Unleashing Spatial Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models via Textual Representation Guided Reasoning
Authors: Jiacheng Hua, Yishu Yin, Yuhang Wu, Tai Wang, Yifei Huang, Miao Liu
Organizations: College of AI, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China · The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Existing Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) struggle with 3D spatial reasoning, as they fail to construct structured abstractions of the 3D environment depicted in video inputs. To bridge this gap, drawing inspiration from cognitive theories of allocentric spatial reasoning, we investigate how to enable MLLMs to model and reason over text-based spatial representations of video. Specifically, we introduce Textual Representation of Allocentric Context from Egocentric Video (TRACE), a prompting method that induces MLLMs to generate text-based representations of 3D environments as intermediate reasoning traces for more accurate spatial question answering. TRACE encodes meta-context, camera trajectories, and detailed object entities to support structured spatial reasoning over egocentric videos. Extensive experiments on VSI-Bench and OST-Bench demonstrate that TRACE yields notable and consistent improvements over prior prompting strategies across a diverse range of MLLM backbones, spanning different parameter scales and training schemas. We further present ablation studies to validate our design choices, along with detailed analyses that probe the bottlenecks of 3D spatial reasoning in MLLMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation for Textual Representation of Allocentric Context from Egocentric Video (TRACE) in video-based spatial reasoning. (a) An egocentric video paired with a query that requires holistic spatial reasoning. (b) A textual description that vividly captures the room layout needed to solve the example spatial question answering (QA). (c) TRACE encodes meta-context, camera trajectory, and entities, serving as an intermediate reasoning trace for spatial QA with MLLMs.
Figure 2: Illustration of our Textual Representation of Allocentric Context from Egocentric Video (TRACE). We construct TRACE by aligning a global coordinate system with the room layout and geometry, logging the camera trajectory across temporal steps, and registering visible objects with key attributes, estimated positions, and spatial relations. Here, we also show the key prompts used to guide MLLMs to generate this intermediate reasoning trace.
Methods
Avg.
Numerical Answer
Multiple-Choice Answer
Obj. Cnt.
Abs. Dist.
Obj. Size
Room Size
Rel. Dist.
Rel. Dir.
Route
Order
Gemini 3 Pro as base model
Direct
52.61
33.77
32.57
67.09
42.99
62.54
50.52
51.03
70.71
CoT
53.65
30.35
34.54
64.05
40.76
61.78
58.09
61.34
71.96
ToT
58.88
44.55
42.12
72.20
45.55
65.35
57.83
55.62
73.73
LtM
59.52
45.19
40.72
73.36
44.15
65.82
60.40
53.59
73.64
Table 1: Evaluation results on the VSI benchmark. We report average performance and detailed breakdowns across numerical-answer and multiple-choice tasks, under proprietary and open-sourced base models. Best results are in bold , and second-best are underlined .
Methods
Avg.
Agent Visible Info
Agent-object Spatial Relationship
Agent State
Exist.
Quant.
Divers.
Order
Direct.
Dist.
Pos.
Orient.
JUD.
TEMP.
CNT.
JUD.
JUD.
JUD.
TEMP.
EST.
JUD.
TEMP.
EST.
JUD.
EST.
JUD.
EST.
Gemini 3 Pro as base model
Direct
59.22
96.72
84.87
68.75
89.66
82.54
54.27
48.15
28.63
60.61
54.55
30.00
71.43
22.78
72.60
22.68
CoT
59.26
82.24
93.99
65.96
96.55
77.78
52.24
62.96
27.84
52.76
50.00
31.64
71.43
24.26
72.60
26.67
ToT
59.20
94.54
83.55
66.67
93.10
80.65
54.27
54.39
31.00
55.61
53.85
32.36
61.76
29.07
72.60
24.58
Table 2: Evaluation results on the OST benchmark. Results are reported across agent state understanding, visible information reasoning, and agent–object spatial relationship tasks, under proprietary and open-sourced base models. Best results are in bold , and second-best are underlined .
Figure 3: Performance gains across models on VSI-Bench. TRACE yields consistent, state-of-the-art performance gains compared to Direct prompting baselines, across various model architectures and parameter scales.
Input Setting
Avg.
Numerical Answer
Multiple-Choice Answer
Obj. Cnt.
Abs. Dist.
Obj. Size
Room Size
Rel. Dist.
Rel. Dir.
Route
Order
Proprietary model as base
Video Direct
52.61
33.77
32.57
67.09
42.99
62.54
50.52
51.03
70.71
One-Stage
60.15
47.55
38.82
73.90
45.62
63.85
61.70
58.01
72.97
Two-Stage
58.52
42.25
36.73
72.10
52.17
58.75
63.50
51.35
74.01
Text-Only
52.27
28.52
32.66
67.28
48.02
49.58
62.66
52.43
64.93
Table 3: Systematic studies of different prediction settings for utilizing our proposed text-based spatial representation. Among all settings, one-stage prompting yields the best performance on both Gemini-3 Pro and Qwen2.5-VL-72B.
