Achieving human-like spatial intelligence for vision-language models (VLMs) requires inferring 3D structures from 2D observations, recognizing object properties and relations in 3D space, and performing high-level spatial reasoning. In this paper, we propose a principled hierarchical framework that decomposes the learning of 3D spatial understanding in VLMs into four progressively complex levels, from geometric perception to abstract spatial reasoning. Guided by this framework, we construct an automated pipeline that processes approximately 5M images with over 45M objects to generate 3D spatial VQA pairs across diverse tasks and scenes for VLM supervised fine-tuning. We also develop an RGB-D VLM incorporating metric-scale point maps as auxiliary inputs to further enhance spatial understanding. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance on multiple spatial understanding and reasoning benchmarks, surpassing specialized spatial models and large proprietary systems such as Gemini-2.5-pro and GPT-5. Moreover, our analysis reveals clear dependencies among hierarchical task levels, offering new insights into how multi-level task design facilitates the emergence of 3D spatial intelligence.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Overview of our approach. Left: Data construction pipeline which generates spatial-related VQA pairs from either in-the-wild images or existing data with 3D annotations. Right: Hierarchical spatial understanding task taxonomy with representative QA pairs.
Figure 3: Model architecture of our VLM, which integrates metric-scale 3D point map as auxiliary input.
Model
Input
SpatialRGPT-Quantitative ↑
QSpatial-Bench ↑
Width
Height
Direct Distance
Horizontal Distance
Vertical Distance
Avg.
Plus
ScanNet
Avg.
(Level 1)
(Level 2)
(Level 1&2)
Proprietary Models
GPT-4o
RGB
51.10
68.40
29.70
25.40
33.00
41.50
61.06
69.41
66.30
GPT-5
RGB
59.09
67.66
29.72
25.21
13.72
40.47
63.37
73.53
68.45
Gemini-2.5-Pro
RGB
37.20
43.51
16.78
17.39
15.53
26.57
40.59
55.46
49.92
Table 1: Accuracy (%) on quantitative VQA benchmarks for level-1 and level-2 spatial understanding. ∗ denotes using GT point map.
Method
Input
EmbSpatial ↑
RoboSpatial ↑
CV-Bench-3D ↑
CV-Bench-2D Relation ↑
3DSRBench ↑
(Level 2)
(Level 1-3)
Proprietary Models
GPT-4o
RGB
63.38
77.20
84.90
84.62
44.20
Gemini-2.5-Pro
RGB
76.67
77.24
90.80
93.54
48.47
Claude-3.7-Sonnet
RGB
33.33
60.73
85.00
74.15
48.20
Open-Source Vision-Language Models
Table 2: Accuracy (%) on qualitative VQA benchmarks evaluating spatial understanding and reasoning across levels 1–3.
Model
Object-to-Camera Distance (L1) ↑
Object Direction (L2) ↑
Spatial Problem Solving (L3) ↑
GPT-5
47.19
59.27
33.33
Qwen3VL-8B
12.70
22.52
25.64
RoboRefer-8B-SFT
58.63
N/A
26.92
HiSpatial-3B (ours)
92.18
67.21
47.44
Table 3: Accuracy (%) on our custom spatial VQA benchmark.
Benchmark
PaliGemma2-3B
Ours
MMBench ↑
49.86
69.67
POPE ↑
87.00
87.97
SEED ↑
48.32
63.51
RealWorldQA ↑
47.76
58.95
Table 4: Accuracy (%) on general VQA benchmarks compared to our base model PaliGemma2.
L0
L1
L2
L3
Level 2 Tasks
Level 3 Tasks
CV-Bench ↑
RoboSpatial ↑
3DSR-L2 ↑
EmbSpatial ↑
Avg. ↑
3DSR-L3 ↑
Problem Solving ↑
Avg. ↑
✓
✓
✓
✓
96.64
86.18
61.32
80.71
81.21
65.14
47.44
56.29
✓
✓
96.55 (-0.09)
82.93 (-3.25)
60.03 (-1.29)
79.25 (-1.46)
79.69 (-1.52)
51.43 (-13.71)
44.87 (-2.57)
48.15 (-8.14)
✓
✓
79.00 (-17.64)
77.24 (-8.94)
37.36 (-23.96)
37.53 (-43.18)
56.21 (-25.00)
43.81 (-21.33)
39.74 (-7.70)
41.78 (-14.51)
Table 5: Inter-level task dependency analysis. Removing lower-level tasks in training reduces higher-level performance; see text for details.
