The paper introduces PCSR-Bench, a benchmark of 84,373 question‑answer pairs derived from 2,600 omnidirectional images across 26 indoor environments, designed to evaluate perspective‑conditioned spatial reasoning (PCSR) in multimodal large language models (MLLMs). It reports a significant perception–reasoning gap, with accuracy dropping from 57.59% on limited field‑of‑view reasoning to as low as 0.64% on open‑ended compositional directional chains. An RL‑based diagnostic study on a 7B‑scale model shows that reward shaping can improve performance to 60.06% on a controlled task, indicating partial plasticity of PCSR capabilities.
By Yuangong Chen, Wai Keung Wong, Jiaxing Li, Ioannis Patras, Xu Zheng
arXiv:2607. 00491v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmarks for vision-language models (VLMs) mostly test observational spatial reasoning: models describe relations already visible in the input.
By Leyuan Yu, Xiao Tang, Minghao Liu, Xinyuan Li, Xiaokai Bai, Sheng Zhou, Qunshu Lin, Weihao Xuan, Naoto Yokoya
arXiv:2601. 19099v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vision--language models (VLMs) achieve strong performance on many multimodal benchmarks but remain brittle on spatial reasoning tasks that require aligning abstract overhead representations with egocentric views.
By Yosub Shin, Michael Buriek, Igor Molybog
arXiv:2607. 22864v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) excel at visual interpretation but fail on spatial reasoning tasks that humans solve reliably.
By Patrick Rim, Tom Long, Ekta Prashnani, Ruth Rosenholtz, Ben Boudaoud, Peter Xenopoulos, Alex Wong, Joohwan Kim, Jae-Hyun Jung
arXiv:2606. 17539v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Spatial VLMs have made substantial progress in geometric perception, yet complex spatial reasoning requiring multi-step inference over depth, distance, and scene relations remains challenging.
By Yatai Ji, An-Chieh Cheng, Yang Fu, Yukang Chen, Han Zhang, Zhaojing Yang, Wei Huang, Ka Chun Cheung, Song Han, Vidya Nariyambut Murali, Pavlo Molchanov, Jan Kautz, Simon See, Hongxu Yin, Ping Luo, Sifei Liu
arXiv:2606. 03988v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision language models (VLMs) excel at many tasks but still struggle with spatial reasoning when critical information is not directly observable.
By Mahtab Bigverdi, Lindsey Li, Weikai Huang, Yiming Liu, Jaemin Cho, Jieyu Zhang, Tuhin Kundu, Chris Dangjoo Kim, Zelun Luo, Linda Shapiro, Ranjay Krishna
SpatialASM is a framework that teaches Large Vision‑Language Models (LVLMs) to perform Active Spatial Mentalization (ASM), enabling them to proactively plan and imagine viewpoints during spatial reasoning tasks. The method uses an allocentric novel‑view generator to create explicit ASM trajectories and perspective‑taking tasks, providing two forms of supervision that guide LVLMs in adaptive view planning and scene imagination. Experiments on seven spatial benchmarks show that SpatialASM improves performance across four LVLM backbones while preserving their general vision capabilities.
By Yuhong Liu, Shenxi Wu, Junyi Chi, Beichen Zhang, Xuanlang Dai, Jiaqi Wang, Yuhang Zang, Dahua Lin
SpaceCast-Bench is a new benchmark that evaluates predictive spatial reasoning in vision‑language models, moving beyond simple spatial perception to tasks that require constructing scenes, anticipating interventions, and reasoning about unseen outcomes. It contains 3,862 questions from 182 real‑world scenes across 16 task types and three difficulty levels—static perception, local prediction, and global prediction—testing scene understanding, spatial state updating, and relational inference. Evaluation of 21 models shows a large performance gap, with the best model achieving only 58.0% versus 87.2% human accuracy, and fine‑tuning on the benchmark’s programmatically generated data can substantially improve model performance.
By Hongxing Li, Jinyue Su, Dingming Li, Wenqi Zhang, Weiming Lu, Jun Xiao, Yueting Zhuang, Yongliang Shen
StateSight is a new benchmark designed to isolate and evaluate the ability of vision‑language models to reconstruct latent spatial structure from a single image. It consists of three procedurally generated task families—cube‑net opposite‑face reasoning, occluded cube‑tower counting, and 4‑neighbor connected‑component counting—each with 300 deterministic prompts and exact‑match scoring. The benchmark also includes a companion dataset, StateSight‑Steps, with 900 image‑text examples and 3,600 intermediate visual states to aid analysis of reconstruction errors.
By Michelle Lin
arXiv:2608. 10954v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) demonstrate impressive performance in benign scenarios, their cognitive reliability deteriorates significantly in complex scenes under adverse conditions.
By Zhaoyang Wei, Bowen Jiang, Xumeng Han, Jiashu Li, Xuehui Yu, Yuling Liu, Guorong Li, Zhenjun Han, Jianbin Jiao
arXiv:2510.13394v4 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Spatial reasoning ability is crucial for Vision Language Models (VLMs) to support real-world applications in diverse domains including robotics, au...
By Xinmiao Huang, Qisong He, Zhenglin Huang, Boxuan Wang, Zhuoyun Li, Guangliang Cheng, Yi Dong, Xiaowei Huang
OVO‑S‑Bench is a fully human‑annotated benchmark designed to evaluate streaming spatial intelligence in multimodal large language models (MLLMs). It contains 1,680 questions derived from 348 source videos, each with a query timestamp and evidence interval, and tests models on four levels of abstraction: instantaneous egocentric perception, spatiotemporal context tracking, generative spatial reasoning, and allocentric spatial mapping. Across 38 MLLMs, Gemini‑3.1‑Pro scored 59.2 versus 92.2 for human experts, with allocentric spatial mapping identified as the main challenge, and the benchmark reveals that chain‑of‑thought reasoning can worsen spatial errors when not grounded in the stream.
By Yifei Li, Pengyiang Liu, Yuhang Zang, Zhongyue Shi, Qi Fu, Hongye Hao, Jiwen Lu