A recent trend in vision-language models (VLMs) has been to enhance their spatial cognition for embodied domains. Despite progress, existing evaluations have been limited both in paradigm and in coverage, hindering rapid, iterative model development. To address these limitations, we propose ESPIRE, a diagnostic benchmark for embodied spatial reasoning. ESPIRE offers a simulated world that physically grounds VLMs and evaluates them on spatial-reasoning-centric robotic tasks, thus narrowing the gap between evaluation and real-world deployment. To adapt VLMs to robotic tasks, we decompose each task into localization and execution, and frame both as generative problems, in stark contrast to predominant discriminative evaluations (e.g., via visual-question answering) that rely on distractors and discard execution. This decomposition further enables a fine-grained analysis beyond passive spatial reasoning toward reasoning to act. We systematically design ESPIRE both at the instruction level and at the environment level, ensuring broad coverage of spatial reasoning scenarios. We use ESPIRE to diagnose a range of frontier VLMs and provide in-depth analysis of their spatial reasoning behaviors.
Figures & tables
Benchmark
Localization & Execution
Evaluation
Systematicity
Physically- Grounded
Diagnostic
Clutter Level
Paradigm
Tool-Free
image- and video-based
Blink ( Fu et al., 2024 )
✗
VQA
✓
✗
✗
✗
high
CV-Bench ( Tong et al., 2024 )
✗
VQA
✓
✗
✗
✗
high
VSI-Bench ( Yang et al., 2024 )
✗
VQA
✓
✗
✗
✗
high
Where2Place ( Yuan et al., 2024 )
✗
Point Gen.
✓
✗
✗
✗
high
Table 1: Comparisons of spatial-reasoning benchmarks. ‘Text Gen.’ and ‘Point Gen.’ indicate that models produce answers in natural language and 2D points, respectively. ‘Fully Gen.’ denotes that models generate positions and rotations in 3D. ‘Tool-Free’ means no external tools are used, thus assessing the intrinsic spatial reasoning of VLMs.
Figure 1: Espire : a simulated physical world. Top: the spatial world of Espire covers key factors of spatial reasoning like spatial aspects (e.g., relationship and distance), reference frames, reference objects (§ 4.1 ). It features a tabletop scene for pick tasks and a shelf scene for place tasks (§ 4.2 ) and supports reasoning at varying granularities (see Table 10 in Appendix A.2 ). Bottom: example Espire tasks that all inherently rely on spatial reasoning.
Models
Pick
Place
accuracy
acceptance
success
accuracy
acceptance
success
w/o reflection
Gemini2.5-Pro
57.72
63.93
34.06
50.61
28.36
5.68
InternVL3-78B
28.31
63.01
17.26
23.66
40.94
9.67
RoboBrain2.0-7B
57.72
18.81
10.87
50.70
15.68
8.64
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B
54.43
62.56
32.15
45.54
43.47
20.00
Table 2: The localization accuracy (%), acceptance rate (%) in execution, and overall task success rate (%) across different VLMs.
Figure 2: Localization performance across spatial aspects and granularities on pick tasks.
Models
Accuracy
attribute
distance
orientation
relationship
Pick
Gemini2.5-Pro
56.00
53.89
63.81
56.52
InternVL3-78B
29.33
21.67
33.65
30.14
RoboBrain2.0-7B
61.33
56.11
60.95
55.65
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B
57.33
50.83
57.14
55.07
Table 3: Localization accuracy (%) across four primary spatial aspects.
Models
Accuracy (%)
Acceptance (%)
easy
medium
hard
easy
medium
hard
Pick
Gemini2.5-Pro
60.78
60.98
52.04
70.96
60.98
60.71
InternVL3-78B
24.85
29.00
30.61
60.78
65.85
62.24
RoboBrain2.0-7B
62.57
56.10
55.10
21.56
15.72
19.39
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B
62.57
53.39
48.87
65.87
66.67
55.87
Table 4: Performance across difficulty levels.
Models
#Localization
#Move
Dist. at success
Dist. before success
Rank
Pick
Gemini2.5-Pro
1.20
2.54
0.07
0.47
1
InternVL3-78B
1.05
2.56
0.05
0.48
3
RoboBrain2.0-7B
1.36
2.54
0.05
0.50
6
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B
1.16
2.49
0.06
0.38
4
Qwen3-VL-8B
1.17
2.41
0.05
0.42
2
Table 5: The average number of attempts to succeed in localization and execution, and average distance (meter) between the target and end-effector upon execution success and before execution success. ‘Rank’ indicates model ranking in execution.
Table 6: Qualitative analysis. We categorize intermediate executions into following six types: T1 denotes a grasp-favorable viewpoint; T2 denotes a grasp-infeasible viewpoint; T3 denotes manipulator occlusion; T4 denotes object occlusion; T5 denotes unrecognizable target; and T6 denotes physically-achievable execution.
Pitch
Yaw
Roll
Pick (%)
Place (%)
w/o C
w/ C
52.73
37.74
43.33
✓
20.91
26.42
26.67
✓
28.18
29.25
25.00
✓
30.91
35.85
23.33
✓
✓
4.55
23.58
25.00
Table 7: Acceptance rate with rotation axes generated by Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B. Unchecked axes indicate that ground-truth rotations are used. For place tasks, results are reported on tasks with and without explicit pose constraints (C).
Model
Near Obj.
Distant Obj.
Table
Gemini2.5-Pro
-0.573 ± 0.634
0.8 ± 0.274
1.0 ± 0.0
RoboBrain2.0-7B
-0.674 ± 0.242
0.8 ± 0.274
1.0 ± 0.0
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B
-0.100 ± 0.652
0.8 ± 0.274
1.0 ± 0.0
Qwen3-VL-8B
-0.674 ± 0.242
0.8 ± 0.274
1.0 ± 0.0
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B
-0.573 ± 0.634
0.8 ± 0.274
1.0 ± 0.0
Table 8: Agreement of humans and models on reference frames. References are categorized into table, near, and distant objects.
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Layouts of the tabletop and shelf scenes within Espire (best viewed in color). The light red region denotes the camera viewpoint sampling area, the light green region indicates where the robot end effector may appear, and the light blue region denotes where distant reference objects are placed. All labeled dimensions are in meters.
Models
Pick
Place
localization (s)
execution (s)
# update
success (%)
localization (s)
execution (s)
# update
success (%)
w/o reflection
Gemini2.5-Pro
22.37
40.53
6.86
34.06
33.00
41.15
9.01
15.70
InternVL3-78B
14.44
32.21
6.92
17.26
19.06
34.04
7.59
9.67
RoboBrain2.0-7B
14.17
27.56
9.07
10.87
19.08
30.83
9.36
8.64
Qwen3-VL-8B
15.44
34.87
6.73
29.32
19.48
35.86
7.83
12.41
Appendix
Table 9: Breakdowns of evaluation time in seconds (s).
Figure 4: Example prompts with Qwen3-VL (continued).
Figure 5: Example prompts with Qwen3-VL.
Figure 6: Pick localization example with reflection, where the prompt simplified for better demonstration.
Figure 7: Pick localization example (subsequent attempts and successful execution).
Figure 8: Place localization example without reflection, where the prompt simplified for better demonstration.
Figure 9: Pick execution example without reflection, where the prompt simplified for better demonstration.
Figure 10: Place execution example with reflection, where the prompt simplified for better demonstration.
Spatial Aspect
Gran- ularity
Type
Input
Example Instruction
Attribute
Coarse
Small
nil
take a small book from the table
Medium
nil
take a medium-sized book
Large
nil
take a large book
Empty
nil
place the book in an empty slot
NonEmpty
nil
place the book in a partly occupied slot
Emptiest
nil
place the book in the emptiest slot
Appendix
Table 10: Spatial aspects of varying granularities. nil indicates no input parameters are required. Note that left , right , front , behind , above , and below are reloaded as directional relations in ‘Orientation’ ( cf. positional relations in ‘Relationship’).
S
F
O
R
I
Example Program
Attribute
Small
filterAttr $R (filterBook(TABLE))
Large
Medium
Height
float
filterAttr R(I$ , filterBook(TABLE))
Width
Distance
viewer distant obj. near obj.
RankClosest
int
filterDist R(I,filterBook(TABLE),O$ )
Appendix
Table 11: Example instruction families of pick tasks. The outermost pick ( ⋅ ) is discarded for simplicity. unique ( ⋅ ) ensures a unique item from the input set. TABLE returns all items in the tabletop scene.
S
F
O
R
I
Example Program
Attribute
Small
filterAttr $R (filterSlot(SHELF))
Large
Medium
Height
float
filterAttr R(I$ , filterSlot(SHELF))
Width
Distance
viewer distant obj. near obj.
RankClosest
int
filterDist R(I,filterSlot(SHELF),O$ )
Appendix
Table 12: Example instruction families of place tasks. The outermost place ( ⋅ ) is discarded for simplicity. unique ( ⋅ ) ensures a unique item from the input set. SHELF returns all shelf-scene items.
Table 13: Tables with different colors and textures.
Table 14: Shelf with different layouts.
Table 15: Shelf with different textures.
Table 16: Near reference objects (w/ and w/o an intrinsic frame of reference) appear on the table or shelf.
Table 17: Distant reference objects (w/ and w/o an intrinsic frame of reference) appear behind the table or besides the shelf.
Table 18: Manipulable books. They will be auto-scaled to match three pre-defined sizes: small, medium, and large.
Table 19: Different bookends are used to help create tilting poses of books.
Name
Type
Oriented
L (cm)
W (cm)
H (cm)
Alarm clock
near
✓
7
13
17
Armento Rider
near
✓
24
7
24
Bicycle sculpture
near
✓
21
8
18
Picture frame
near
✓
13
22
18
Teddy bear
near
✓
20
23
25
Newton’s cradle
near
✗
10
15
14
Appendix
Table 20: Attributes of Espire assets. Oriented assets have an intrinsic frame while non-oriented assets do not.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have been increasingly applied in real-world scenarios due to their outstanding understanding and reasoning capabilities. Although VLMs have already demonstrated impressive capabilities in common visual question answering and logical reasoning, they still lack the ability to make reasonable decisions in complex real-world environments. We define this ability as spatial logical reasoning, which not only requires understanding the spatial relationships among objects in complex scenes, but also the logical dependencies between steps in multi-step tasks. To bridge this gap, we introduce Spatial Logical Question Answering (SpatiaLQA), a benchmark designed to evaluate the spatial logical reasoning capabilities of VLMs. SpatiaLQA consists of 9,605 question answer pairs derived from 241 real-world indoor scenes. We conduct extensive experiments on 41 mainstream VLMs, and the results show that even the most advanced models still struggle with spatial logical reasoning. To address this issue, we propose a method called recursive scene graph assisted reasoning, which leverages visual foundation models to progressively decompose complex scenes into task-relevant scene graphs, thereby enhancing the spatial logical reasoning ability of VLMs, outperforming all previous methods. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/xieyc99/SpatiaLQA.
Yuechen Xie, Xiaoyan Zhang, Yicheng Shan +6
Zhejiang University · The University of Sydney · ManyCore +2
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) perform well on commonsense reasoning tasks but struggle with visual spatial reasoning. Most existing solutions introduce extra 3D prior inputs or external spatial encoders, which increase complexity and degrade the underlying VLMs' general-purpose capabilities after spatial fine-tuning. To this end, we propose a parameter-efficient Spatio-vision Language Models (SpatioLM), that enhances spatial intelligence without extra 3D prior inputs or third-party spatial encoders. Concretely, we design a plug-and-play and non-invasive spatio-vision module that elicits the spatial knowledge inherent in VLMs. Furthermore, we innovatively leverage pseudo depth and camera information as supervision to guide the model in learning physically coherent representations. Extensive experiments show that SpatioLM achieves significant improvements in diverse tasks, including spatial perception and understanding while effectively limiting the degradation of general capabilities. Notably, the model achieves an impressive score of 71.6 on the VSI-Bench (the first model to surpass 70). In addition, it attains competitive performance when transferred to embodied manipulation tasks. Code is available at \faGithub~spatio-lm.
Jing Wu, Jianhua Wu, Jiayi Guan +5
Xiaomi EV, Beijing, China · College of Automotive and Energy Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China · Independent Researcher
Spatial reasoning is foundational for Vision-Language Models (VLMs), particularly when deployed as Vision-Language-Action (VLA) agents in physical environments. However, existing benchmarks predominantly focus on elementary, single-hop relations, neglecting the multi-hop compositional reasoning and precise visual grounding essential for real-world scenarios. To address this, we introduce MultihopSpatial, offering three key contributions: (1) A comprehensive benchmark designed for multi-hop and compositional spatial reasoning, featuring 1- to 3-hop complex queries across diverse spatial perspectives. (2) Acc@50IoU, a complementary metric that simultaneously evaluates reasoning and visual grounding by requiring both answer selection and precise bounding box prediction - capabilities vital for robust VLA deployment. (3) MultihopSpatial-Train, a dedicated large-scale training corpus to foster spatial intelligence. Extensive evaluation of 37 state-of-the-art VLMs yields eight key insights, revealing that compositional spatial reasoning remains a formidable challenge. Finally, we demonstrate that reinforcement learning post-training on our corpus enhances both intrinsic VLM spatial reasoning and downstream embodied manipulation performance.
Youngwan Lee, Soojin Jang, Yoorhim Cho +3
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, South Korea · Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea · Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea +1