Demonstrates improved visual question answering in remote sensing, suggesting enhanced model performance.
High-resolution remote sensing visual question answering (RS-VQA) requires models to identify question-relevant regions and reason over fine-grained visual evidence. However, existing vision–language models usually rely on fixed global image inputs, which may lose critical local details in ultra-high-resolution imagery and struggle with sparse informative regions, large object-scale variations, and complex spatial layouts. To address these challenges, this paper proposes a crop-tool-augmented active perception framework with reinforcement learning. The framework introduces structured tokens to explicitly organize the reasoning process into question understanding, cropping decision-making, local evidence acquisition and final answer generation. Based on this design, the model can actively determine whether a cropping operation is needed and select task-relevant regions for further inspection. To enable stable tool-use and multi-turn reasoning in a compact vision–language model, we construct teacher-guided cropping reasoning trajectories from high-resolution images, question–answer pairs, and annotated regions in the LRS-GRO dataset, and use them for cold-start supervised fine-tuning of Qwen2.5-VL-3B. Furthermore, we introduce Group Relative Policy Optimization to refine the model’s active perception policy. A region-aware reward function is designed by integrating output-format constraints, reference-region coverage, answer semantic consistency, and cropping penalties, which encourages compact and informative region selection while reducing redundant tool invocations. Experiments on VRSBench, MME-RealWorld-RS, XLRS-Bench, and LRS-VQA demonstrate that the proposed method achieves competitive overall performance compared with closed-source, open-source, and remote-sensing-specific vision–language models, and obtains the best or comparable results on most benchmarks. Ablation studies further verify the effectiveness of structured supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning optimization, and the proposed reward design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: