# Visual sensitivity is not claim retractability: persistence-aware credit assignment for multimodal reinforcement learning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.36572 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.36572/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Multimodal reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 47 of its 52 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Multimodal reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/multimodal-reasoning/)
- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [Embodied and 3D vision-language models](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/embodied-and-3d-vision-language-models/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 47)

- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10355/) (2023)
- [CLEVR: A Diagnostic Dataset for Compositional Language and Elementary Visual Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.06890/) (2016)
- [Eyes Wide Shut? Exploring the Visual Shortcomings of Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06209/) (2024)
- [Mitigating Object Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models through Visual Contrastive Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16922/) (2023)
- [Vision-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in Multimodal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.06749/) (2025)
- [MathVerse: Does Your Multi-modal LLM Truly See the Diagrams in Visual Math Problems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14624/) (2024)
- [HallusionBench: An Advanced Diagnostic Suite for Entangled Language Hallucination and Visual Illusion in Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.14566/) (2023)
- [Measuring Multimodal Mathematical Reasoning with MATH-Vision Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14804/) (2024)
- [Visual-RFT: Visual Reinforcement Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01785/) (2025)
- [MMMU-Pro: A More Robust Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02813/) (2024)
- [OPERA: Alleviating Hallucination in Multi-Modal Large Language Models via Over-Trust Penalty and Retrospection-Allocation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17911/) (2023)
- [RLHF-V: Towards Trustworthy MLLMs via Behavior Alignment from Fine-grained Correctional Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.00849/) (2023)
- [Inter-GPS: Interpretable Geometry Problem Solving with Formal Language and Symbolic Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.04165/) (2021)
- [VL-Rethinker: Incentivizing Self-Reflection of Vision-Language Models with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08837/) (2025)
- [MM-Eureka: Exploring the Frontiers of Multimodal Reasoning with Rule-based Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.07365/) (2025)
- [R1-VL: Learning to Reason with Multimodal Large Language Models via Step-wise Group Relative Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.12937/) (2025)
- [AMBER: An LLM-free Multi-dimensional Benchmark for MLLMs Hallucination Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07397/) (2023)
- [We-Math: Does Your Large Multimodal Model Achieve Human-like Mathematical Reasoning?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01284/) (2024)
- [LMM-R1: Empowering 3B LMMs with Strong Reasoning Abilities Through Two-Stage Rule-Based RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.07536/) (2025)
- [LogicVista: Multimodal LLM Logical Reasoning Benchmark in Visual Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.04973/) (2024)
- [Aligning Modalities in Vision Large Language Models via Preference Fine-tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11411/) (2024)
- [DynaMath: A Dynamic Visual Benchmark for Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Robustness of Vision Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.00836/) (2024)
- [SoTA with Less: MCTS-Guided Sample Selection for Data-Efficient Visual Reasoning Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07934/) (2025)
- [RLAIF-V: Open-Source AI Feedback Leads to Super GPT-4V Trustworthiness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.17220/) (2024)
- [Perception-Aware Policy Optimization for Multimodal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06448/) (2025)
- [NoisyRollout: Reinforcing Visual Reasoning with Data Augmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13055/) (2025)
- [More Thinking, Less Seeing? Assessing Amplified Hallucination in Multimodal Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.21523/) (2025)
- [R1-ShareVL: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability of Multimodal Large Language Models via Share-GRPO](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16673/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has been extended to Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs), and perception-aware methods further encourage policies to rely on visual evidence. Yet relying on the image does not guarantee that visual claims are supported by it. Before RL training, 27.81% of the correctly answered responses of Qwen2.5-VL-7B on four multimodal reasoning benchmarks contain at least one direct visual claim that the image does not support. Since outcome-level RL rewards each response as a whole, these claims inherit the positive credit of the correct answer. We introduce a fixed-rollout counterfactual diagnostic that re-scores the same response under an intervened image to separate Evidence-Function Sensitivity (EFS), how strongly the model's predictions change, from claim persistence, whether the model keeps supporting the same claim rather than retracting it. The diagnostic reveals Sensitivity-Persistence Decoupling (SPD): under DAPO and VPPO, EFS increases and claims become more retractable overall, yet unsupported claims become significantly more persistent, whereas GRPO raises EFS without this deterioration. We therefore propose Persistence-Aware Credit Gating (PACG), which attenuates positive credit for unusually persistent visual claims and leaves all other credit unchanged. It requires no supported/unsupported labels and adds no inference cost. On Qwen2.5-VL-7B, PACG raises the nine-benchmark average over three seeds from 58.1% to 59.9% with DAPO and from 59.8% to 60.9% with VPPO, while making unsupported claims more retractable. The gains extend to a larger model, a newer backbone, and the accuracy of HallusionBench also improves consistently. These results suggest that visual sensitivity and claim retractability are complementary dimensions of multimodal credit assignment.