Organizations: Department of Computer & Information Science & Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA · Department of Computer Science, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Benchmarking spatial reasoning in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) has attracted growing interest in computer vision due to its importance for embodied AI and other agentic systems that require precise interaction with the physical world. However, spatial reasoning on Earth imagery has lagged behind, as it uniquely involves grounding objects in georeferenced images and quantitatively reasoning about distances, directions, and topological relations using both visual cues and vector geometry coordinates (e.g., 2D bounding boxes, polylines, and polygons). Existing benchmarks for Earth imagery primarily focus on 2D spatial grounding, image captioning, and coarse spatial relations (e.g., simple directional or proximity cues). They lack support for quantitative direction and distance reasoning, systematic topological relations, and complex object geometries beyond bounding boxes. To fill this gap, we propose EarthSpatialBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating spatial reasoning in MLLMs on Earth imagery. The benchmark contains over 325K question-answer pairs spanning: (1) qualitative and quantitative reasoning about spatial distance and direction; (2) systematic topological relations; (3) single-object queries, object-pair queries, and compositional aggregate group queries; and (4) object references expressed via textual descriptions, visual overlays, and explicit geometry coordinates, including 2D bounding boxes, polylines, and polygons. We conducted extensive experiments on both open-source and proprietary models to identify limitations in the spatial reasoning of MLLMs.
Figures & tables
Datasets
Number of QA Pairs
Geometry Type
Spatial Reasoning
Distance
Direction
Topological
EarthVQA ( Wang et al., 2024 )
209K
BBox
×
×
×
GeoChatSet ( Kuckreja et al., 2024 )
318K
BBox
×
×
×
VRSBench ( Li et al., 2024b )
123K
BBox
×
×
×
SkyEyeGPT ( Zhan et al., 2025 )
968K
BBox
×
×
×
XLRS-Bench ( Wang et al., 2025a )
46K
BBox
×
△
×
Table 1: A comparison of existing benchmark datasets for MLLM on Earth imagery. ( ✓ ”Fully Benchmarked”; △ ”Partially Benchmarked”; × ”Not Benchmarked”)
Figure 1: Overview of EarthSpatialBench. The benchmark spans diverse spatial relations evaluated over multiple geometry types, object representation modalities, and question formats, enabling comprehensive assessment of spatial reasoning. High-resolution Earth imagery and geometric annotations are collected from SatlasPretrain. Spatial relations (distance, direction, topology) are computed using standard GIS procedures and combined with curated question templates to generate diverse reasoning tasks. A multi-stage quality control process ensures geometric accuracy, semantic clarity, and reliable ground-truth annotations.
Property
Value
Source dataset
SatlasPretrain ( Bastani et al., 2023 )
Sensor type
Optical RGB
Image resolution
1m
Image size
512 × 512
Total images
21K
Total QA pairs
325K
Table 2: Overview of EarthSpatialBench.
Figure 2: (a) Distribution of all 23 geometric object types in EarthSpatialBench (log scale). The dataset includes 6 small-object bounding-box classes (building, dam, parking lot, pier, power substation, helipad), 7 polyline classes (airport runway, airport taxiway, raceway, railway, river, road, track), and 10 large-region polygon classes (airport, crop, landfill, park, quarry, solar farm, water park, theme park, stadium, power plant). (b) Distribution of the total number of annotated objects per image on a log–log scale, showing the wide variation in scene complexity across images. (c) Distribution of question counts across spatial relation categories (distance, direction, topology) and question formats (choice-based, quantitative, localization).
Model
Exact Distance
Count
Localization
Binary Classification
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
F1 ↑
IoU ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Qwen3-VL-I-30B
127.93
168.31
1.28
2.06
0.25
0.18
0.58
0.56
Qwen3-VL-I-30B-CoT
124.78
169.16
1.19
1.41
0.16
0.16
0.53
0.34
Qwen3-VL-T-30B
114.87
158.92
1.02
1.77
0.25
0.19
0.71
0.48
Qwen3-VL-T-30B-CoT
121.17
158.39
1.33
1.68
0.26
0.20
0.56
0.34
InternVL3.5-38B
144.21
189.73
0.89
1.19
0.23
0.19
0.59
0.54
Table 3: Performance on Distance reasoning tasks.
Model
Exact Angle
Count
Localization
8-Direction Classification
Binary Classification
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
F1 ↑
IoU ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Qwen3-VL-I-30B
117.20
145.86
2.88
6.37
0.24
0.16
0.35
0.31
0.67
0.67
Qwen3-VL-I-30B-CoT
80.31
130.91
1.74
5.21
0.04
0.05
0.34
0.34
0.57
0.38
Qwen3-VL-T-30B
117.98
140.94
1.64
2.90
0.21
0.13
0.26
0.26
0.71
0.71
Qwen3-VL-T-30B-CoT
54.99
96.28
2.24
6.37
0.16
0.11
0.45
0.38
0.70
0.46
InternVL3.5-38B
126.31
158.25
1.55
3.14
0.16
0.11
0.30
0.29
0.64
0.64
Table 4: Performance on Direction reasoning tasks.
