Perception Chains: Stabilizing Multimodal Reasoning with Explicit Visual Intermediates

Dongqi Zuo1Weixing Guo2Xinyu Wang3
1 University of California, Berkeley2 The Chinese University of Hong Kong3 Johns Hopkins University
ACM Multimedia 2026Oral

November 10–14, 2026 · Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Training uses offline teacher trajectories and a stability loss. Inference forms region–attribute–slot anchors and re-localizes evidence that conflicts with the answer.
Perception Chains grounds each reasoning step in an explicit region, attribute, and slot, stabilizes the underlying representations, and repairs conflicting evidence at inference time.

Abstract

Multimodal chain-of-thought methods produce textual reasoning steps, but the visual grounding underlying each step is never made explicit. When a model attends to the wrong region, nothing in the chain records this: the error is unverifiable during inference, unlocalizable after the fact, and uncorrectable without regenerating the entire chain. We propose Perception Chains, which treats each reasoning step as a grounding commitment: before drawing any conclusion, the model must name a region, extract an attribute from that region, and assign it to a reasoning slot. With this structure in place, every grounding decision is independently checkable and a wrong answer is traceable to the step where the binding failed. Correct output format, however, is not sufficient. A model satisfying the format can still leave its hidden states at anchor positions in a non-attenuating drift regime. Across our measured settings, task-loss gradients are nearly orthogonal to the stability objective at these positions, and standard fine-tuning does not eliminate the drift. A stability loss directly constrains this geometry and enforces transversal contraction. High-quality reference trajectories are constructed without human annotation by retaining only chains where independent samples from a frozen 72B VLM converge, filtering at the anchor level rather than by answer correctness alone. At inference time, a consistency check identifies anchors whose evidence conflicts with the provisional answer; only those anchors are re-localized before the final answer is committed. On eight benchmarks against six baselines, Perception Chains achieves the highest average accuracy, with the largest gains on tasks requiring precise region-attribute binding. On DIOR-RSVG, grounding accuracy rises from 61.7% to 72.6% over the strongest spatial baseline. The stability loss, not the anchor format, is the transferable component: gains carry to seven held-out benchmarks unseen during training.

Method

Four complementary components connect visible evidence, representation stability, and targeted correction.

01 / AVEOUTPUT STRUCTURE

Commit to visual evidence

Build each anchor as a region–attribute–slot triple. Locate the region before extracting the attribute so each step has a checkable spatial commitment.

02 / STABILITY LOSSTRAINING OBJECTIVE

Constrain hidden-state drift

Penalize deviations perpendicular to the reference reasoning direction. The objective targets anchor representations that format-only supervision leaves unconstrained.

03 / CTBOFFLINE REFERENCES

Learn from consistent trajectories

Use agreement between independently sampled chains from a frozen 72B teacher to filter reference trajectories at the anchor level, without additional human annotation.

04 / PRLINFERENCE-TIME REPAIR

Revisit conflicting anchors

Check evidence against the provisional answer, re-localize the conflicting anchors, and update the answer. The teacher is absent during inference.

Four examples from the paper: selecting the wrong region, extracting the wrong attribute, binding an attribute to the wrong reasoning slot, and an internally consistent but wrong chain.
Figure 1.Three separable grounding errors and the boundary of local repair. View full size

Results

Evaluated on eight seen benchmarks and seven held-out benchmarks, with controlled comparisons on a shared 7B backbone.

+10.9pp

DIOR-RSVG grounding accuracy

72.6% vs. 61.7% · Ferret baseline
7.3%

POPE hallucination rate

Down from 12.8% · vanilla backbone
8 + 7

Seen and unseen benchmarks

Qwen2.5-VL-7B backbone

More accurate visual grounding

DIOR-RSVG · GA (%) ↑
Ferret
61.7
SFT-AVE
63.4
Perception Chains
72.6
050100%

+9.2 percentage points over the same anchor format without the stability loss. Source: Tables 2 and 4.

FORMAT ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH

From persistent drift
to stable representations.

>99%

SFT-AVE

→
<1%

Perception Chains

Fraction of 1,000 calibration inputs with a composite operator norm above 1, indicating non-attenuating drift. Source: Table 5.

Benchmark results

↑ Higher is better · ↓ Lower is better · — Not applicable

MethodChartQA ↑DocVQA ↑RSVQA ↑DIOR-RSVG ↑MuMuQA ↑MMIU ↑POPE HR ↓HallusionBench HR ↓
Vanilla Qwen2.5-VL-7B88.695.987.4—66.857.912.847.1
Visual CoT88.895.687.6—67.258.112.245.8
Ferret88.795.588.761.768.859.611.244.8
TPO88.495.787.3—66.757.89.233.2
Woodpecker88.695.987.4—66.857.99.845.8
SFT-AVE89.896.289.563.471.261.510.243.1
Without AVE88.195.487.2—66.357.611.646.2
Perception ChainsOURS91.496.892.672.674.364.87.331.8

Table 2 · Means from the paper; reported uncertainty is available in the PDF. ChartQA uses relaxed accuracy (±5%), DocVQA uses ANLS, and DIOR-RSVG uses accuracy at IoU ≥ 0.5. POPE HR is 1 − F1. HallusionBench is distinct from the Object HalBench benchmark in the unseen split.

Evaluation setting. Training-time baselines are reimplemented on Qwen2.5-VL-7B with the same balanced 100,000-example training mixture and schedule. Woodpecker is applied post hoc. Scores describe this controlled comparison, rather than the original baseline releases.

COMPUTATIONAL COST

Targeted repair has a cost.

At the default setting, PRL triggers on 17.8% of samples and total inference overhead is 1.50× vanilla. A threshold of 0.5 reduces overhead to 1.31×, with 72.1% grounding accuracy. Table 10.

SCOPE OF LOCAL REPAIR

Consistency does not guarantee correctness.

An internally consistent but wrong chain can evade the check. Missed regions, plausible numerical errors, and some incorrect slot bindings remain possible. Sections 2 and 6.

BibTeX

@inproceedings{zuo2026perceptionchains,
  author    = {Zuo, Dongqi and Guo, Weixing and Wang, Xinyu},
  title     = {Perception Chains: Stabilizing Multimodal Reasoning
               with Explicit Visual Intermediates},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 34th ACM International
               Conference on Multimedia},
  series    = {MM '26},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery},
  address   = {New York, NY, USA},
  location  = {Rio de Janeiro, Brazil},
  numpages  = {9},
  doi       = {10.1145/3767308.3836512},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3767308.3836512}
}
Download the paper