GLM-4.5V and GLM-4.1V-Thinking: Towards Versatile Multimodal Reasoning with Scalable Reinforcement Learning

Image caption data. High-quality image-text captions are crucial for imbuing visual-language models with world knowledge and enhancing their generalization capabilities. To this end, we construct a large-scale, high-quality caption dataset through a meticulous curation pipeline. The process begins with the aggregation of an initial pool of over 10 billion image-text pairs from diverse sources, including public datasets like LAION[40], DataComp [11], DFN[6], and Wukong [14], supplemented by data from web search engines. To ensure data integrity, we implement a multi-stage refinement process:

Finally, we merge the curated original data with the recaptioned data at a predetermined ratio, yielding a final dataset that balances broad world knowledge with rich descriptive depth.

Interleaved image-text data. Rich interleaved image-text vision-language data can be found in corpora such as web pages and books. On the one hand, its volume is immense, far exceeding that of existing image-caption datasets which rely primarily on alt-text. On the other hand, it encodes rich information beyond simple image descriptions, including complex logical relationships between text and images, and covering a broad spectrum of domain knowledge. However, such data is often extremely noisy: many samples lack genuine image-text alignment, and the distribution of information density is highly skewed (a large fraction of the corpus is uninformative). As a result, prior work seldom leverages these resources at scale to boost vision-language capabilities, typically only using small amounts to help models adapt to multi-image, interleaved-text layouts. To address this issue, we design and implement specialized processing pipelines tailored to each data source, successfully extracting a large volume of high-quality interleaved image-text data and substantially enhancing the model’s foundational image-text understanding and reasoning abilities. The specific pipelines are as follows:

OCR data. To bolster the model’s OCR capabilities, we construct a large-scale pre-training dataset comprising 220 million images. This dataset is meticulously composed of three distinct components, each designed to address a specific aspect of text recognition:

Grounding data. To endow the model with precise visual localization capabilities, we construct a hybrid grounding dataset spanning two primary domains: natural images and graphical user interfaces (GUIs).

Video data. To support advanced video understanding, we construct a large-scale, high-quality video-text dataset. We curate a diverse corpus from academic, web, and proprietary sources. To address the hallucinations and omissions common in standard captions, we develop a pipeline with fine-grained human annotation to accurately capture complex actions and in-scene text. Furthermore, to encode deeper visual narratives, we annotate key cinematic elements such as camera motion and shot composition using a human-in-the-loop workflow.

To ensure data purity, we implement a rigorous filtering protocol. We begin with integrity checks to remove corrupted or invalid files. Subsequently, we employ a multimodal, embedding-based deduplication strategy, discarding pairs where both video and text embeddings show high similarity to another entry. This process effectively eliminates semantic redundancy, resulting in a clean and efficient training corpus.

Instruction tuning data. To enhance model versatility and generalization, we diversify high-quality instruction tuning data. Three targeted strategies are implemented:

The resulting 50 million samples include general visual perception and understanding, multimodal reasoning (e.g., STEM problem-solving), document-intensive contexts, GUI agent operations, and UI coding. It provides comprehensive coverage for the full-scenario reinforcement learning pipeline.

Our model’s training is conducted in two sequential stages: multimodal pre-training and long-context continual training.

Multimodal pre-training. The initial stage aims to build a strong foundation of general multimodal capabilities. We design specific parallelism strategies for different models. For GLM-4.1V-Thinking and GLM-4.6V-Flash, we set the tensor parallel size to 2. For GLM-4.5V and GLM-4.6V, we set the expert parallel size to 8 and the pipeline parallel size to 4. To ensure balanced expert utilization, we employ a loss-free routing scheme, setting the router bias update rate to 1e-3 and applying an auxiliary sequence-level balance loss with a coefficient of 1e-4. The training utilizes a sequence length of 8,192 and a global batch size of 1,536 for a total of 120,000 steps. The dataset for this stage consists of a carefully curated mixture of all data modalities described in Section 3.1, with the exception of video. To maximize computational efficiency, we employ a data packing strategy where multiple variable-length samples are concatenated into single sequences approaching the maximum length.

Long-context continual training. Following pre-training, we perform a continual training stage to extend the model’s capabilities to high-resolution imagery, video, and extended contexts. We augment the training data with video inputs and long-sequence interleaved data exceeding 8k tokens. To accommodate these longer inputs, we increase the sequence length to 32,768 and enhance our parallelism strategy by setting the context parallel size to 4 in addition to the base parallel configuration. This stage is run for an additional 10,000 steps, while maintaining the global batch size of 1,536. Furthermore, we extend the context window of GLM-4.6V to 131,072 tokens. This stage is conducted for an additional 2,000 steps with a global batch size of 128, ensuring robust performance across longer sequence lengths.

To facilitate subsequent reinforcement learning, we curate a high-quality dataset of long CoT reasoning examples. This dataset is designed to train models to produce coherent, multi-step solutions in a standardized format, thereby underpinning stable and scalable RL training.

Data composition. Our reasoning dataset spans a wide spectrum of domains, with a primary focus on verifiable tasks whose outcomes can be rigorously assessed and refined via reinforcement learning. We also include non-verifiable tasks, such as open-ended visual question answering, to broaden and strengthen the model’s general reasoning capabilities across diverse contexts. The dataset is primarily composed of data in Chinese and English, with a small proportion in other languages. We employ our pre-trained model to filter out instances that are either too easy or excessively hard, maintaining a moderate overall difficulty level suitable for training.

Response formatting. Each response follows a standardized structure:

<think> {think_content} </think> <answer> {answer_content} </answer>

The <think> part captures the model’s reasoning process, including strategies such as reflection, backtracking, retrying, and verification. The <answer> part presents a concise, complete and logically sound solution. For verifiable tasks with a specific final answer, the final result in the <answer> part is required to be wrapped with <|begin_of_box|> and <|end_of_box|>, and only one boxed span is acceptable. This annotation facilitates more accurate answer extraction during the RL phase. Note that we include <think>, </think>, <answer>, </answer>, <|begin_of_box|>, <|end_of_box|> to the tokenizer’s vocabulary as special tokens to facilitate easier and accurate online parsing. Note that in the responses of GLM-4.5V the special tokens <answer> and </answer> are eliminated.

Tool use formatting. To facilitate reliable function calling and external API interaction, GLM-4.6V adheres to a rigorous structured output protocol for tool invocation:

<tool_call> {function_name} <arg_key> {arg-key1} </arg_key> <arg_value> {arg-value-1} </arg_value> ... </tool_call>

The tool definitions and tool calling protocols are explicitly defined within the system prompt, which provides the exhaustive function signatures that define the model’s operational capabilities. Unlike the internal control tokens used for response formatting, the tool-using protocol utilizes an explicit XML schema to structure its external actions. During the inference phase, the model generates a <tool_call> block where each parameter is decomposed into discrete <arg_key> and <arg_value> pairs. This tag-based serialization provides clear semantic boundaries for the parser, effectively mitigating structural hallucinations and ensuring that complex arguments remain contextually grounded. This standardized formatting allows the system to deterministically map natural language intents to executable API calls without requiring specialized tokenizer modifications for every parameter key.

Response curation. The quality of the cold-start dataset is critical to the stability of RL training. In practice, we find that poorly constructed data can lead to training instability or even collapse. To mitigate this, we implement a rigorous data cleaning pipeline. This process enforces strict adherence to formatting conventions (e.g., correct usage of <think> and <answer> tags) and removes examples with inconsistent or noisy reasoning styles. Also, we filter out responses containing mixed-language phrasing or redundant thought patterns.

Iterative data enhancement. To improve the quality and challenge level of the cold-start dataset, we incorporate high-quality and informative examples sampled from RL checkpoints back into the cold-start dataset. This iterative enhancement helps expose the model to more useful reasoning patterns discovered during RL, which in turn provide a stronger foundation for subsequent rounds of RL training.

We perform full-parameter fine-tuning with a sequence length of 32,768 tokens (131,072 tokens for GLM-4.6V) and a global batch size of 32. The training corpus includes the long-form reasoning data described in §4.1, spanning multiple domains. In addition to multimodal data, we also incorporate high-quality text-only long-form examples covering math problem solving, multi-turn conversation, agent planning, and instruction following. These examples help preserve the model’s core language understanding and general reasoning abilities throughout multimodal fine-tuning.

Interestingly, we observe that even when cold-start training uses noisy reasoning data, which contain formatting inconsistencies or repetitive patterns, subsequent RL remains effective. This suggests that imperfect reasoning traces can still provide useful guidance. Nonetheless, models initialized with clean and consistent data show more stable RL convergence and achieve higher overall performance.

Different from GLM-4.1V-Thinking, which is a pure thinking model, GLM-4.5V and GLM-4.6V support both the thinking and non-thinking modes, and one can flexibly switch between these two modes according to specific scenarios and requirements. In the SFT stage, we train GLM-4.5V and GLM-4.6V by mixing the thinking and non-thinking data (normal CoT). Concretely, to enable non-thinking mode, we explicitly append a special token /nothink to the user prompt, and train the model to generate empty thinking content when this token is present. We found that directly using the content from the <answer> part in the thinking examples yields better results than constructing a separately curated subset for the non-thinking mode.

The objective of data preparation is to select or synthesize as much verifiable data as possible in each subdomain that can be efficiently improved through RL. To this end, we carry out the following stages in sequence.

Task identification. We first define a set of candidate tasks for verification in each multimodal subdomain. For example, while video captioning is open-ended and difficult to evaluate strictly, temporal grounding lends itself to clear correctness judgments.

Data curation. We then filter or generate question-answer pairs from these tasks that a verifier can assess with high precision. This process includes converting multiple-choice questions with unique answers into the fill-in-the-blank format to eliminate noise from random guessing during RL.

Quality validation and offline difficulty grading. Next, we carry out thorough correctness checks and run passk evaluations using multiple existing or prior RL models, combining these results with human difficulty labels to achieve fine-grained difficulty grading.

Pilot RL experiments. Finally, we perform preliminary RL experiments in each subdomain to confirm the data’s quality and the model’s potential for performance gains.

We establish a reward system compatible with both RLVR, and RLHF and tailor it for every multimodal domain. For RLVR tasks, the system first extracts the segment containing the final answer from the rollout outputs, then compares this key answer against the reference answer to determine correctness, and finally returns a reward value in binary (0/1) or continuous form. For RLHF tasks, it directly takes the answer segment of the output and scores it using the reward model.

As its core, reinforcement learning is an optimization process driven by the feedback from the reward system. Therefore, it’s critical to enhance the accuracy and robustness of the reward system. The possibility of assigning precise rewards is also one of the key reasons why RLVR is currently delivering outstanding results. To achieve multimodal reinforcement learning across all domains, we employ a meticulously crafted reward system to supervise every facet of the model’s abilities—visual perception (OCR, grounding), comprehension (document, chart and video understanding), reasoning (academic and logical problem solving), and agent behavior—thereby necessitating the development of a comprehensive, precise, and robust reward system.

Although some studies report that even random or imperfect feedback can sometimes yield benefits by steering models toward effective output patterns [41], we discover that when training a unified VLM across diverse skills, any weakness in the reward signal for a single capability can derail the entire training. As Figure 5 illustrates, even if the STEM subdomain is provided with high-quality reward, a flaw in the reward for the multi-image QA task led to model collapse across all domains. This highlights that stable, effective RL demands finely tuned, hack-resistant verifiers in every domain—any weak verifier can destabilize and collapse the entire training.

We highlight several challenges and difficulties we identified in reward model design during our experiments below, and present our corresponding optimizations and solutions.