Model
Count
Localization
Binary Classification
Intersect
Within
Intersect
Within
Intersect
Within
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
F1 ↑
IoU ↑
F1 ↑
IoU ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Qwen3-VL-I-30B
1.14
1.82
2.45
4.30
0.24
0.19
0.13
0.15
0.68
0.63
0.90
0.71
Qwen3-VL-I-30B-CoT
1.10
1.98
2.83
6.55
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.71
0.69
0.94
0.77
Qwen3-VL-T-30B
1.07
1.88
2.79
6.54
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.20
0.73
0.72
0.91
0.68
Qwen3-VL-T-30B-CoT
1.07
2.09
3.06
6.84
0.19
0.18
0.12
0.07
0.72
0.72
0.94
0.68
Table 5: Performance on Topological reasoning tasks.
Figure 3: Performance of MLLMs on four grounding variants.
Figure 4: Performance differences between visual-overlay-based and coordinate-based object references. (a) Change in MAE for counting. (b) Change in F1 score for localization.
Figure 5: MAE of angle estimation under different object representation settings.
Figure 6: MAE of distance estimation across different geometry type combinations.
Understanding and manipulating spatial relations is fundamental to AI systems that reason about physical environments and construct grounded world models. However, existing evaluations of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for spatial reasoning rely predominantly on static question-answering (QA) over small-scale or synthetic scenes, rarely probing whether models can modify spatial configurations while satisfying explicit geometric constraints. We introduce GeoSpatialBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate an escalating progression of spatial cognition, ranging from spatial relation understanding and geometric reasoning to constrained spatial editing. Grounded in real-world urban data across six geographically diverse cities, GeoSpatialBench evaluates a comprehensive taxonomy of 28 topological, directional, metric, and ordering relations across structured GeoJSON and map image modalities, with ground-truth references and constraints verified via GIS operations. Our empirical evaluation across frontier MLLMs uncovers a stark spatial gap: structured GeoJSON consistently outperforms map images, with multimodal combinations offering no reliable gain over GeoJSON alone, and while models show reasonable competence on qualitative topological and ordering, performance drops on quantitative metric relations. Crucially, editing performance on ordering relations declines relative to QA, and most failed edits violate at least one specified spatial constraint. These results highlight a gap between passively recognizing spatial relations and actively manipulating geometric configurations. GeoSpatialBench provides an open, rigorous diagnostic testbed to benchmark these spatial limitations, laying essential empirical groundwork for physically grounded world models and embodied spatial AI.
Zheng Ren, Yanning Wang, Ziheng Huang +4
Urban Governance and Design (UGOD) Thrust The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) Guangzhou, China
Geospatial reasoning, i.e., computing distances, containment, and other spatial relations over real-world entities, is central to navigation and logistics, yet large language models (LLMs) struggle with the required geometric and topological computation despite storing considerable geographic knowledge. Existing benchmarks localize these failures only partially: they are synthetic or smallscale, largely monolingual, and offer limited control over geographic coverage. We introduce MultiGlobeQA, a multilingual benchmark of 46,060 question-answer pairs spanning 14 spatial-function families and 15 answer formats, with execution-based ground truth over three knowledge graphs. It covers 201 countries and territories via income- and density-stratified sampling, with parallel questions in English and 16 additional high- and low-resource languages. Across parametric, reasoning, and agentic settings, LLMs collapse on tasks requiring grid indexing and shape computation, while topological relations and directions fare best. Retrieval and tool use yield considerable gains, yet performance plateaus below two thirds even when gold facts are supplied, indicating that computation, not access to knowledge, is the bottleneck. Models also underperform on low-income regions, a gap that gold facts widen rather than close.
Martin Böckling, Elizaveta Nosova, Heiko Paulheim +1
Data and Web Science Group, University of Mannheim, Germany
Vision-language models (VLMs) achieve strong semantic understanding but remain unreliable in metric spatial reasoning, particularly when queries require comparing multiple instances of the same object category. We study this problem through the Closest-Instance Distance Query (CIDQ), where a model must identify the nearest visible candidate to a unique reference object and estimate their gravity-aligned floor-plane distance. We introduce SPATIALQUERY, a training- free framework for CIDQ reasoning from a single RGB image, together with SPATIALQUERY-1M, a benchmark containing over one million RGB-only question-answer pairs from 200 indoor scenes. SPATIALQUERY recovers instance-level metric geometry and transforms it into a canonical Bird's-Eye View through Scene Cubifying, which represents objects as uniformly sized, category-coded blocks to emphasize their relative floor- plane locations. We further propose Uncertainty-Aware Chain-of-Thought (UA-CoT) prompting, which incorporates geometry- derived per-instance uncertainty into the VLM reasoning process. Without task-specific fine-tuning or architectural modification, SPATIALQUERY with Qwen3-VL-8B achieves a Floor-MAE of 0.259 m, an [email protected] m of 90.5%, and a proximity-decision accuracy of 84.18%, outperforming fine-tuned spatial specialists, general-purpose VLMs, and closed-source frontier models. Code, benchmark resources, and an interactive demo are available at https://namhai1810.github.io/SpatialQuery/.
Hai Nguyen, Tung Vu, Cong Tran
Posts and Telecommunications Institute of Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam