Papers › Think or Not Think: A Study of Explicit Thinking in Rule-Based Visual Reinforcement Fine-Tuning

Think or Not Think: A Study of Explicit Thinking in Rule-Based Visual Reinforcement Fine-Tuning

20 Mar 2025arXiv:2503.16188archive 2025-07-28

Ming Li, Jike Zhong, Shitian Zhao, Yuxiang Lai, Haoquan Zhang, Wang Bill Zhu, Kaipeng Zhang

This paper investigates the role of explicit thinking process in rule-based reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT) for MLLMs. We first propose CLS-RL for MLLM image classification, using verifiable rewards for fine-tuning. Experiments show CLS-RL significantly outperforms SFT and yields a cross-dataset generalization effect. We then rethink and question whether explicit thinking in RFT is always necessary. Challenging the convention that explicit thinking is crucial for the success of RFT, we introduce No-Thinking-RL, exploring RFT without thinking by introducing a simple equality accuracy reward. We evaluate No-Thinking-RL on 6 diverse tasks across different model sizes and types. Experimental results reveal three key findings: 1). Visual perception tasks do not require thinking during RFT, as No-Thinking-RL consistently outperforms or matches Thinking-based RFT across model sizes. 2).} Models with limited capabilities struggle to generate high-quality CoT for RFT, making Thinking-based RFT less effective than No-Thinking-RL. 3). There are inconsistencies between the answers in the thinking and answer tags for some responses of thinking-based RFT, which show lower accuracy than the overall accuracy. We hypothesize that explicit thinking before verifiable answers may hinder reward convergence and reduce performance. To test this hypothesis, we propose Think-After-Answer, which places thinking after the answer to mitigate this effect for experimental verification. Lastly, we conduct a pilot study to explore whether MLLMs can learn when to think during RFT, introducing an Adaptive-Thinking method. Experiments show that it converges to a specific prompt depending on model capability and task complexity, achieving comparable or better performance than both Thinking and No-Thinking-RL. This suggests MLLMs can adaptively decide to think or not based on their capabilities and task complexity.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. 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

3 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 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: 3 of the 3 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 minglllli/cls-rl. “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.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

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