CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.19554v1
• Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 16:34:21 GMT
• Title: CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal
• Authors: Yongxin Wang, Zhicheng Yang, Meng Cao, Mingfei Han, Haokun Lin, Yingying Zhu, Xiaojun Chang, Xiaodan Liang,
• Abstract summary: Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
• Score: 84.71254539482369
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures. When all rollouts are wrong, gradients stall; when one happens to be correct, the update usually ignores why the others are close-but-wrong, and credit can be misassigned to spurious chains. We present CARE (Contrastive Anchored REflection), a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision. CARE combines: (i) an anchored-contrastive objective that forms a compact subgroup around the best rollout and a set of semantically proximate hard negatives, performs within-subgroup z-score normalization with negative-only scaling, and includes an all-negative rescue to prevent zero-signal batches; and (ii) Reflection-Guided Resampling (RGR), a one-shot structured self-repair that rewrites a representative failure and re-scores it with the same verifier, converting near-misses into usable positives without any test-time reflection. CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures. On Qwen2.5-VL-7B, CARE lifts macro-averaged accuracy by 4.6 points over GRPO across six verifiable visual-reasoning benchmarks; with Qwen3-VL-8B it reaches competitive or state-of-the-art results on MathVista and MMMU-Pro under an identical evaluation protocol.

Related papers

• Overconfident Errors Need Stronger Correction: Asymmetric Confidence Penalties for Reinforcement Learning [17.384089089363382]
  We identify a root cause that existing methods overlook: the uniform penalization of errors.<n>Current approaches treat all incorrect rollouts within a group identically.<n>We propose the Asymmetric Confidence-aware Error Penalty (ACE)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T22:46:43Z)
• VI-CuRL: Stabilizing Verifier-Independent RL Reasoning via Confidence-Guided Variance Reduction [55.04308051033549]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a dominant paradigm for enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs) reasoning.<n>We introduceVerifier-Independent Curriculum Reinforcement Learning (VI-CuRL), a framework that leverages the model's intrinsic confidence to construct a curriculum independent from external verifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T03:40:52Z)
• Enhancing the Outcome Reward-based RL Training of MLLMs with Self-Consistency Sampling [90.87033586963828]
  Outcome-reward reinforcement learning (RL) is a common and increasingly significant way to refine the step-by-step reasoning of multimodal large language models (MLLMs)<n>We propose Self-Consistency Sampling (SCS) to correct this issue.<n>Based on Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct, SCS improves accuracy by up to 7.7 percentage points on six multimodal benchmarks with negligible extra computation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T18:59:57Z)
• Hybrid Reinforcement: When Reward Is Sparse, It's Better to Be Dense [36.71358559780692]
  HERO is a reinforcement learning framework that integrates verifier signals with reward-model scores in a structured way.<n> HERO consistently outperforms RM-only and verifier-only baselines, with strong gains on both verifiable and hard-to-verify tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T17:09:41Z)
• Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifiers [90.50039419576807]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains policies against automated verifiers to avoid costly human labeling.<n>To reduce vulnerability to verifier hacking, many RLVR systems collapse rewards to binary $0,1$ during training.<n>This choice carries a cost: it introduces textitfalse negatives (rejecting correct answers, FNs) and textitfalse positives (accepting incorrect ones, FPs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:56:44Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Beyond Binary Rewards: Training LMs to Reason About Their Uncertainty [59.97939500426759]
  This paper describes RLCR, an approach to training reasoning models that jointly improves accuracy and confidence estimation.<n>We show that across diverse datasets, RLCR substantially improves calibration with no loss in accuracy.<n>We also demonstrate that verbalized confidence can be leveraged at test time to improve accuracy and calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T17:56:01Z)
• The Surprising Effectiveness of Negative Reinforcement in LLM Reasoning [37.13807960501503]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a promising approach for training language models (LMs)<n>We decompose the learning signal into reinforcing correct responses and penalizing incorrect ones, referred to as Positive and Negative Sample Reinforcement (PSR and NSR)<n>We show that NSR works by suppressing incorrect generations and redistributing probability mass toward other plausible candidates, guided by the model's prior beliefs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T06:10:54Z)

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.