# VERDICT: Training-Free Step-Wise Verification of Multimodal Reasoning via Disagreement-Aware Consensus

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10665 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.10665/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 27 of its 51 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)
- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/vlm-benchmarks-and-visual-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 27 of 27)

- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Qwen3-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21631/) (2025)
- [Gemma 3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19786/) (2025)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10355/) (2023)
- [Are We on the Right Way for Evaluating Large Vision-Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.20330/) (2024)
- [Cambrian-1: A Fully Open, Vision-Centric Exploration of Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.16860/) (2024)
- [A Diagram Is Worth A Dozen Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.07396/) (2016)
- [Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00923/) (2023)
- [BLINK: Multimodal Large Language Models Can See but Not Perceive](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12390/) (2024)
- [Improve Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models by Automated Process Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06592/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00253/) (2024)
- [Reward Model Ensembles Help Mitigate Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02743/) (2023)
- [Helping or Herding? Reward Model Ensembles Mitigate but do not Eliminate Reward Hacking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.09244/) (2023)
- [3DSRBench: A Comprehensive 3D Spatial Reasoning Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.07825/) (2024)
- [VisualPRM: An Effective Process Reward Model for Multimodal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10291/) (2025)
- [M3CoT: A Novel Benchmark for Multi-Domain Multi-step Multi-modal Chain-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.16473/) (2024)
- [Self-Rewarding Vision-Language Model via Reasoning Decomposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.19652/) (2025)
- [Critic-V: VLM Critics Help Catch VLM Errors in Multimodal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.18203/) (2024)
- [MM-Verify: Enhancing Multimodal Reasoning with Chain-of-Thought Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13383/) (2025)
- [LLaVA-Critic-R1: Your Critic Model is Secretly a Strong Policy Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.00676/) (2025)
- [MM-PRM: Enhancing Multimodal Mathematical Reasoning with Scalable Step-Level Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13427/) (2025)
- [More Thought, Less Accuracy? On the Dual Nature of Reasoning in Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25848/) (2025)
- [Multi-modal Preference Alignment Remedies Degradation of Visual Instruction Tuning on Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10884/) (2024)
- [Sherlock: Self-Correcting Reasoning in Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22651/) (2025)
- [Learning to Refine: Self-Refinement of Parallel Reasoning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.00084/) (2025)
- [VGent: Visual Grounding via Modular Design for Disentangling Reasoning and Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.11099/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multimodal large language models often generate reasoning chains containing subtle errors that lead to incorrect answers. Current verification approaches have notable limitations. Existing approaches either require expensive labelled supervision with inconsistent cross-task performance or aggregate scores from multiple sources by simple aggregations, missing a key insight: when these scores disagree, that disagreement itself carries important information about whether a reasoning step is truly valid or not. We formalise this as a coupled scoring problem among disparate, frozen verifiers, interpretable as a coordination game with a unique closed-form equilibrium where agreement signals valid steps while disagreement reveals instability. Towards this end, we propose a training-free domain-agnostic step-wise verification approach we call VERDICT: VERification via Disagreement-Informed Coupled Thresholding. To our knowledge, VERDICT is the first training-free verifier that makes the structure of cross-modal disagreement explicit and actionable. It computes consensus scores through a closed-form solution, enabling both disagreement-aware filtering and stability-conscious ranking of reasoning steps. Evaluated across six benchmarks, method consistently improves over the base model by up to +5.95%, and performs competitively with domain-specific critics that demand extensive supervision, demonstrating that cross-modal agreement provides robust verification signals without task-specific adaptation and Training-Free Verification