AeroGround: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Aerial-Ground Collaborative Reasoning
Authors: Shenghong Yi, Lin Zhang, Muzian Li, Jiakang Yuan, Haoyu Zhang, Peng Ye, Jiayuan Fan, Huafeng Qin, +1 more
Organizations: Shanghai Innovation Institute · College of Future Information Technology, Fudan University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · College of Intelligent Robotics and Advanced Manufacturing, Fudan University · Chongqing Technology and Business University
Vision-language models (VLMs) have been widely employed in understanding and reasoning tasks for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Existing UAV benchmarks primarily focus on aerial-view scenarios. However, whether current VLMs can perform well on understanding and reasoning tasks in aerial-ground collaborative scenarios which are practical in real-world applications like rescue and infrastructure inspection remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce AeroGround, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating VLMs in aerial-ground collaborative reasoning. AeroGround is built upon a simulated aerial-ground dataset containing approximately 29,000 multimodal observation groups from diverse open environments, and provides 2,250 high-quality question-answering instances covering cross-view correspondence, spatial understanding, and reasoning. Experiments on 16 pretrained VLMs, together with two domain-adapted variants, reveal a substantial gap between current models and human performance: the best model achieves an average accuracy of 54.4%, whereas humans reach 93.3%. By systematically revealing the strengths and limitations of existing models in aerial-ground collaborative reasoning, AeroGround provides a foundation for developing more capable aerial-ground collaborative embodied intelligence systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the aerial-ground dual-view benchmark. (a) Multi-view aerial-ground scene observations. (b) Examples of three directional subject types. (c) Three-level task taxonomy with 11 tasks.
Figure 2: Overview of the AeroGround benchmark task taxonomy. AeroGround is organized into three capability groups: object alignment, spatial understanding, and spatial reasoning, covering representative aerial–ground matching, localization, relation, and reasoning tasks.
Obj. Align.
Spatial Underst.
Spatial Reason.
Model
Avg.
Single
Multi
Rel.
Dist.
Count
Ori.
Loc.
Occ.
ViewTr.
RevSeq.
Traj.
Reference
Random Baseline
24.6
23.6
0.0
35.0
23.2
15.6
23.3
22.7
34.4
32.8
22.5
23.0
Human Level
93.3
100.0
93.3
83.3
93.3
93.3
96.7
90.0
86.7
96.7
96.7
96.7
Closed-source models
GPT-5.4
40.1
37.4
14.7
68.9
48.8
39.1
30.0
38.0
42.2
33.9
41.2
26.0
Table 1: Main benchmark results. Entries are accuracies (%); higher is better. Avg. is computed over all questions. Bold and underline indicate the best and second-best task scores within each model group, respectively.
Figure 3: Directional subject analysis. (a) Chance-adjusted bias between Ground-to-Aerial and Aerial-to-Ground tasks. (b) Chance-adjusted accuracy across directional subject groups.
Figure 4: View configuration analysis. Accuracy across aerial-view modalities and front-view side relations.
Figure 5: Representative failure cases in aerial-ground dual-view reasoning, covering cross-view correspondence, visibility reasoning, reference-frame transformation, and scene registration.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Scene type
Aerial
Ground
Total
City
8,686
6,756
15,442
Town
5,664
4,499
10,163
Factory
248
825
1,073
Desert
491
355
846
Forest
246
1,407
1,653
Total
15,335
13,842
29,177
Appendix
Table 2: Composition of the raw simulated AeroGround data pool by scene type.
Capability level
Task category
Core question template
Object Alignment
Single Target Matching
Select the candidate target in [target view] that corresponds to the marked target in [source view].
Multi-Target Matching
Determine the one-to-one correspondence from A1,…,Ak to the correct candidate labels.
Spatial Understanding
Relative Distance Comparison
Order T1,…,Tk from nearest to farthest relative to [agent position].
Multi-Target Relation
Order the comparison targets from nearest to farthest relative to reference target R .
Region Counting
Count how many [category] instances lie inside the marked aerial region.
Relative Orientation Determination
Select the egocentric quadrant of [aerial/teammate direction] relative to the ground agent’s facing direction.
Appendix
Table 3: Task taxonomy and core question templates of the AeroGround Benchmark. Task names are consistent with Figure 1 (c).
Figure 6: Task category distribution of the AeroGround Benchmark.
Figure 7: Statistics of aerial–ground viewpoint relations in AeroGround.
Output format
Parsing rule
Correctness criterion
Multiple-choice option
Extract one valid option letter from the allowed option set.
Correct only if the option equals the ground-truth option.
Multi-target matching template
Normalize the response and extract the complete one-to-one correspondence.
Correct only if the full mapping exactly matches the ground-truth mapping.
Invalid or ambiguous response
No valid answer, multiple conflicting answers, incomplete mapping, or unconstrained explanation.
Always scored as incorrect.
Appendix
Table 4: Answer parsing and scoring rules used in AeroGround.
Item
Setting
Fine-tuning method
LoRA with SWIFT
Trainable modules
LoRA adapters on eligible linear layers
Frozen modules
Visual encoder and visual-language alignment layers
LoRA rank
32
LoRA scaling factor
64
LoRA dropout
0.05
Appendix
Table 5: Hyperparameters for supervised fine-tuning of Qwen3-VL models on AeroGround.
Model
Aligned Sim.
Real Avg.
Single
Multi
Loc.
Ori.
Occ.
ViewTr.
Traj.
No. questions
–
300
66
50
30
24
50
50
30
Doubao-seed-2.0-pro
46.8
45.7
59.1
30.0
40.0
41.7
56.0
50.0
26.7
Gemini-3.1-Pro
39.8
44.0
56.1
36.0
36.7
54.2
60.0
32.0
23.3
Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
29.7
34.3
50.0
12.0
56.7
25.0
38.0
34.0
16.7
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
27.7
33.7
50.0
10.0
50.0
0.0
40.0
36.0
33.3
Spatial-SSRL-Qwen3VL-4B
27.6
31.7
50.0
2.0
26.7
25.0
44.0
30.0
33.3
Appendix
Table 6: Results on the 300-question real-world pilot set. Aligned Sim. denotes the AeroGround score recomputed over the same seven tasks using the real-world task distribution. The remaining task columns report real-world accuracies (%). Bold and underline indicate the best and second-best overall scores, respectively.
Figure 8: Human–model task difficulty association. Each point denotes one task, comparing human accuracy with the accuracy of Doubao-seed-2.0-pro. The plot shows that model difficulty does not fully align with human difficulty, indicating a clear gap between human spatial understanding and current model capability.
Figure 9: Effect of aerial–ground spatial span on model accuracy. Spatial span is measured by the 3D distance between the aerial viewpoint and the ground viewpoint. Samples are grouped into coarse 20-meter distance bins.
Figure 10: Effect of target pixel area on model accuracy. We analyze five target-size-related tasks: single-object matching, multi-object matching, relative distance comparison, multi-object relation reasoning, and occluded object judgment. Left: the overall accuracy trend across target pixel area intervals. Right: task-level accuracy trends across the same intervals.
Figure 11: Task association analysis. The heatmap reports model-level Pearson correlations between task accuracies, revealing which task types tend to share similar model strengths and weaknesses.
Obj. Align.
Spatial Underst.
Spatial Reason.
Model
Avg.
Single
Multi
Rel.
Dist.
Count
Ori.
Loc.
Occ.
ViewTr.
RevSeq.
Traj.
Reference
Human Level
91.1
100.0
93.3
74.3
91.3
92.1
95.7
87.1
79.7
95.1
95.7
95.7
Closed-source models
GPT-5.4
20.6
18.1
14.7
52.2
33.3
27.8
8.7
19.8
11.9
1.6
24.1
3.9
Gemini-3.1-Pro
30.8
17.5
25.9
67.5
62.5
9.2
8.7
33.6
3.4
56.8
16.1
-2.6
Appendix
Table 7: Chance-adjusted benchmark results after removing the effect of the random-choice baseline. Values are reported as CAA scores in percentage form, following the definition introduced in the evaluation protocol. A score of 0 corresponds to random-choice performance, while negative values indicate performance below the random baseline. Bold and underline indicate the best and second-best task scores within each model group, respectively.
Asset
Creator / Owner
Usage
License / Terms
Unreal Engine
Epic Games
Simulation and rendering engine
Unreal Engine EULA
AirSim
Microsoft
Vehicle and camera simulation plugin/API
MIT License
Brushify - Urban Buildings Pack
Brushify Ltd.
Urban building and environment assets
Epic Content License Agreement / UE Marketplace Standard License
Downtown West Modular Pack
PurePolygons
Modular urban scene assets
Epic Content License Agreement / UE Marketplace Standard License
Factory Pack Vol.1
MeikWModels
Industrial factory scene assets
CC BY 4.0
Metaverse Villa City Modular
ErikGames
Modular villa/city scene assets
Epic Content License Agreement / UE Marketplace Standard License
Appendix
Table 8: Summary of major third-party assets, software, and datasets used in AeroGround.
Figure 12: Example interface used for human evaluation. Participants are shown the task instruction, candidate answers, paired aerial and ground-view observations, and an answer panel. Hidden reference information is not displayed during evaluation.
In recent years, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown strong potential for embodied intelligence, yet their ability to maintain geometrically consistent spatial understanding across heterogeneous views remains under-evaluated. Existing benchmarks largely focus on single-agent, single-view perception, leaving a gap in the systematic assessment of collaborative air-ground settings, where multi-scale observations are complementary but introduce scale mismatch, asymmetric occlusion, and reference-frame inconsistencies. We present AirGroundBench, a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating multi-view spatial intelligence in heterogeneous UAV-UGV collaboration. AirGroundBench is built from 11 high-fidelity simulated environments with 1,021 synchronized air-ground observation pairs, yielding approximately 62,000 dual-view, four-option single-choice visual question answering instances and 115 closed-loop vision-language navigation episodes. It covers 10 task types organized into four progressively demanding capability dimensions: spatial perception, cross-view alignment, spatial transformation and reasoning, and embodied decision-making. To support geometry-grounded evaluation and analysis, we provide structured spatial annotations, including cross-view object identities and metric 2D and 3D bounding boxes. Evaluations of 13 representative MLLMs under UAV-only, UGV-only, and dual-view input settings reveal consistent bottlenecks: models perform relatively well on spatial perception but struggle with cross-view alignment and transformation-intensive reasoning, and these deficits propagate to sequential decision-making in vision-language navigation. Although dual-view inputs provide measurable gains over single-view variants, a persistent gap from human performance remains, highlighting geometric consistency as a key limitation of current embodied MLLMs.
Haotian Li, Yida Wang, Leyuan Wang +7
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · Tsinghua University +1
Goal-oriented Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) requires agents to locate and reach targets described in natural language without prescribed routes. Air--ground collaboration is valuable for tasks requiring both wide-area search and fine-grained localization. However, systematic study of goal-oriented air--ground collaborative VLN remains limited by the lack of large-scale, diverse benchmarks and two core challenges: 1) substantial differences between aerial and ground views, together with useful observations becoming unavailable as navigation proceeds, make it difficult to maintain spatially consistent context across platforms and over time; and 2) asymmetric spatial observability makes ground perception locally detailed but spatially limited and aerial perception broad but locally coarse, limiting the reliability of single-platform planning. To address these limitations, we introduce AirGroundVLN, a benchmark containing 10,281 navigation episodes and 955 target instances across 19 Unreal Engine environments, with seen/unseen splits and an aerial-visibility protocol for systematic evaluation. Alongside the benchmark, we propose AG-CoNAV, a trainable reference framework comprising two key components: Spatiotemporally Anchored Collaborative Memory (SACM) and Aerial-Guided Regional-to-Local Planning (AGRLP). SACM maintains and retrieves spatially consistent historical context across aerial and ground observations. Meanwhile, AGRLP combines regional aerial guidance with fine-grained ground navigation. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of AG-CoNAV and establish AirGroundVLN as a comprehensive benchmark for future exploration.
Zhenxuan Zeng, Qingle Wu, Wei Suo +4
School of Computer Science, Northwestern Polytechnical University, China.
Air-Ground Object Search (AGOS) in urban environments is a challenging embodied task, which requires an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and an Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) to jointly search for and verify a specified target vehicle from multi-view visual references. To study this underexplored problem, we introduce AGOS-Bench, the first dedicated benchmark for evaluating whether general-purpose Vision-Language Models (VLMs) can integrate aerial discoveries and ground-level verification through UAV-UGV cooperation. We further provide AGOS-Dataset as the companion resource of exemplary trajectories constructed by an automatic pipeline. It consists of 7.7k episodes for searching objects of diverse categories and attributes, spanning three difficulty levels. To address the AGOS task, we propose AGOS-Agent, a training-free and tool-augmented approach. The agentic method relieves VLMs from complex and dynamic coordination via a deliberate search-handoff-verify cooperation protocol, only demanding VLMs for scene understanding and decision-making. Extensive experiments on nine VLMs show that AGOS-Agent improves overall success rate for eight of the nine evaluated backbones while reducing decision steps for all nine. On the hard split, the SR and SPL of Gemini-3.6-Flash increase from 8.6% to 55.7% and from 7.6% to 44.0%, respectively.
Boao Yu, Zimo Chen, Junreng Rao +4
National University of Defense Technology National Key Laboratory of Digital Intelligent Modeling and Simulation