Papers › Uni-cot: Towards Unified Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Across Text and Vision
Uni-cot: Towards Unified Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Across Text and Vision
Luozheng Qin, Jia Gong, Yuqing Sun, Tianjiao Li, Mengping Yang, Xiaomeng Yang, Chao Qu, Zhiyu Tan, Hao Li
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has been widely adopted to enhance Large Language Models (LLMs) by decomposing complex tasks into simpler, sequential subtasks. However, extending CoT to vision-language reasoning tasks remains challenging, as it often requires interpreting transitions of visual states to support reasoning. Existing methods often struggle with this due to limited capacity of modeling visual state transitions or incoherent visual trajectories caused by fragmented architectures. To overcome these limitations, we propose Uni-CoT, a Unified Chain-of-Thought framework that enables coherent and grounded multimodal reasoning within a single unified model. The key idea is to leverage a model capable of both image understanding and generation to reason over visual content and model evolving visual states. However, empowering a unified model to achieve that is non-trivial, given the high computational cost and the burden of training. To address this, Uni-CoT introduces a novel two-level reasoning paradigm: A Macro-Level CoT for high-level task planning and A Micro-Level CoT for subtask execution. This design significantly reduces the computational overhead. Furthermore, we introduce a structured training paradigm that combines interleaved image-text supervision for macro-level CoT with multi-task objectives for micro-level CoT. Together, these innovations allow Uni-CoT to perform scalable and coherent multi-modal reasoning. Furthermore, thanks to our design, all experiments can be efficiently completed using only 8 A100 GPUs with 80GB VRAM each. Experimental results on reasoning-driven image generation benchmark (WISE) and editing benchmarks (RISE and KRIS) indicates that Uni-CoT demonstrates SOTA performance and strong generalization, establishing Uni-CoT as a promising solution for multi-modal reasoning. Project Page and Code: https://sais-fuxi.github.io/projects/uni-cot/
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2508.05606")
Code
Syntology Ran 10 of 14 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 4 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 4 ran · our draft was wrong; 2 ran · fixture could not drive it; 3 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 14 samples from 1 repository, 10 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
14 samples harvested; 10 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 4 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 14 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from Fr0zenCrane/UniCoT. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
30d7eec482ebf6b1 · report
bac65c3dafaec040 · report
4102c144078044c7 · report
e5947aba1d10885f · report
58f584dfd7b8fc3f · report
c083e60f5001bd38 · report
26da3ed73c66b411 · report
b99eea6376d1e212 · report
cec833a99feb528c · report
5fb036462ae82f9f · report
64ca84fb8d30a0d6 · report
665d8a4e8f673a4c · report
e284f6c6dd968489 · report
057d5a522cdcd39b · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2508.05606, was issued in August 2025, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections