 'are provided in Appendix B'.
  6. [Appendix G.2] The human validation description states that all 500 test samples were reviewed, but it does not report inter-annotator agreement or how disagreements were resolved; adding this information would strengthen the data-quality claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline numbers are measured on held-out and external benchmarks, while the latent-reconstruction objectives are training mechanisms rather than renamed predictions.

full rationale

ChronoVision's central accuracy claims are exact-match accuracies on a held-out Vbvr-VQA test split (500 samples, human-validated per Appendix A.4 and G.2) and on the external IntPhys2 benchmark, not on the auxiliary latent objectives themselves. The RVH supervision in Eq. 1 targets h_final = Encoder_vis(v_final), where v_final is one of the shuffled candidates, so the model must infer which candidate is chronologically final; this does not make the reported exact-match accuracy equal to the training target by construction. Similarly, the R_latent reward in Eq. 5 is an auxiliary RL shaping term that rewards cosine similarity between the reasoning latent and any candidate embedding; it is not the evaluation metric, and the ablation results are empirical measurements rather than logical reductions. Vbvr-VQA is an author-constructed reformulation of the public VBVR suite, but the test split follows the original suite's held-out protocol and all baselines are evaluated under the same conditions, so the in-domain/OOD comparison is a standard benchmark evaluation rather than a circular prediction. The paper does cite prior works by the same group (e.g., Cao et al. 2024; Li et al. 2026d; Shen et al. 2026a-f), but these appear in related-work motivation and do not carry the derivation of the reported results. The IntPhys2 section contains a potential inconsistency between the described frame-ordering task and the stated ~50% chance level, which is a correctness and verification concern, not a circularity of the form where a prediction reduces to its fitted input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated, so the graviton-style check is clean. The Reconstructive Visual Head and ROI Attention Locating module are architectural components, and the LOCATE tags are a text-interface convention; none of these are new postulated objects with an independent-evidence burden in the entity sense. The genuine ledger items are the fitted loss and reward weights, the unspecified attention layer, the six-interval sampling convention that defines the ground truth, and two domain assumptions about what the benchmark protocols measure.

free parameters (5)
  • RVH loss weight beta = 0.1
    Balances the MSE of the final-state latent prediction against cross-entropy in Eq. 8; the value is asserted, not derived.
  • Attention condensation weight alpha = 0.1
    Weights the L_AC attention loss in Eq. 8; set by hand.
  • Reward weights omega1, omega2, omega3 = 1.0, 0.5, 0.1
    Empirically set weights for outcome, latent-grounding, and focus rewards in Section B.1; no search or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Designated attention layer ell = unspecified
    Chosen by a validation heuristic on the base backbone (Section B.3); the actual layer index is never reported, yet the ROI module depends on it.
  • Six-interval temporal sampling = 6 equal intervals, final frame of each
    Dataset construction choice (Appendix A.2) that defines every ground-truth ordering in Vbvr-VQA; it is a fixed, paper-specific convention.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The frozen visual encoder's embeddings preserve visual-state similarity, so MSE against h_final (Eq. 1) is a meaningful training target.
    The RVH loss and the R_latent reward both treat cosine or MSE distance in encoder space as state closeness; this is assumed, not validated with any similarity analysis.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth orderings and GPT-5-generated LOCATE cues and bounding boxes are accurate and unambiguous.
    Human validation covered all 500 test samples but only 500 of 1,000,000 training samples (Appendix A.4); training-supervision quality for the remaining samples is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The OOD split (the remaining 50 VBVR generators) is a genuine zero-shot out-of-domain test.
    Appendix A.1 states the OOD generators come from the same suite and the same annotation pipeline as training, so 'out-of-domain' is within one procedural family; the paper presents it as 'completely new task generators and extreme physical scenarios.'
  • ad hoc to paper The IntPhys2 evaluation format produces near-50% random chance, implying a binary or permissive protocol.
    Section 4.4 calls random chance 'approximately 50%' while describing a frame-sequencing task; the actual IntPhys2 task format is never specified, which prevents independent verification of the 55.0% result.
  • standard math GRPO with a clipped surrogate objective and KL penalty (Eq. 7) is a valid policy-optimization routine for this setting.
    Standard prior machinery from Schulman et al. 2017 and Shao et al. 2024; not the paper's contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ChronoVision: Temporal Reasoning via Latent State Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DW2HM627