Input
Source
Qualitative ↑
Quantitative ↑
RGB
-
83.70
74.16
RGB+Relative Depth
MoGe2
84.29 (+0.59)
75.26 (+0.90)
RGB+XYZ (Ours)
MoGe2
84.79 (+0.50)
82.02 (+6.76)
RGB+XYZ (Ours)
GT
-
82.79 (+0.77)
Table 6: Effect of auxiliary 3D input on model accuracy (%).
Task
Level
# of QAs
Sampling Ratio in Training
Pixel-Wise 3D Point Querying
0
Online Generated
10.51%
Pairwise Depth Ordering
0
Online Generated
2.69%
Object Orientation
1
238,909,307
3.51%
Object Size
1
55,187,863
11.56%
Object Localization
1
36,469,102
8.31%
Relative Direction
2
510,297,825
26.09%
Table 7: Task statistics of our training dataset.
Figure 4: Examples of spatial VQA data constructed using our method, covering different task levels.
Figure 5: Examples of spatial VQA data constructed using our method, covering different task levels.
Figure 6: Examples of our model’s responses on unseen images.
Figure 7: Prompt used to generate Level-3 spatial problem-solving QA pairs.(test set)
Figure 8: Prompt used to evaluate the correctness of answers in our custom benchmark for spatial problem-solving tasks.
Figure 9: Prompt used to generate the object reference in kosmos dataset
Figure 10: Prompt used to vlm grounding for evaluation in kosmos dataset
Figure 11: Prompt used to generate the object reference in objects365 dataset
Figure 12: Prompt used to vlm grounding for evaluation in objects365 dataset
Figure 13: Prompt used to generate the basic problem solving question
Figure 14: Prompt used to generate the quantative problem solving question
Figure 15: Prompt used to generate the problem solving question guided by few shot demonstrations
Figure 16: Examples of few-shot demonstration
Figure 17: Prompt used to generate the answer of the given problem solving question (stage1, part1)
Figure 18: Prompt used to generate the answer of the given problem solving question (stage1, part2)
Figure 19: Prompt used to generate the answer of the given problem solving question (stage1, part3)
Figure 20: Prompt used to generate the answer of the given problem solving question (stage2)
3D spatial reasoning studies how AI systems infer geometry, object relations, viewpoints, and motion to understand and act in three-dimensional scenes.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often struggle with robust 3D spatial reasoning. Prevailing methods that rely on fine-tuning with 3D visual question-answering (VQA) datasets may overfit dataset-specific biases, while integrating specialized 3D visual encoders is often inflexible and cumbersome. In this paper, we argue that genuine spatial understanding should emerge from learning fundamental geometric priors, not only from high-level VQA supervision. We propose GASP (Geometric-Aware Spatial Priors), a framework that injects these priors directly into the LLM's transformer layers. GASP employs a small correspondence head, applied as a deep supervision signal across all layers, and is trained with a dual objective leveraging ground-truth geometry from large-scale video scenes: a contrastive loss on ground-truth point correspondences enforces 2D view-invariance, while a depth consistency supervision resolves 3D geometric ambiguities. Our analysis first provides a diagnostic showing that standard VLMs' internal correspondence matching accuracy is very low (often below 5%). We then demonstrate that our training substantially improves this behavior, boosting peak layer-wise correspondence to over 70% and maintaining over 85% temporal robustness while baselines remain below 5%. These internal improvements translate to significant gains on downstream spatial benchmarks including +18.2% on All-Angles Bench and +29.0% on VSI-Bench, all without training on any 3D VQA data. Our findings indicate that learning from fundamental geometric priors is a promising and generalizable pathway towards VLMs with more reliable 3D spatial reasoning.
We present GR3D, a spatial vision language model equipped with three complementary grounding capabilities--explicit 2D grounding, implicit 2D grounding, and monocular 3D grounding--within a single framework. GR3D introduces an implicit grounding mechanism that identifies entity mentions during generation and inserts the corresponding region tokens into the text stream, allowing the model to reference visual evidence on the fly when producing spatial chain-of-thought responses. In parallel, a region-prompted monocular 3D grounding design predicts 3D bounding boxes in the camera view from grounded region queries, supported by intrinsic-aware normalization and dense geometric supervision. Together, these grounding capabilities enable GR3D to decompose complex spatial understanding problems into grounded 2D perception followed by 3D inference. GR3D achieves consistent improvements across grounded and non-grounded spatial benchmarks, demonstrating grounding as an effective inductive bias for strengthening spatial understanding in VLMs. These grounding capabilities collectively enhance general spatial understanding beyond the grounding task itself.
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