The extraction of the final answer in RLVR. For RLVR, we first extract the final answer from the model’s response and then conduct a correctness comparison. There are generally two extraction methods: rule-based extraction according to box markers and extraction via LLMs. The latter is more flexible, which doesn’t force the model to emit explicit box markers around the key answer, avoiding cumbersome format tuning and preserving the original user-friendly response format. We find that for simple academic questions (where the answer is usually a single number) or single-category tasks (where the answer follows a fixed-range format), it’s straightforward to design prompts that enable an LLM to extract the answer precisely. However, in our multimodal, open-domain RL setting, the diversity of questions and answers increases dramatically, making extraction significantly more complex with numerous corner cases. LLM-based extraction is often proved to be inaccurate, causing errors in the subsequent correctness judgment. Moreover, in some cases, the “answer” segment would loop or become excessively long, which is difficult or out-of-distribution for LLMs to extract the final answer, further undermining model-based extraction accuracy. To address these issues, we require the model during RLVR to explicitly mark the final answer with box tokens, and compare only the boxed content against the reference answer.

It is worth noting that many prior works use the \boxed{} label to denote final answers. However, when reference answers become complex (for example, the results of GUI agent tasks are expressed as complex function calls), \boxed{} can be ambiguous and difficult to parse automatically. Therefore, we introduced special tokens into the vocabulary and instead mark answer spans as: <|begin_of_box|>{FINAL_ANSWER}<|end_of_box|>.

Avoid reward hacking. A coarse or incomplete reward design can lead the model to discover shortcuts for boosting its reward rather than truly improving its task performance. For example, in pilot experiments, we find that after more than 500 training iterations, an imprudently designed verifier could be hacked as follows: for a counting problem, the model would answer “a correct number between 0 and 10”, and for a relativity question about speed, it would answer “a velocity very close to the speed of light” – responses that successfully fool some LLM-based reward models and get high reward.

Domain-specific reward system. The optimal verifier varies between multimodal subdomains and is tightly coupled to the task—for instance, “43” and “43.0” are equivalent in a math problem but not in an OCR context. To deliver more accurate rewards across all domains, we develop a domain-specific reward system with the following features:

For example, in chart QA, numeric answers are verified against a relative tolerance threshold; for textual answers, we first check for an exact match and, if none is found, fall back to an LLM-based semantic equivalence assessment. We summarize some of our domain-specific verifiers below, and open-source this reward system in our GitHub repository to support further academic research.

Beyond the domain-specific content checking above, we also build a format-and-style-checking reward system using both rule-based and model-based judgments. In format checking, any response to non-verifiable data whose <answer> content contains the special markers <|begin_of_box|> <|end_of_box|> is penalized with a minimal reward. For style checking, we similarly assign a low reward if the <think> content or <answer> content includes extensive mixed Chinese and English segments or large blocks of repetitive text. In addition, a text-based reward model evaluates the <answer> content for instruction compliance and fluency, encouraging outputs that adhere closely to the prompt while remaining coherent and logically rigorous.

During RL training, we blend data from each multimodal domain in predetermined proportions, verify every domain using the reward system described in section 5.2, and optimize with GRPO [42] objective. To ensure that GLM-V models reach their full potential for each multimodal subdomain, we first run pilot experiments on each subdomain to evaluate its training difficulty, performance-improvement potential and the required training tokens in the corresponding dataset. These insights guide the allocation of training data proportions in the RL process.

One challenge is that, as RL training progresses, the model’s effective learning efficiency inevitably declines as its capabilities improve: many examples become too trivial to drive further learning. For instance, in GRPO, a rollout batch in which all samples are answered correctly yields no useful gradient. In our pilot experiment, over half of all prompts achieve accuracy over 90% after just 200 training steps. Meanwhile, rollout efficiency remains the primary bottleneck: the bulk of training time is consumed by rollouts. Consequently, it is essential to select the most informative, appropriately challenging problems for rollout.

