Abstract
Test-time thinking (that is, generating explicit intermediate reasoning chains) is known to boost performance in large language models and has recently shown strong gains for large vision language models (LVLMs). However, despite these promising results, there is still no systematic analysis of how thinking actually affects visual reasoning. We provide the first such analysis with a large scale, controlled comparison of thinking for LVLMs, evaluating ten variants from the InternVL3.5 and Qwen3-VL families on MMMU-val under generous token budgets and multi pass decoding. We show that more thinking is not always better; long chains often yield long wrong trajectories that ignore the image and underperform the same models run in standard instruct mode. A deeper analysis reveals that certain short lookback phrases, which explicitly refer back to the image, are strongly enriched in successful trajectories and correlate with better visual grounding. Building on this insight, we propose uncer