@misc{pith2026260805631,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ChronoVision: Temporal Reasoning via Latent State Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DW2HM627}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05631}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal large language models excel at passive perception but struggle with complex visual cognitive tasks requiring multi-step temporal reasoning. This degradation largely stems from the inherent ambiguity of language-based reasoning, which often fails to accurately articulate continuous visual transformations. To address this, we propose ChronoVision, a multimodal framework designed to align visual logic with latent imagery. During supervised fine-tuning, a Reconstructive Visual Head predicts the latent representation of the final transformed state, while an ROI Attention Locating module focuses the model on key visual evidence via semantic span queries. In post-training, we apply reinforcement learning with an implicit process grounding mechanism, guided by a composite reward function that evaluates outcome correctness, latent process alignment, and unsupervised visual focus. Furthermore, we introduce Vbvr-VQA, a novel dataset that evaluates temporal tracking by reformulating video reasoning into a strict image-ordering task. Experiments demonstrate that ChronoVision achieves state-of-the-art performance on Vbvr-VQA with 74.8% in-domain and 71.6% out-of-domain accuracy, alongside a strong 55.0% accuracy on IntPhys2, a highly challenging cross-domain benchmark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05631 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of the Vbvr-VQA dataset eliminate linguistic shortcuts and force the model to execute pure temporal and physical causal rea￾soning. Furthermore, while the output format is unified, the underlying physical scenarios are ex￾tremely diverse. The benchmark incorporates 100 distinct task generators covering fluid dynamics, kinematic collisions, and continuous spatial rota￾tions. Testing models through a unified,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall pipeline of ChronoVision. Given a query frame, shuffled candidate frames, and a task prompt, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of reasoning chains on a transformation planning problem from Vbvr-VQA. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of out-of-domain physical reasoning. We visualize three distinct real-world scenarios where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: More Examples of Vbvr-VQA dataset tations. Consequently, the probability of correctly guessing the exact chronological order by chance is exceptionally low (1/720 ≈ 0.14%). Achieving an accuracy exceeding 70 percent across 500 in￾stances, particularly on the 250 out-of…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dataset Processing Pipeline. driven by the specific requirements of multi-step visual reasoning and the nature of physical simula￾tion. First, our core objective is to facilitate latent vi￾sual imagery. Explicitly predicting four discrete numerical coordinates compress…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison on a representative mental simulation problem from Vbvr-VQA. ChronoVision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparison on a representative transformation problem from Vbvr-VQA. ChronoVision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Data Processing Prompt. The prompt template conditioning GPT-5 on ground truth sequences to generate verb-centric spatial-temporal reasoning chains and precise bounding boxes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Does the provided ground-truth sequence represent a physically plausible and causally valid temporal evolution? (Yes/No)

    Visual Check: Mentally simulate the physical transformation based on the task prompt. Does the provided ground-truth sequence represent a physically plausible and causally valid temporal evolution? (Yes/No)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Yukang Chen, Wei Huang, Baifeng Shi, Qinghao Hu, Hanrong Ye, Ligeng Zhu, Zhijian Liu, Pavlo Molchanov, Jan Kautz, Xiaojuan Qi, and 1 others

    Sft or rl? an early investigation into training r1- like reasoning large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11468. Yukang Chen, Wei Huang, Baifeng Shi, Qinghao Hu, Hanrong Ye, Ligeng Zhu, Zhijian Liu, Pavlo Molchanov, Jan Kautz, Xiaojuan Qi, and 1 others

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    This strict protocol ensures that the evaluation benchmark is free from synthetic hallucinations and strictly adheres to verifiable physical laws

    Spatial Check: Do the ‘<LO- CATE>‘ tags accurately correspond to the key visual regions undergoing dy- namic changes? (Yes/No) If any answer is "No," flag the sample for removal or manual correction. This strict protocol ensures that the evaluation benchmark is free from synthetic hallucinations and strictly adheres to verifiable physical laws. Data Proce...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 19520–19529

    Interleaved-modal chain-of-thought. In2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 19520–19529. IEEE. Google Deepmind. 2025. Gemini 3 flash: fron- tier intelligence built for speed. https: //blog.google/products-and-platforms/ products/gemini/gemini-3-flash/. Google Deepmind. 2026. Gemini 3.1 pro: A smarter model for y...

    arXiv 2025

  5. [6]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 9241–9251

    Perspective-aware reasoning in vision- language models via mental imagery simulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 9241–9251. Bangzheng Li, Ximeng Sun, Jiang Liu, Ze Wang, Jialian Wu, Xiaodong Yu, Emad Barsoum, Muhao Chen, and Zicheng Liu. 2026a. Latent visual reasoning. InIn- ternational Conference o...

    arXiv 2026

  6. [7]

    Zuyan Liu, Yuhao Dong, Yongming Rao, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu

    Understanding r1-zero-like training: A critical perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20783. Zuyan Liu, Yuhao Dong, Yongming Rao, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. 2024. Chain-of-spot: Interactive reason- ing improves large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12966. Mikołaj Małki´nski and Jacek Ma´ndziuk. 2023. A review of emerging research directions ...

    arXiv 2024

  7. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22607

    Vl-cogito: Progressive curriculum reinforce- ment learning for advanced multimodal reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22607. Aimen Zerroug, Mohit Vaishnav, Julien Colin, Sebas- tian Musslick, and Thomas Serre. 2022. A bench- mark for compositional visual reasoning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:29776– 29788. Haichao Zhang, Mingfei...

    arXiv 2022

  8. [11]

    First frame

    reveal that current VLMs are fundamentally bottlenecked by perceptual limitations and multi- image relational cognition rather than language logic alone. Furthermore, comprehensive spa- tiotemporal assessments including IntPhys 2 (Bor- des et al., 2025), OmniSpatial (Jia et al., 2026), Mmmr (Tie et al., 2025), and xCrysAlloys (Po- lat et al., 2025) demons...

    work page 2025

Show all 21 references
  1. [12]

    More recent works such as DeepEyes (Zheng et al.,

    and Refocus (Fu et al., 2025) incorporate su- pervised fine-tuning into ROI localization, enhanc- ing local evidence modeling through step-wise de- cision making and explicit refocusing, respectively. More recent works such as DeepEyes (Zheng et al.,

    2025

  2. [13]

    where-to-look

    and DeepEyesV2 (Hong et al., 2026) further optimize multi-step region exploration with rein- forcement learning, enabling models to actively acquire more informative visual evidence during inference. Beyond merely locating regions of in- terest, it is equally critical to ensur...

    2026

  3. [16]

    Logic Check: Does the provided text rationale accurately explain the tem- poral progression without hallucinating non-existent objects or violating physical laws? (Yes/No)

  4. [18]

    1. Analyze the Provided Sequence:Briefly explain the overall physical plausibility and causal logic governing the transformation from the first frame to the final state, based on the given sequence

  5. [19]

    Generate Verb-centric Semantic Cues:You must track the localized dynamic changes across the candidate frames

    2. Generate Verb-centric Semantic Cues:You must track the localized dynamic changes across the candidate frames. When describing a key visual state or motion that justifies a frame’s position in the sequence, you MUST enclose the descriptive text in<LOCATE>...</LOCATE>tags

  6. [20]

    3. The Action Rule:The text inside the <LOCATE> tag MUST be a verb-centric phrase describing an action or a changing state (e.g., <LOCATE>the red block being lifted into the air</LOCATE> or <LOCATE>the faces moving downwards and converging</LOCATE> ). Do NOT use static nouns (...

  7. [21]

    4. Bounding Box Grounding:For every <LOCATE> tag you generate, you must output the corresponding exact bounding box of that changing/moving object in the specified frame, using the format [x_min, y_min, width, height]. Required Output Format: Step 1: Temporal Logic of the Prov...

  8. [237]

    Amirhossein Kazemnejad, Milad Aghajohari, Eva Portelance, Alessandro Sordoni, Siva Reddy, Aaron Courville, and Nicolas Le Roux

    Springer. Amirhossein Kazemnejad, Milad Aghajohari, Eva Portelance, Alessandro Sordoni, Siva Reddy, Aaron Courville, and Nicolas Le Roux. 2024. Vineppo: Re- fining credit assignment in rl training of llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01679. Fucai Ke, Joy Hsu, Zhixi Cai, Zixian Ma...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [1869]

    thinking with images

    IEEE. Pingyue Zhang, Zihan Huang, Yue Wang, Jieyu Zhang, Letian Xue, Zihan Wang, Qineng Wang, Keshigeyan Chandrasegaran, Ruohan Zhang, Yejin Choi, and 1 others. 2026b. Theory of space: Can foundation models construct spatial beliefs through active explo- ration?arXiv preprint ...

    2025

  10. [2009]

    Guangyan Sun, Mingyu Jin, Zhenting Wang, Chenglong Wang, Siqi Ma, Qifan Wang, Tong Geng, Yingnian Wu, Yongfeng Zhang, and Dongfang Liu

    Enhanced visual processing contributes to matrix reasoning in autism.Human brain mapping, 30(12):4082–4107. Guangyan Sun, Mingyu Jin, Zhenting Wang, Chenglong Wang, Siqi Ma, Qifan Wang, Tong Geng, Yingnian Wu, Yongfeng Zhang, and Dongfang Liu. 2025. Vi- sual agents as fast and...

    2025 arXiv

  11. [2017]

    Ground- Truth Sequence Order

    remains a standard backbone for post- training, while GRPO (Shao et al., 2024) has be- come a practical choice for reasoning-oriented RL by estimating relative advantages from grouped sampled responses without training a separate value model. Recent analyses further identify b...

    2024

  12. [2025]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09849

    Intphys 2: Benchmarking intuitive physics understanding in complex synthetic environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09849. Xu Cao, Yifan Shen, Bolin Lai, Wenqian Ye, Yunsheng Ma, Joerg Heintz, Jintai Chen, Meihuan Huang, Jian- guo Cao, Aidong Zhang, and 1 others. 2024. What i...

    2024 arXiv

  13. [2026]

    Junhao Cheng, Yuying Ge, Teng Wang, Yixiao Ge, Jing Liao, and Ying Shan

    Scaling rl to long videos.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:172842–172870. Junhao Cheng, Yuying Ge, Teng Wang, Yixiao Ge, Jing Liao, and Ying Shan. 2025. Video-holmes: Can mllm think like holmes for complex video reasoning? arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21374. ...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.