CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Visual Structures Helps Visual Reasoning: Addressing the Binding Problem in VLMs

Open access
Izadi, Amirmohammad, Banayeeanzade, Mohammad Ali, Askari, Fatemeh, Rahimiakbar, Ali, Vahedi, Mohammad Mahdi, Hasani, Hosein, Baghshah, Mahdieh Soleymani·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2506.22146arXiv 2506.22146
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite progress in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs), their capacity for visual reasoning is often limited by the binding problem: the failure to reliably associate perceptual features with their correct visual referents. This limitation underlies persistent errors in tasks such as counting, visual search, scene description, and spatial relationship understanding. A key factor is that current LVLMs process visual features largely in parallel, lacking mechanisms for spatially grounded, serial attention. This paper introduces Visual Input Structure for Enhanced Reasoning (VISER), a simple, effective method that augments visual inputs with low-level spatial structures and pairs them with a textual prompt that encourages sequential, spatially-aware parsing. We empirically demonstrate substantial performance improvements across core visual reasoning tasks, using only a single-query inference. Specifically, VISER improves GPT-4o performance on visual search, counting, and spatial relationship tasks by 25.0%, 26.8%, and 9.5%, respectively, and reduces edit distance error in scene description by 0.32 on 2D datasets. Furthermore, we find that the visual modification is essential for these gains; purely textual strategies, including Chain-of-Thought prompting, are insufficient and can even degrade performance. VISER underscores the importance of visual input design over purely linguistically based reasoning strategies and suggests that visual structuring is a powerful and general approach for enhancing compositional and spatial reasoning in LVLMs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.22146

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Another mitigation strategy targets training and model architecture by introducing spatially grounded, sequential attention mechanisms and leveraging reinforcement learning to align models with spatial commonsense.

    “Another strategy targets training and model architecture (Cheng et al., 2024), by introducing spatially grounded, sequential attention mechanisms (Izadi et al., 2025) and leveraging reinforcement learning to align models with spatial commonsense (Sarch et al., 2025).”

    From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Izadi et al., 2025

    The Proposed Method (p. 3) describes visual scaffolding and spatially grounded prompting that guide models to process images region by region; the attention visualization (p. 29) shows more localized, sequential attention. But the Discussion (p. 10) says VISER requires no architectural changes and presents architectures with built-in serial, spatially grounded attention as future research, not a mechanism this paper introduces. The reinforcement-learning clause is attributed to a different source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. [1][1] Trieu H Trinh, Yuhuai Wu, Quoc V Le, He He, and Thang Luong. Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations. Nature , 625(7995):476-482, 2024. -
  2. [2][2] Xiaoliang Luo, Akilles Rechardt, Guangzhi Sun, Kevin K Nejad, Felipe Yáñez, Bati Yilmaz, Kangjoo Lee, Alexandra O Cohen, Valentina Borghesani, Anton Pashkov, et al. Large language models surpass human experts in predicting neuroscience results. Nature human behaviour , 9 (2):305-315, 2025. -
  3. [3][3] Alejandro Lopez-Lira and Yuehua Tang. Can chatgpt forecast stock price movements? return predictability and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07619 , 2023. - · arXiv
  4. [4][4] Alex Kim, Maximilian Muhn, and Valeri Nikolaev. Financial statement analysis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17866 , 2024. - · arXiv
  5. [5][5] Michal Kosinski. Evaluating large language models in theory of mind tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 121(45):e2405460121, 2024. -
  6. [6][6] Jiayu Wang, Yifei Ming, Zhenmei Shi, Vibhav Vineet, Xin Wang, Sharon Li, and Neel Joshi. Is a picture worth a thousand words? delving into spatial reasoning for vision language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:75392-75421, 2024. -
  7. [7][7] Pooyan Rahmanzadehgervi, Logan Bolton, Mohammad Reza Taesiri, and Anh Totti Nguyen. Vision language models are blind. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision , pages 18-34, 2024. -
  8. [8][8] Amita Kamath, Jack Hessel, and Kai-Wei Chang. What's" up" with vision-language models? investigating their struggle with spatial reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19785 , 2023. - · arXiv
  9. [9][9] Declan Campbell, Sunayana Rane, Tyler Giallanza, Camillo Nicolò De Sabbata, Kia Ghods, Amogh Joshi, Alexander Ku, Steven Frankland, Tom Griffiths, Jonathan D Cohen, et al. Understanding the limits of vision language models through the lens of the binding problem. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:113436-113460, 2024. -
  10. [10][10] Anne M Treisman and Garry Gelade. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive psychology , 12(1):97-136, 1980. -
  11. [11][11] Anne Treisman and Hilary Schmidt. Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cognitive psychology , 14(1):107-141, 1982. -
  12. [12][12] Adina L Roskies. The binding problem. Neuron , 24(1):7-9, 1999. -
  13. [13][13] Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35:22199-22213, 2022. -
  14. [14][14] Yunzhuo Hao, Jiawei Gu, Huichen Will Wang, Linjie Li, Zhengyuan Yang, Lijuan Wang, and Yu Cheng. Can mllms reason in multimodality? emma: An enhanced multimodal reasoning benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05444 , 2025. - · arXiv
  15. [15][15] Jie Huang and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10403 , 2022. - · arXiv
  16. [16][16] Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xinying Song, and Denny Zhou. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01798 , 2023. - · arXiv
  17. [17][17] Yu Zhao, Huifeng Yin, Bo Zeng, Hao Wang, Tianqi Shi, Chenyang Lyu, Longyue Wang, Weihua Luo, and Kaifu Zhang. Marco-o1: Towards open reasoning models for open-ended solutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14405 , 2024. - · arXiv
  18. [21][21] David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. In First Conference on Language Modeling , 2024. -
  19. [22][22] Hao Shao, Shengju Qian, Han Xiao, Guanglu Song, Zhuofan Zong, Letian Wang, Yu Liu, and Hongsheng Li. Visual cot: Advancing multi-modal language models with a comprehensive dataset and benchmark for chain-of-thought reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:8612-8642, 2024. -
  20. [23][23] Yichi Zhang, Zhuo Chen, Lingbing Guo, Yajing Xu, Binbin Hu, Ziqi Liu, Wen Zhang, and Huajun Chen. Native: Multi-modal knowledge graph completion in the wild. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages 91-101, 2024. -
  21. [24][24] Huanjin Yao, Jiaxing Huang, Wenhao Wu, Jingyi Zhang, Yibo Wang, Shunyu Liu, Yingjie Wang, Yuxin Song, Haocheng Feng, Li Shen, et al. Mulberry: Empowering mllm with o1-like reasoning and reflection via collective monte carlo tree search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18319 , 2024. - · arXiv
  22. [26][26] C. Von Der Malsburg. The correlation theory of brain function. in models of neural networks: Temporal aspects of coding and information processing in biological systems. Neuron , pages 95--119, 1994. -
  23. [27][27] Klaus Greff, Sjoerd Van Steenkiste, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. On the binding problem in artificial neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.05208 , 2020. - · arXiv
  24. [28][28] Andrej Bicanski and Neil Burgess. A computational model of visual recognition memory via grid cells. Current Biology , 29(6):979-990, 2019. -
  25. [30][30] Pieter R Roelfsema. Solving the binding problem: Assemblies form when neurons enhance their firing rate-they don't need to oscillate or synchronize. Neuron , 111(7):1003-1019, 2023. -
  26. [31][31] Niels Leadholm, Marcus Lewis, and Subutai Ahmad. Grid cell path integration for movementbased visual object recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.09076 , 2021. - · arXiv
  27. [32][32] Viresh Ranjan, Udbhav Sharma, Thu Nguyen, and Minh Hoai. Learning to count everything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3394-3403, 2021. -
  28. [33][33] Muhammad Fetrat Qharabagh, Mohammadreza Ghofrani, and Kimon Fountoulakis. Lvlmcount: Enhancing the counting ability of large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00686 , 2024. - · arXiv
  29. [34][34] Yushi Hu, Weijia Shi, Xingyu Fu, Dan Roth, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A Smith, and Ranjay Krishna. Visual sketchpad: Sketching as a visual chain of thought for multimodal language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09403 , 2024. - · arXiv
  30. [35][35] Dídac Surís, Sachit Menon, and Carl Vondrick. Vipergpt: Visual inference via python execution for reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 11888-11898, 2023. -
  31. [36][36] Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36: 68539-68551, 2023. -
  32. [37][37] Sang C Chong and Karla K Evans. Distributed versus focused attention (count vs estimate). Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 2(6):634-638, 2011. -
  33. [38][38] Fatemeh Shiri, Xiao-Yu Guo, Mona Golestan Far, Xin Yu, Gholamreza Haffari, and Yuan-Fang Li. An empirical analysis on spatial reasoning capabilities of large multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06048 , 2024. - · arXiv
  34. [41][41] Bai, Shuai and Chen, Keqin and Liu, Xuejing and Wang, Jialin and Ge, Wenbin and Song, Sibo and Dang, Kai and Wang, Peng and Wang, Shijie and Tang, Jun and Zhong, Humen and Zhu, Yuanzhi and Yang, Mingkun and Li, Zhaohai and Wan, Jianqiang and Wang, Pengfei and Ding, Wei and Fu, Zheren and Xu, Yiheng and Ye, Jiabo and Zhang, Xi and Xie, Tianbao and Cheng, Zesen and Zhang, Hang and Yang, Zhibo and Xu, Haiyang and Lin, Junyang et al. Qwen2.5-VL: Technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923 , 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-14. - · arXiv
  35. [43][43] Yihe Deng, Hritik Bansal, Fan Yin, Nanyun Peng, Wei Wang, and Kai-Wei Chang. Openvlthinker: An early exploration to complex vision-language reasoning via iterative selfimprovement, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17352 . - · arXiv
  36. [44][44] Yuan Liu, Haodong Duan, Yuanhan Zhang, Bo Li, Songyang Zhang, Wangbo Zhao, Yike Yuan, Jiaqi Wang, Conghui He, Ziwei Liu, Kai Chen, and Dahua Lin. Mmbench: Is your multi-modal model an all-around player?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06281 . - · arXiv
  37. [45][45] Wei Chow, Jiageng Mao, Boyi Li, Daniel Seita, Vitor Guizilini, and Yue Wang. Physbench: Benchmarking and enhancing vision-language models for physical world understanding, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.16411 . - · arXiv
  38. [46][46] Yizhe Zhang, He Bai, Ruixiang Zhang, Jiatao Gu, Shuangfei Zhai, Josh Susskind, and Navdeep Jaitly. How far are we from intelligent visual deductive reasoning?, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.04732 .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Izadi, A., Banayeeanzade, M. A., Askari, F., Rahimiakbar, A., Vahedi, M. M., Hasani, H., & Baghshah, M. S.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2506.22146
arXiv
2506.22146
OpenAlex
W4417175682
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
binding problem, large vision-language models, visual reasoning, visual search, object counting, scene description, GPT-4o, compositional reasoning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review