To maximize learning efficiency, we propose Reinforcement Learning with Curriculum Sampling (RLCS), which applies the insight of curriculum learning to online sampling. We employ an adaptive curriculum that continuously adjusts the difficulty of training samples to match the model’s evolving capabilities, ensuring each update is maximally informative. To achieve this, we evaluate sample difficulty both offline and online. Before training, we assess the inherent difficulty of every sample by running pass@k evaluations across the full dataset with several established vision-language models (or earlier RL checkpoints) and merging those quantitative scores with expert human difficulty annotations. This process yields a set of fine-grained difficulty labels that partition our data into multiple tiers, from very easy through very hard. During training, we perform online difficulty grading. For each generated rollout, we record the pass@k outcome, map it to its corresponding difficulty tier, and merge these results with our offline labels. This online difficulty distribution also offers valuable insights into the model’s current performance.

By leveraging these difficulty labels alongside the model’s subcategory performance, we continuously re-weight the sampling ratios of different difficulty categories at the granularity of training iterations. The core idea is to down-sample examples that are too trivial, as well as those that currently prove too challenging, and boost exposure to the mid-range difficulties where the model gains the most. Empirically, we observe that RLCS significantly accelerates model improvement and consistently leads to performance gains.

Besides, we make particular efforts to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and stability of RLCS. Here, we share as comprehensively as possible the lessons learned, insights gained, and methods developed in optimizing the training process.

To maximize RL training efficiency and performance, we extensively optimize our RL infrastructure, focusing on the following components:

We compare GLM-4.5V and GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking against a wide range of open-source state-of-the-art MLLMs, including Step-3 [52], Qwen-VL series [2], Kimi-VL [50] and Gemma-3 [49]. As shown in Table 2, GLM-4.5V establishes a new state-of-the-art among open-source models across all benchmarks, demonstrating consistent superiority in performance across a wide spectrum of multimodal tasks.

In the domain of General VQA, GLM-4.5V-Thinking surpasses all competing open-source models of comparable size on diverse benchmarks, covering both single-image and multi-image settings. This underscores the model’s strong general-purpose visual reasoning capabilities and its adeptness in both factual and inferential question answering across varying visual contexts.

Within the STEM category, our model achieves the highest performance on challenging science and engineering benchmarks such as MMMU (Val), MMMU Pro, and AI2D. These results indicate a particularly strong capacity for structured and domain-specific reasoning. On mathematics-centric tasks such as MathVista and WeMath, GLM-4.5V-Thinking also outperforms other baselines, demonstrating advanced capability in symbolic and arithmetic reasoning.

In the domain of OCR & Document, GLM-4.5V-Thinking sets new state-of-the-art scores on both ChartQAPro and ChartMuseum, demonstrating strong capabilities in structured data extraction from plots and charts. On OCRBench, it performs competitively, slightly behind our non-thinking version and Kimi-VL, indicating solid but improvable text recognition in natural images. Moreover, GLM-4.5V-Thinking outperforms all other models on MMLongBench-Doc, revealing a strong capacity for reasoning over extended sequences, maintaining cross-page coherence, and handling complex document layouts.

GLM-4.5V-Thinking also establishes new state-of-the-art results in emerging tasks involving GUI Agents and multimodal Coding. Its significant margin over competitors in these areas highlights its strong cross-modal reasoning ability and semantic alignment between visual interfaces and code representations.

In the area of Video Understanding and Spatial Reasoning, GLM-4.5V-Thinking demonstrates robust performance, leading on benchmarks such as VideoMME, MMVU, and OminiSpatial. These results emphasize its advanced spatio-temporal reasoning abilities, crucial for interpreting dynamic and multi-frame visual content. Meanwhile, for Visual Grounding, the model delivers solid results on RefCOCO, outperforming other competitors.

Remarkably, despite the relatively compact size, GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking demonstrates superior performance to the much larger Qwen2.5-VL-72B model on 29 out of 42 benchmarks, including particularly challenging tasks such as MMStar, MUIRBENCH, MMMU Pro, and ChartMuseum. This illustrates the superior efficiency and capability of our model, making it a compelling choice for real-world deployment where computational resources are constrained. These findings emphasize that our model offers an excellent trade-off between performance and efficiency, making it a practical and powerful solution for real-world deployment under resource constraints.

