PlanBench-V: A Spatial Planning Map Benchmark for Vision-Language Models

Integrating Large Language Models with symbolic planners is a promising direction for obtaining verifiable and grounded plans, with recent works extending this idea to visual domains using Vision-Language Models (VLMs). However, an open-source benchmark for comparing these approaches under matched conditions is missing, due to a lack of visual benchmarks that support symbolic planning. We present ViPlan, the first open-source benchmark for comparing VLM-grounded symbolic approaches (VLM-as-grounder) with direct VLM planning methods (VLM-as-planner). ViPlan introduces a series of increasingly challenging tasks in two visual domains: a visual variant of the classic Blocksworld planning problem and a simulated household robotics environment. Averaged across methods, we find VLM-as-grounders to outperform direct VLM planning in Blocksworld (solving 46% of the tasks against 9%), where image grounding is both crucial and accurate. However, in the household robotics tasks, where linguistic knowledge helps, VLM-as-planner methods are greatly superior to VLM-as-grounder approaches (solving 34% of the tasks against 5%), which are hindered by partial observability. Thus, ViPlan domains capture fundamental shortcomings of both planning approaches, which we further diagnose with a qualitative failure analysis. Finally, across methods, we observe no consistent benefit from Chain-of-Thought prompting, suggesting persistent limitations in current VLMs' visual reasoning abilities.

Problem, Research Strategy, and Findings: The rise of large language models (LLMs) raises a key question for urban planning: which forms of professional planning knowledge can AI replicate, and which still require human judgment? Although AI tools are increasingly used in planning practice, there is still no systematic framework for testing whether they can reason with the contextual sensitivity, value awareness, and institutional literacy central to planning expertise. This paper introduces Urban Planning Bench (UPBench), a domain-specific evaluation framework that assesses LLM reasoning through a 4x5 matrix of four knowledge pillars and five cognitive levels adapted from Bloom's revised taxonomy. Evaluating 25 LLMs with automated scoring and expert review, we find a non-monotonic cognitive curve: models perform better on higher-order analytical tasks than on factual recall and integrative judgment. This suggests that planning knowledge often treated as lower-order is deeply shaped by institutional, jurisdictional, and temporal context, making it hard for LLMs to generalize. We summarize these limits as four epistemic diagnostics: regulatory hallucination, conceptual conflation, wickedness paralysis, and phronetic deficit. Takeaway for Practice: The findings support differential delegation in planning. LLMs can assist with cross-disciplinary synthesis, literature review, scenario generation, and preliminary policy analysis. However, they remain unreliable for jurisdiction-specific regulation, normative conflict resolution, and context-sensitive procedure. Agencies should require verification for AI-assisted regulatory analysis, while planning education should emphasize institutional literacy, normative judgment, and contextual sensitivity.

Spatial question answering is the dominant paradigm for evaluating spatial intelligence in Vision-Language Models (VLMs), but it leaves a complementary axis of spatial competence under-evaluated: holistic 3D layout inference, which predicts every visible object's pose and extent from a single image in a structured form. To this end, we introduce IDEAL-Bench, an evaluation suite that requires VLMs to predict structured 3D layouts on photorealistic indoor scenes across 10 room types, scored along five numerical dimensions and a perceptual render-and-compare protocol. By operating on semantically realistic scenes with full asset substitution under controlled lighting and viewpoint, IDEAL-Bench moves beyond CLEVR-style simple geometric primitives so that any image-space discrepancy reflects spatial reasoning alone. The benchmark is built on IDEAL-Scenes, a procedurally generated dataset of 1,000 re-renderable Blender environments with ground-truth layouts. Evaluating 15 prominent VLMs reveals three findings: the task remains substantially unsolved, with the strongest model reaching only 62.1/100 overall; all models exhibit a sharp asymmetry between object recognition and geometric regression, indicating that current VLMs are trained to describe scenes rather than to measure them; model rankings partially diverge from those on QA-based and primitive-reconstruction benchmarks: top-tier consensus holds, but mid-tier rankings shift substantially. Collectively, these findings establish IDEAL-Bench as a diagnostic suite, targeting the geometric and structural competencies that QA-based evaluation cannot surface, and paving the way towards more rigorous evaluation of spatial intelligence in next-generation VLMs. Together, these findings position IDEAL-Bench as a principled diagnostic for whether future VLMs achieve genuine spatial understanding rather than linguistic approximations of it.