ROVER: Benchmarking Reciprocal Cross-Modal Reasoning for Omnimodal Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.01163v1
• Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2025 02:27:46 GMT
• Title: ROVER: Benchmarking Reciprocal Cross-Modal Reasoning for Omnimodal Generation
• Authors: Yongyuan Liang, Wei Chow, Feng Li, Ziqiao Ma, Xiyao Wang, Jiageng Mao, Jiuhai Chen, Jiatao Gu, Yue Wang, Furong Huang,
• Abstract summary: ROVER tests the use of one modality to guide, verify, or refine outputs in the other.<n>ROVER is a human-annotated benchmark that explicitly targets reciprocal cross-modal reasoning.
• Score: 79.17352367219736
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Unified multimodal models (UMMs) have emerged as a powerful paradigm for seamlessly unifying text and image understanding and generation. However, prevailing evaluations treat these abilities in isolation, such that tasks with multimodal inputs and outputs are scored primarily through unimodal reasoning, i.e., textual benchmarks emphasize language-based reasoning, while visual benchmarks emphasize reasoning outcomes manifested in the pixels. We introduce ROVER to address this pressing need to test reciprocal cross-modal reasoning, the use of one modality to guide, verify, or refine outputs in the other, an ability central to the vision of unified multimodal intelligence. ROVER is a human-annotated benchmark that explicitly targets reciprocal cross-modal reasoning, which contains 1312 tasks grounded in 1876 images, spanning two complementary settings. Verbally-augmented reasoning for visual generation evaluates whether models can use verbal prompts and reasoning chains to guide faithful image synthesis. Visually-augmented reasoning for verbal generation evaluates whether models can generate intermediate visualizations that strengthen their own reasoning processes for question answering. Experiments on 17 unified models reveal two key findings: (i) Cross-modal reasoning determines visual generation quality, with interleaved models significantly outperforming non-interleaved ones; notably, combining strong unimodal models fails to achieve comparable reasoning. (ii) Models show dissociation between physical and symbolic reasoning: they succeed at interpreting perceptual concepts literally but fail to construct visual abstractions for symbolic tasks, where faulty reasoning harms performance. These results highlight reciprocal cross-modal reasoning as a critical frontier for enabling true omnimodal generation.

Related papers

• Can Unified Generation and Understanding Models Maintain Semantic Equivalence Across Different Output Modalities? [61.533560295383786]
  Unified Multimodal Large Language Models (U-MLLMs) integrate understanding and generation within a single architecture.<n>We observe that U-MLLMs fail to maintain semantic equivalence when required to render the same results in the image modality.<n>We introduce VGUBench, a framework to decouple reasoning logic from generation fidelity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T06:23:56Z)
• UReason: Benchmarking the Reasoning Paradox in Unified Multimodal Models [44.0727449598399]
  We present UReason, a diagnostic benchmark for reasoning-driven image generation.<n>We observe a consistent Reasoning Paradox: Reasoning traces generally improve performance over direct generation.<n>Our analysis suggests that the bottleneck lies in contextual interference rather than insufficient reasoning capacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T07:17:57Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• Analyzing Reasoning Consistency in Large Multimodal Models under Cross-Modal Conflicts [74.47786985522762]
  We identify a critical failure mode termed textual inertia, where models tend to blindly adhere to the erroneous text while neglecting conflicting visual evidence.<n>We propose the LogicGraph Perturbation Protocol that structurally injects perturbations into the reasoning chains of diverse LMMs.<n>Results reveal that models successfully self-correct in less than 10% of cases and predominantly succumb to blind textual error propagation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T16:39:34Z)
• ThinkMorph: Emergent Properties in Multimodal Interleaved Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [76.95203056566191]
  Multimodal reasoning requires iterative coordination between language and vision, yet it remains unclear what constitutes a meaningful interleaved chain of thought.<n>We build ThinkMorph, a unified model fine-tuned on approximately 24K high-quality interleaved reasoning traces spanning tasks with varying visual engagement.<n>ThinkMorph learns to generate progressive text-image reasoning steps that concretely manipulate visual content while maintaining coherent verbal logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T17:51:38Z)
• BLINK-Twice: You see, but do you observe? A Reasoning Benchmark on Visual Perception [67.89135437537179]
  We introduce BLINK-Twice, a vision-centric reasoning benchmark grounded in challenging perceptual tasks.<n>Instead of relying on external knowledge, our tasks require models to reason from visual content alone.<n>Compared to prior perception benchmarks, it moves beyond shallow perception and requires fine-grained observation and analytical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T13:14:13Z)
• DeFacto: Counterfactual Thinking with Images for Enforcing Evidence-Grounded and Faithful Reasoning [11.952788515297913]
  DeFacto is a counterfactual reasoning framework that jointly enforces accurate answering and faithful reasoning.<n>We develop a pipeline that automatically localizes question-relevant evidence and constructs positive, counterfactual, and random variants.<n> Experiments on diverse benchmarks demonstrate that DeFacto substantially improves both answer accuracy and reasoning faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T08:58:10Z)
• 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)
• R1-Onevision: Advancing Generalized Multimodal Reasoning through Cross-Modal Formalization [26.757458496178437]
  We introduce R1-Onevision, a multimodal reasoning model designed to bridge the gap between visual perception and deep reasoning.<n>We construct the R1-Onevision dataset which provides detailed, step-by-step multimodal reasoning annotations across diverse domains.<n>We further develop the R1-Onevision model through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning to cultivate advanced reasoning.<n> Experimental results show that R1-Onevision achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming models such as GPT-4o and Qwen2.5-VL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T17:56:05Z)
• Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models [98.90677711523645]
  We propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions. We show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-30T00:53:53Z)

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.