Input Setting
Avg.
Numerical Answer
Multiple-Choice Answer
Obj. Cnt.
Abs. Dist.
Obj. Size
Room Size
Rel. Dist.
Rel. Dir.
Route
Order
Cognitive Map
21.41
7.82
9.86
8.17
21.22
33.94
35.23
32.99
30.26
Spatial Caption
27.58
14.90
14.20
24.86
30.59
36.06
34.40
36.60
36.73
Ours
31.11
12.83
21.74
39.71
23.51
37.04
33.16
32.99
40.13
Ours w/o Trajectory
29.19
10.16
18.19
33.93
29.41
35.92
37.19
31.96
32.85
Ours w/o Entity Registry
25.87
6.11
28.84
7.41
19.69
41.69
37.50
30.41
33.50
Table 4: Comparison with existing text-based spatial representations and ablation studies of our method. We use Qwen2.5-VL-72B as base and adopt text-only inference for more direct comparison.
Figure 4: A visual illustration demonstrates that TRACE is more effective than the cognitive map (CM) approach. Notably, the CM lacks the 3D granularity required for many spatial reasoning tasks.
Figure 9
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Descriptor \ Parser
Gemini 3 Pro Avg. (MCA/NA)
Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct Avg. (MCA/NA)
Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct Avg. (MCA/NA)
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct Avg. (MCA/NA)
Gemini 3 Pro
52.27 (44.12/57.40)
40.86 (42.33/39.47)
36.23 (38.03/41.35)
29.35 (30.00/28.73)
Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct
36.11 (41.58/28.94)
31.11 (35.98/26.51)
26.12 (32.01/20.56)
24.06 (29.60/18.84)
Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct
36.70 (40.74/32.18)
14.66 (29.20/0.94)
23.29 (29.60/17.34)
24.45 (30.24/18.99)
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct
32.72 (36.38/28.39)
29.08 (32.85/25.53)
24.33 (29.00/19.92)
25.19 (29.28/21.34)
Appendix
Table 5: Decomposition analysis of 3D spatial QA performance (matrix). We adopt the text-only prediction setting and report results for different combinations of visual descriptors and spatial knowledge parsers. Cell shows Avg. with (Multiple-Choice Answer / Numerical Answer).
Descriptor
Parser
Avg.
Numerical Answer
Multiple-Choice Answer
Obj. Cnt.
Abs. Dist.
Obj. Size
Room Size
Rel. Dist.
Rel. Dir.
Route
Order
Gemini 3 Pro
Gemini 3 Pro
52.27
28.52
32.66
67.28
48.02
49.58
62.66
52.43
64.93
Qwen2.5-72B
40.86
28.12
28.91
55.38
39.69
39.30
40.60
34.54
50.97
Qwen2.5-32B
36.23
27.45
21.55
49.81
44.10
40.00
30.99
30.41
45.15
Qwen2.5-7B
29.35
24.62
22.95
36.13
29.03
28.87
28.31
26.29
35.11
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
Gemini 3 Pro
36.11
10.57
16.57
51.83
31.72
40.25
39.93
34.81
47.39
Appendix
Table 6: Decomposition analysis of 3D spatial QA performance (grouped breakdown). We adopt the text-only prediction setting and report results for different combinations of visual descriptors and spatial knowledge parsers.
Descriptor
Parser
Avg.
Numerical Answer
Multiple-Choice Answer
Obj. Cnt.
Abs. Dist.
Obj. Size
Room Size
Rel. Dist.
Rel. Dir.
Route
Order
Gemini 3 Pro
Qwen2.5-72B
40.86
28.12
28.91
55.38
39.69
39.30
40.60
34.54
50.97
Gemini 3 Pro
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
39.48
28.21
20.56
54.23
42.15
44.37
34.50
39.18
53.56
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
Qwen2.5-72B
31.11
12.83
21.74
39.71
23.51
37.04
33.16
32.99
40.13
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
26.65
9.08
11.08
36.21
20.59
28.31
30.58
36.08
40.78
Appendix
Table 7: Effect of visual tokens and multimodal training on spatial context reasoning.
Method
Avg.
ARKitScenes
ScanNet
ScanNetPP
o3 as base model
Direct
51.15
49.28
53.55
49.78
CoT
52.36
51.76
53.53
51.36
ToT
52.09
51.27
53.46
51.06
LtM
52.50
51.70
54.31
50.80
CM
53.93
52.69
56.24
52.00
Appendix
Table 8: Stratified VSI-Bench results across underlying scene datasets. Performance is broken down by ARKitScenes, ScanNet, and ScanNetPP for both proprietary and open-weight models. TRACE consistently improves over the Direct baseline across all environment distributions, indicating strong cross-environment generalization.
Methods
Avg.
Numerical Answer
Multiple-Choice Answer
Obj. Cnt.
Abs. Dist.
