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.
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 a fundamental capability for vision-language models (VLMs) deployed in real-world environments. However, visual observations are inherently limited representations of a 3D world: occlusion can render objects invisible, and perspective can make geometric properties misleading. Despite this, existing spatial reasoning benchmarks typically assume that observations are sufficient and reliable, focusing on whether models produce correct answers rather than whether they recognize when a question cannot be answered and what additional observations would be needed. In this work, we challenge this assumption by constructing a controlled evaluation framework, SpatialUncertain, and introducing two types of observation challenges: (1) occlusion, which hides target information, and (2) perspective ambiguity, which produces misleading visual cues. For each configuration, we design spatial questions that are answerable under clean observations but require abstention under the introduced challenges. We further evaluate whether models can identify which additional viewpoints would resolve perspective ambiguity. Our results across a diverse set of frontier open- and closed-source VLMs reveal two consistent failure modes. First, models are prone to overconfident answering, attempting to solve spatial reasoning tasks even when visual evidence is incomplete or misleading, with average accuracy around 30% under occlusion and below 10% under perspective ambiguity. Second, even when additional views are available, some models perform near random chance in identifying which would provide reliable evidence. Together, our findings call for moving beyond answer correctness toward evaluating whether models know when to abstain and how to seek reliable 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.