Structured spatial navigation is a core benchmark for Large Language Models (LLMs) spatial reasoning. Existing paradigms like Visualization-of-Thought (VoT) are prone to cascading errors in complex topologies. To solve this, we propose STAR, a two-stage framework grounded on topological anchors, and introduce the RedMaze-23K dataset with human-inspired turnpoint annotations. The first stage uses supervised fine-tuning to help models internalize spatial semantics and prune redundant paths. The second adopts Spatial-aware Segment-level Direct Preference Optimization (SDPO) to refine self-correction in long-horizon navigation. Experiments show STAR achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source models: its 32B variant outperforms DeepSeek-V3 (29.27% vs. 25.00%) and reaches 82.4% of GPT-4's performance.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Strategic Navigation Heuristics: Traditional Sequential Exploration vs. Human-inspired Turn-point Anchoring
Fig. 2 : Framework of STAR. STAR adopts a two-stage paradigm: Stage 1 utilizes Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on RedMaze-23K to ground static spatial understanding, while Stage 2 employs Spatial-aware Direct Preference Optimization (SDPO) to refine dynamic decision-making via segment-level alignment. This progression systematically enhances accuracy and robustness by mitigating reasoning drift at critical topological anchors.
Model
Variant
RP.CR ↑
RP.SR ↑
NS.Acc ↑
TC.Acc ↑
RU.Acc ↑
API Models
GPT-4
–
58.72
41.37
57.10
29.29
44.27
DeepSeek-V3
–
51.38
25.00
49.96
38.35
21.75
Open-Source Baselines
Llama-3.1-8B
–
28.43
6.92
17.75
17.63
16.14
DeepSeek-R1-14B
–
24.88
4.15
15.20
13.42
15.58
TABLE I : Performance Comparison on RedMaze-23K Benchmark Across Model Scales and Training Stages. Metric abbreviations: RP.CR (Route Planning Completion Rate), RP.SR (Route Planning Success Rate), NS.Acc (Next-Step Accuracy), TC.Acc (Turnpoint Comprehension Accuracy), RU.Acc (Rule Understanding Accuracy). The best open-source results are underlined .
Setting
TP Info
Hints
RP.CR ↑
RP.SR ↑
NS.Acc ↑
Baseline
–
–
41.35
25.21
30.90
Map-Enhanced
✓
–
44.89
28.21
31.43
Hint-Enhanced
–
✓
43.28
29.13
33.54
STAR (Ours)
✓
✓
46.42
29.27
35.00
TABLE II: Ablation Study on RedMaze-23K. We investigate the impact of TurnPoint (TP) guidance and reasoning hints. Metric abbreviations: RP.CR (Route Planning Completion Rate), RP.SR (Route Planning Success Rate), and NS.Acc (Next-Step Accuracy). Ours represents the final configuration of the STAR framework.
Fig. 3 : Attention Score Comparison (Base VS Ours). Visualizing the attention scores shows that our method focuses more accurately on critical turn-points compared to the baseline.
Fig. 4 : Confidence Score Comparison (Base VS Ours). Comparison of base model and STAR-enhanced model on our dataset, with their confidence scores in selecting the positive sample(A) over various negative samples (B, C, D, E). STAR-enhanced model consistently achieved higher scores across four pairs of positive and negative samples.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Subgroup ( k )
Base ( m )
Turn Range
Complexity
Subgroup 1
1
[1,3]
Low
Subgroup 2
3
[3,5]
Moderate
Subgroup 3
5
[5,7]
High
⋮
⋮
⋮
⋮
Subgroup N
M
[M,M+2]
Customizable
Appendix
TABLE III : Difficulty Calibration Parameters. The baseline parameter m=2k−1 ensures structural diversity across subgroups.
Fig. 5 : Qualitative Comparison of Reasoning Paradigms in Structured Spatial Navigation. We illustrate the divergence in decision-making logic between three paradigms: (1) CoT (left) relies on purely textual decomposition but frequently fails to ground spatial relationships in complex junctions, leading to invalid moves (e.g., colliding with obstacles). (2) VoT (middle) introduces step-wise textual analysis to find the shortest path; however, it lacks explicit visual anchoring, making it vulnerable to cascading errors during long-horizon reasoning. (3) Ours (STAR) (right) implements Topological Anchoring , where the model is required to confirm its current position by re-visualizing the traversed path and marking its status with a visual icon at each critical turn-point. This structural feedback loop ensures that the model internalizes the maze’s topological constraints, effectively mitigating reasoning drift and ensuring policy consistency from origin to destination.