While multi-domain RL successfully improves the overall performance, there is one remaining question: In the course of RL, is it possible for the various multimodal domains to generalize to and reinforce one another, or will they instead antagonize and interfere with each other? To explore this question, we conduct experiments on GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking. We selected four representative domains: STEM, OCR & Chart, Grounding, and GUI agents. While each domain relies on a common toolkit of visual perception, reasoning, they stress different abilities. For example, Grounding demands fine-grained pixel-level perception; OCR & Chart emphasizes text recognition and the interpretation of abstract figures; STEM tasks center on complex visual reasoning; and GUI agents require a blend of UI understanding, real-world knowledge, and dynamic decision-making.

All experiments are conducted based on the SFT-stage checkpoint of GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking. We compare 5 groups of RL training data: (1) STEM, (2) OCR & Chart, (3) Grounding, (4) GUI Agent, and (5) Mix-all which mixes all four data groups above with the RL training ratio of GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking. We adopt the mix-all setup as our reference for training data volume: for each standalone RL experiment on a given sub-domain, the number of samples processed is exactly the same as the number that sub-domain sees in the mix-all experiment. After training, we evaluate models on 5 categories of benchmarks, each category contains multiple benchmarks: (1) STEM, (2) OCR & Chart, (3) Grounding, (4) GUI Agent, and (5) General image VQA that does not have a corresponding training set. The results are shown in Figure 6, where the numbers represent the improvement of the average group score compared to the initial SFT checkpoint. The results demonstrate robust cross-domain generalization and mutual facilitation in most domains:

Interestingly, the cross-domain RL results also reveal how closely related these tasks are. For example, training on GUI-agent data markedly improves grounding performance and vice versa, highlighting their shared reliance on visual grounding capabilities. Likewise, OCR & Chart and GUI-agent tasks boost each other’s performance, reflecting their common demand for accurate text recognition.

To assess the HTML code generation capabilities of GLM-4.1V-Thinking and GLM-4.5V, we follow the “direct” evaluation setting described in Design2Code [43], omitting both text augmentation and self-revision steps. In contrast to [43], we employ GPT-o4-mini as the visual judge to compare each rendered HTML output against the corresponding UI reference screenshot. This choice is motivated by our empirical observation that GPT-o4-mini consistently produces similarity judgments that are more accurate and more closely aligned with human preferences than those obtained from CLIP, particularly in the presence of complex UI layouts. The scoring prompt provided to GPT-o4-mini is as follows:

We take 80 as the score threshold for a faithful UI2Code reproduction and report accuracy as the proportion of test cases meeting this criterion (score $\geq 80$). This choice is based on our observation that rendering differences in resolution, fonts, and other factors make a perfect score of $100$ impractical — almost all results would be judged “inconsistent,” distorting the evaluation. Human raters focus on overall layout, colors, and elements rather than pixel-level differences, and in our manual evaluation, cases with VLM-assigned scores $\geq 80$ were generally considered visually and functionally consistent with the reference.

To achieve optimal performance and reproduce the results presented in the paper when utilizing GLM-4.1V-Thinking or GLM-4.5V as a GUI Agent on mobile phones and computers, it is essential to follow the specific prompts and settings outlined in https://github.com/zai-org/GLM-V/blob/main/examples/gui-agent/glm-41v/agent.md (for GLM-4.1V-Thinking) or https://github.com/zai-org/GLM-V/blob/main/examples/gui-agent/glm-45v/agent.md (for GLM-4.5V).

To reliably trigger the grounding behavior of GLM-4.5V or GLM-4.1V-Thinking and reproduce the evolution results reported in the paper, we suggest using prompts similar to the format shown below.:

In the prompts, <expr> is the description of the target object, and the bracket style may vary ([], (), <>, {}, etc.). Each output bounding box will be a quadruple $[x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2}]$ composed of the coordinates of the top-left and bottom-right corners, where each value is normalized by the image width (for x) or height (for y) and scaled by 1000.