Socratic-MCTS: Test-Time Visual Reasoning by Asking the Right Questions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08927v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 15:51:16 GMT
• Title: Socratic-MCTS: Test-Time Visual Reasoning by Asking the Right Questions
• Authors: David Acuna, Ximing Lu, Jaehun Jung, Hyunwoo Kim, Amlan Kar, Sanja Fidler, Yejin Choi,
• Abstract summary: We show that framing reasoning as a search process helps the model "connect the dots" between fragmented knowledge and produce extended reasoning traces in non-reasoning models.<n>We evaluate our method across three benchmarks and observe consistent improvements.
• Score: 100.41062461003389
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent research in vision-language models (VLMs) has centered around the possibility of equipping them with implicit long-form chain-of-thought reasoning -- akin to the success observed in language models -- via distillation and reinforcement learning. But what about the non-reasoning models already trained and deployed across the internet? Should we simply abandon them, or is there hope for a search mechanism that can elicit hidden knowledge and induce long reasoning traces -- without any additional training or supervision? In this paper, we explore this possibility using a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)-inspired algorithm, which injects subquestion-subanswer pairs into the model's output stream. We show that framing reasoning as a search process -- where subquestions act as latent decisions within a broader inference trajectory -- helps the model "connect the dots" between fragmented knowledge and produce extended reasoning traces in non-reasoning models. We evaluate our method across three benchmarks and observe consistent improvements. Notably, our approach yields a 2% overall improvement on MMMU-PRO, including a significant 9% gain in Liberal Arts.

Related papers

• Large Reasoning Models are not thinking straight: on the unreliability of thinking trajectories [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) trained via Reinforcement Learning (RL) have recently achieved impressive results on reasoning benchmarks.<n>Yet, growing evidence shows that these models often generate longer but ineffective chains of thought (CoTs)<n>We present new evidence of overthinking, where models disregard correct solutions even when explicitly provided, instead continuing to generate unnecessary reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T12:14:22Z)
• ASTRO: Teaching Language Models to Reason by Reflecting and Backtracking In-Context [66.15505423059234]
  We introduce ASTRO, a framework for training language models to reason like search algorithms.<n>We apply ASTRO to the Llama 3 family of models and achieve absolute performance gains of 16.4% on MATH-500, 26.9% on AMC 2023, and 20.0% on AIME 2024.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T04:10:15Z)
• ProRL: Prolonged Reinforcement Learning Expands Reasoning Boundaries in Large Language Models [89.37819814048288]
  We introduce ProRL, a novel training methodology that incorporates KL divergence control, reference policy, and a diverse suite of tasks.<n>Our empirical analysis reveals that RL-trained models consistently outperform base resetting models across a wide range of pass@k evaluations.<n>These findings offer new insights into the conditions under which RL meaningfully expands reasoning boundaries in language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T17:59:01Z)
• Self-Critique Guided Iterative Reasoning for Multi-hop Question Answering [24.446222685949227]
  Large language models (LLMs) face challenges in knowledge-intensive multi-hop reasoning.<n>We propose Self-Critique Guided Iterative Reasoning (SiGIR)<n>SiGIR uses self-critique feedback to guide the iterative reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T12:10:24Z)
• Think or Not? Selective Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning for Vision-Language Models [45.33952788910874]
  TON is a two-stage training strategy for vision-language models.<n>It introduces a think-or-not format that serves as a cold start for selective reasoning.<n>TON can reduce the completion length by up to 90% compared to vanilla GRPO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T16:13:29Z)
• Think Deep, Think Fast: Investigating Efficiency of Verifier-free Inference-time-scaling Methods [39.89239733570008]
  This work conducts a comprehensive analysis of inference-time scaling methods for both reasoning and non-reasoning models.<n>We find that non-reasoning models, even with an extremely high inference budget, still fall substantially behind reasoning models.<n>For reasoning models, majority voting proves to be a robust inference strategy, generally competitive or outperforming other more sophisticated ITC methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T19:32:55Z)
• Mitigating Visual Forgetting via Take-along Visual Conditioning for Multi-modal Long CoT Reasoning [53.790502697674754]
  We propose Take-along Visual Conditioning (TVC), a strategy that shifts image input to critical reasoning stages.<n>TVC helps the model retain attention to the visual components throughout the reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance on average across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T16:45:12Z)
• Towards Thinking-Optimal Scaling of Test-Time Compute for LLM Reasoning [113.49074603075032]
  Recent studies have shown that making a model spend more time thinking through longer Chain of Thoughts (CoTs) enables it to gain significant improvements in complex reasoning tasks.<n>We explore whether scaling with longer CoTs can indeed impair the reasoning performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in certain domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T10:48:05Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.