Obj. Size
Room Size
Rel. Dist.
Rel. Dir.
Route
Order
Gemini 3 Pro as base model
Direct
52.61
33.77
32.57
67.09
42.99
62.54
50.52
51.03
70.71
CoT
53.65
30.35
34.54
64.05
40.76
61.78
58.09
61.34
71.96
ToT
58.88
44.55
42.12
72.20
45.55
65.35
57.83
55.62
73.73
LtM
59.52
45.19
40.72
73.36
44.15
65.82
60.40
53.59
73.64
Appendix
Table 9: Evaluation results on the VSI benchmark. We report average performance and detailed breakdowns across numerical-answer and multiple-choice tasks, under proprietary and open-sourced base models. Best results are in bold , and second-best are underlined .
GLM-4.5V
MiMo-VL-7B
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
o3
Gemini 3 Pro
Method
Tok
Avg
Tok
Avg
Tok
Avg
Tok
Avg
Tok
Avg
Direct
405.17
37.33
337.36
39.79
3.48
36.28
3.61
51.15
334.35
52.61
CoT
568.36
38.48
579.21
37.49
129.62
28.44
76.20
52.36
479.64
53.65
ToT
1079.97
40.66
1132.86
39.14
308.99
37.68
352.30
52.09
450.82
58.88
LtM
989.55
40.99
1097.05
38.34
229.84
38.01
220.28
52.50
571.88
59.52
CM
722.16
38.93
723.68
36.85
224.72
35.47
81.07
53.93
403.23
59.72
Appendix
Table 10: Token consumption and performance trade-offs of prompting methods across different models. TRACE generally maintains a favorable performance-to-cost ratio relative to branching reasoning baselines, although its token usage varies by backbone. Best results for each model aredo in bold .
3D spatial reasoning studies how AI systems infer geometry, object relations, viewpoints, and motion to understand and act in three-dimensional scenes.
Recent advances in Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) target 3D spatial intelligence, yet the progress has been largely driven by post-training on curated benchmarks, leaving the inference-time approach relatively underexplored. In this paper, we take a training-free perspective and introduce ViSRA, a human-aligned Video-based Spatial Reasoning Agent, as a framework to probe the spatial reasoning mechanism of MLLMs. ViSRA elicits spatial reasoning in a modular and extensible manner by leveraging explicit spatial information from expert models, enabling a plug-and-play flexible paradigm. ViSRA offers two key advantages: (1) human-aligned and transferable 3D understanding rather than task-specific overfitting; and (2) no post-training computational cost along with heavy manual curation of spatial reasoning datasets. Experimental results demonstrate consistent improvement across a set of MLLMs on both existing benchmarks and unseen 3D spatial reasoning tasks, with ViSRA outperforming baselines by up to a 15.6% and 28.9% absolute margin respectively.
Tingshu Mou, Jiabo He, Renying Wang +5
Fudan University · BCAI · Bosch Center for Artificial Intelligence (BCAI) +1
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly being applied to spatial cognition tasks, where they are expected to understand and interact with complex environments. Most existing works improve spatial reasoning by introducing 3D priors or geometric supervision, which enhances performance but incurs substantial data preparation and alignment costs. In contrast, purely 2D approaches often struggle with multi-frame spatial reasoning due to their limited ability to capture cross-frame spatial relationships. To address these limitations, we propose EgoMind, a Chain-of-Thought framework that enables geometry-free spatial reasoning through Role-Play Caption, which jointly constructs a coherent linguistic scene graph across frames, and Progressive Spatial Analysis, which progressively reasons toward task-specific questions. With only 5K auto-generated SFT samples and 20K RL samples, EgoMind achieves competitive results on VSI-Bench, SPAR-Bench, SITE-Bench, and SPBench, demonstrating its effectiveness in strengthening the spatial reasoning capabilities of MLLMs and highlighting the potential of linguistic reasoning for spatial cognition. Code and data are released at https://github.com/Hyggge/EgoMind.
Zhenghao Chen, Huiqun Wang, Di Huang
State Key Laboratory of Complex and Critical Software Environment, Beihang University · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University
While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable success in 2D visual understanding, their ability to reason about 3D space remains limited. To address this gap, we introduce geometrically referenced 3D scene representations (GR3D). Given a set of input images, GR3D annotates objects in the images with unique IDs and encodes their 3D geometric attributes as textual references indexed by these IDs. This representation enables MLLMs to interpret 3D cues using their advanced language-based skills in mathematical reasoning, while concurrently analyzing 2D visual features in a tightly coupled way. We present a simple yet effective approach based on GR3D, which requires no additional training and is readily applicable to different MLLMs. Implemented in a zero-shot setting, our approach yields substantial improvements on challenging spatial reasoning benchmarks, boosting GPT-5 performance by 9% on VSI-Bench and 12% on MindCube. Qualitative studies further demonstrate that GR3D empowers MLLMs to perform complex spatial reasoning with highly sparse input views.