Model
GPT-4
DeepSeek-V3
Metric
+CoT
+VoT
+Ours
+CoT
+VoT
+Ours
CR
48.55
45.66
58.72
57.51
55.16
51.41
SR
22.43
26.82
41.38
40.88
36.42
25.04
Acc
48.43
37.16
57.10
53.51
40.43
50.02
Model
Qwen-7B-Ours
Qwen-32B-STAR
Metric
+CoT
+VoT
+Ours
+CoT
+VoT
+Ours
Appendix
TABLE IV : Cross-Prompt Performance on RedMaze-23K (All values in %).
Fig. 6 : Mechanics of Spatial-aware Segment-level DPO (SDPO). This figure illustrates the construction of preference pairs by isolating reasoning divergence. (Left) Positive Session (Chosen): The model maintains strict consistency between its textual instructions and visual state updates, correctly navigating through topological anchors to reach the destination. (Right) Negative Session (Reject): While the initial step is correct (prefix-correct), the reasoning drift occurs at Step 2. The failure is characterized by three critical dimensions: (i) Logical Inconsistency: The instruction ”move left” contradicts the generated visual map; (ii) Constraint Violation: The model attempts to ”step over obstacles,” violating the maze’s physical boundaries; (iii) Structural Corruption: The visualization logic collapses, leading to an erroneous map representation. SDPO targets this specific segment for penalty to prevent error propagation.
Does progress on spatial reasoning benchmarks translate into better navigation? Existing benchmarks test isolated inferences from images or videos, with little connection to downstream navigation. Our analysis reveals a gap between benchmark-oriented spatial specialization and navigation performance, and shows how aligning spatial supervision with navigation goals, phases, and decision learning improves navigation. Guided by these findings, we build Spatial-Nav-100K and fine-tune in two stages, i.e. first learning a shared spatial-navigation foundation, and then specializing each phase with the abilities it relies on. We further introduce Spatial-NPD, where a teacher conditioned on spatial priors produces grounded action preferences and distills them into a student policy, so no explicit spatial reasoning is needed at inference. With 45 A100 GPU-hours of policy training, our 8B model reaches SR/SPL of 77.4/35.4 on HM3D-v0.2, 60.2/30.5 on HM3D-v0.1, and 47.9/20.6 on train-unseen MP3D. It outperforms several systems that rely on closed-source models or thousands of GPU-hours of training, at 148 ms per action step. All code and datasets will be publicly available at https://github.com/ylwhxht/Spatial-Nav.
Xun Huang, Shijia Zhao, Rongsheng Qu +5
Xiamen University · Zhongguancun Academy · Beihang University +2
LLMs have shown remarkable proficiency in general language understanding and reasoning. However, they consistently underperform in spatial reasoning that severely limits their application, particularly in embodied intelligence. Inspired by the success of hierarchical reinforcement learning, this paper introduces a novel method for hierarchical task decomposition in LLM spatial reasoning. Our approach guides LLMs to decompose complex tasks into manageable sub-tasks by identifying key intermediate states and generating simplified sub-environments. However, we identify that LLMs often fail to derive optimal intermediate states due to their insufficient spatial prior, leading to sub-optimal task decomposition. To address this limitation and enhance its planning capability, we propose the MCTS-Guided Group Relative Policy Optimization (M-GRPO), where we reformulate the UCT formula by incorporating the LLM's prior predictive probabilities alongside its epistemic uncertainty. Furthermore, we implement a more fine-grained advantage function, enabling the model to learn optimal path planning. Experimental results demonstrate that our method substantially improves LLM performance on spatial tasks, including navigation, planning, and strategic games, achieving state-of-the-art results. This work paves the way for LLMs in real-world applications.
Yi Wang, Haojie Lu, Zhaofan Zhang +2
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have made remarkable progress across visual perception tasks, yet spatial reasoning remains a persistent weakness, especially for questions that require reasoning over visual space. Recent spatial-reasoning methods incorporate generated grounding, where models predict bounding boxes, masks, or other localization outputs for task-relevant objects as part of their reasoning trace. However, these approaches typically optimize final-answer correctness alone, allowing correct answers to be rewarded even when the model does not reason from confidently localized task-relevant objects. We introduce SpatialCORE (Spatially COnfident REasoning), a post-training framework that turns the model's own confidence in generated grounding into a learning signal for spatial reasoning. Its central idea is to reinforce grounding that is both accurate and confident, encouraging the model to reason from confidently localized task-relevant objects. SpatialCORE realizes this through a self-regulating spatial reward that weights each predicted bounding box's matching quality by its coordinate-token confidence. An answer gate further ties grounding optimization to final-answer correctness. SpatialCORE achieves state-of-the-art results among open-source and specialized spatial reasoning models across diverse benchmarks, and transfers effectively in zero-shot settings to unseen data distributions. The source code is available at https://github.com/rafiibnsultan/SpatialCORE.
Rafi Ibn Sultan, Xiangyu Zhou, Md. Sajid Alam Chowdhury +4
Department of Computer Science, Wayne State University · Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The Ohio State University +1