Standard attribution heatmaps show where a vision-language model (VLM) focuses, but they do not reveal whether the recovered evidence is organized by the queried spatial relation or merely reflects image layout. To address this problem, we introduce CREG (Compass Relational Evidence Graph), a training-free diagnostic framework that converts token-level attribution into a reference-centered compass distribution and measures its directional alignment. CREG provides a shared directional readout across attribution methods and makes comparison with geometric controls explicit. Across three spatial-relation benchmarks, box-only geometry achieves Direction Alignment Error 28.4 to 34.4 degrees lower than the best current model-based attribution method on each dataset, leaving a substantial gap between attribution structure and simple target localization. To examine this gap, we apply a diagnostic battery including target intervention, reference-center randomization, and variance partition. Taken together, the results suggest that the directional structure recoverable from current attribution methods is limited and often mixed with image layout. We further find that higher task accuracy does not reliably coincide with better directional attribution: small-scale LoRA training and newer model generations can improve task accuracy while leaving Direction Alignment Error unchanged or worse. These findings characterize what current attribution methods reveal rather than the model's internal spatial representation. CREG provides a controlled protocol for testing whether improvements in spatial reasoning are accompanied by more directionally organized evidence.
Vision-language models (VLMs) achieve strong performance on spatial reasoning benchmarks, yet it remains unclear whether this reflects structured 3D understanding or reliance on statistical shortcuts in natural images. We introduce a representation-level analysis framework that constructs minimal contrastive pairs to measure how spatial axes are organized and disentangled within VLM embeddings. Our analysis across multiple model families reveals a consistent vertical-distance entanglement: models conflate vertical image position with distance, mirroring the perspective bias of natural photographs. This bias produces a significant accuracy gap between perspective-consistent and counter-heuristic examples, and intensifies under data scaling even as overall benchmark accuracy improves. We further show that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit different internal representations, and that these differences predict accuracy and robustness across diverse spatial reasoning benchmarks. To isolate this bias from evaluation-set skew, we introduce SpatialTunnel, a synthetic benchmark designed to expose spatial shortcut biases by removing common correlations present in natural images. Experiments confirm that the entanglement is model-intrinsic, and that models with well-separated spatial axes exhibit greater robustness, suggesting that well-structured spatial representations lead to more reliable spatial reasoning across diverse benchmarks. Code and benchmark are available on the project page: https://cheolhong0916.github.io/whyfarlooksup.github.io/.
Spatial reasoning is fundamental to robotics, autonomy, and embodied AI, yet modern vision-language models (VLMs) remain unreliable on metric distance queries. A common assumption is that consistent predictions across viewpoints reflect geometric grounding. We test this assumption and find the opposite: leading VLMs often produce view-invariant and consistent answers even when those answers are incorrect, indicating weak coupling between predictions and viewpoint-specific visual evidence. We introduce \textbf{ViewDiag}, a controlled multi-view evaluation protocol built from Hypersim, ScanNet, and KITTI360, comprising 176 object-pair tracks across 80 scenes with 2--10 views per track. The protocol evaluates models along three axes: metric accuracy, distributional concentration, and internal collapse, the last of which is assessed using a latent feature probe. Across diverse models, we observe a consistent pattern of high prediction stability paired with substantial error, clustering in a regime characterized by strong consistency but low accuracy. \noindent These results challenge the common use of cross-view consistency as a proxy for geometric understanding. Instead, we show that stable predictions may reflect prior-driven collapse rather than evidence-sensitive reasoning. ViewDiag provides a controlled benchmark and diagnostic framework for evaluating whether spatial VLMs are not only accurate, but also meaningfully coupled to visual evidence.
Current VLM evaluations often conflate language priors with genuine spatial reasoning. To address this, we introduce CRISP, a novel structural-diagnostic evaluation paradigm that assesses visual spatial intelligence through consistency, the alignment between implicit perception and explicit reasoning. Unlike traditional black-box QA, CRISP utilizes metric 3D Scene Graphs and an oracle intervention protocol to decouple latent reasoning capabilities from perceptual bottlenecks. This granular diagnosis uncovers a systematic perception-reasoning disconnect. Crucially, we reveal that while proprietary models possess robust latent reasoning engines, they suffer from inaccurate metric estimation and a critical failure to leverage their implicit structural representations. Conversely, open-source models remain fundamentally bottlenecked by their lack of multi-hop compositional reasoning. By shifting the focus from merely guessing correctly'' via language priors to genuinely perceiving, verifying, and reasoning,'' CRISP offers a rigorous roadmap for multimodal alignment beyond end-to-end post-training. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/iiyamayuki/CRISP-Bench.