Quantitative spatial reasoning in visual-language models (VLMs) aims to infer spatial distances and directional relationships among objects in 3D space from a 2D image and a natural language query. Despite recent progress, VLM spatial reasoning remains brittle under distribution shifts, largely due to the high cost of 3D supervision. As a result, models often produce inconsistent or contradictory predictions when faced with novel object configurations or rephrased spatial queries, revealing a misalignment between learned representations and underlying geometry. To address this, we propose TTL-SR, a geometry-aware Test-Time Learning framework for quantitative Spatial Reasoning that leverages geometric consistency constraints and unlabeled test data to adapt models to target domains. Specifically, TTL-SR augments the input query with geometrically coupled auxiliary queries, filters unreliable predictions via adaptive geometric triggering to construct structured token-level pseudo-labels, and updates model parameters under a geometry-aware multi-objective loss using only test data. Experimental results demonstrate that TTL-SR significantly boosts spatial reasoning performance, yielding 6.47% and 9.41% accuracy gains for Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct and SpatialRGPT-VILA-1.5-8B on Q-Spatial-ScanNet dataset, respectively.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Comparison of spatial reasoning paradigms. (a) Standard VLM inference is static, often leading to inconsistent and physically implausible predictions. (b) Our proposed approach leverages geometric consistency at test time, enabling coherent and physically plausible spatial reasoning.
Figure 2. Overview of the TTL-SR pipeline. The framework operates in three phases: (1) Spatial Query Augmentation generates geometrically coupled auxiliary queries via predefined templates; (2) Adaptive Geometric Consistency Modeling filters raw numerical estimates through reliability triggers to construct structured token-level pseudo-labels; and (3) Test-Time Optimization iteratively updates VLM parameters through a multi-objective loss.
Figure 3. Preliminary analysis of feature space evolution and reasoning performance on the Q-Spatial-ScanNet dataset ( Liao et al., 2024 ) . Bars (left y-axis) show the average pairwise L2 distance between sample features extracted from the last hidden layer of Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct ( Yang et al., 2025a ) , while markers and lines (right y-axis) indicate the corresponding accuracy, respectively.
Method
Q-Spatial-ScanNet
Q-Spatial++
SPAR-Bench
Direct Dist.
Horiz. Dist.
Vert. Dist.
Width
Height
Average
Average
Dist. oo Average
Doubao-Seed-1.8
22.2 / 0.84
6.7 / 3.44
13.8 / 1.40
56.5 / 0.43
59.1 / 0.24
24.71
22.77
44.6 / 0.37
GPT-5.2
47.2 / 0.38
35.0 / 1.12
34.5 / 0.70
60.9 / 0.29
63.6 / 0.29
44.71
26.73
49.4 / 0.29
Gemini-3-Flash
58.3 / 0.24
28.3 / 0.58
44.8 / 0.66
60.9 / 0.34
90.9 / 0.13
50.00
38.61
58.4 / 0.28
Qwen3-VL-Plus
38.9 / 0.52
16.7 / 1.74
24.1 / 1.86
56.5 / 0.36
77.3 / 0.21
35.88
23.76
42.1 / 0.41
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
38.9 / 0.31
31.7 / 1.30
20.7 / 0.66
52.2 / 0.38
40.9 / 0.55
35.29
31.68
39.9 / 0.37
Table 1. Quantitative comparison on Q-Spatial-ScanNet, Q-Spatial++, and the SPAR-Bench object-to-object distance task. Results are reported as Accuracy (%) ↑ / MARE ↓ . The Average column denotes the mean accuracy across all categories.
Method
Direct Dist.
Horiz. Dist.
Vert. Dist.
Width
Height
Direction
Average
Doubao-Seed-1.8
24.3 / 0.67
21.3 / 1.38
33.0 / 0.52
57.1 / 0.32
68.4 / 2.90
55.1 / 55.79 ∘
43.12
GPT-5.2
15.5 / 0.57
27.1 / 1.14
20.8 / 0.46
59.7 / 0.33
71.4 / 1.91
64.5 / 42.06 ∘
42.72
Gemini-3-Flash
17.6 / 0.59
31.2 / 0.75
17.9 / 0.52
63.9 / 0.29
68.4 / 1.77
57.0 / 47.10 ∘
42.72
Qwen3-VL-Plus
31.8 / 0.48
32.0 / 1.11
31.1 / 0.56
51.1 / 0.38
69.2 / 1.79
49.1 / 60.00 ∘
44.25
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
16.2 / 0.55
30.3 / 0.51
17.0 / 0.61
32.3 / 0.45
37.6 / 2.10
30.7 / 78.10 ∘
27.32
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
29.1 / 0.51
35.3 / 0.96
29.3 / 0.74
39.9 / 0.42
64.7 / 1.25
41.1 / 61.70 ∘
40.05
Table 2. Quantitative comparison of spatial reasoning performance on SpatialRGPT-Bench. Results are reported as Accuracy (%) ↑ / MARE ↓ . The Direction metric are reported as Accuracy (%) ↑ / Mean Angular Error ( ∘ ) ↓ .
Figure 4. Qualitative comparison of spatial reasoning between the baseline Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct and our TTL-SR.
Ent
KL
Geo
Direct Dist.
Horiz. Dist.
Vert. Dist.
Width
Height
Average
52.8 / 0.34
21.7 / 1.94
34.5 / 1.33
56.5 / 0.44
59.1 / 0.46
40.00
✓
58.3 / 0.28
23.3 / 1.44
37.9 / 1.20
60.9 / 0.50
45.5 / 0.44
40.18
✓
✓
55.6 / 0.29
21.7 / 1.61
37.9 / 1.23
60.9 / 0.49
50.0 / 0.44
40.59
✓
✓
55.6 / 0.25
28.3 / 1.62
37.9 / 1.38
52.2 / 0.46
59.1 / 0.41
42.94
✓
✓
61.1 / 0.25
25.0 / 1.58
37.9 / 1.25
52.2 / 0.45
63.6 / 0.30
43.53
✓
✓
✓
63.9 / 0.24
28.3 / 1.48
34.5 / 1.23
60.9 / 0.43
68.2 / 0.31
46.47
Table 3. Ablation study of TTL-SR loss components.
Constraints
Direct Dist.
Horiz. Dist.
Vert. Dist.
Width
Height
Average
Baseline (Ent+KL)
55.6 / 0.29
21.7 / 1.61
37.9 / 1.23
60.9 / 0.49
50.0 / 0.44
40.59
w/ Lgeo (Same)
58.3 / 0.26
28.3 / 1.61
34.5 / 1.42
56.5 / 0.46
54.6 / 0.41
42.94
w/ Lgeo (Direct)
58.3 / 0.29
23.3 / 1.61
31.0 / 1.57
60.9 / 0.46
59.1 / 0.40
41.76
w/ Lgeo (Vert.)
61.1 / 0.27
25.0 / 1.66
37.9 / 1.30
60.9 / 0.47
50.0 / 0.44
42.94
w/ Lgeo (Horiz.)
58.3 / 0.29
26.7 / 1.65
37.9 / 1.23
60.9 / 0.50
50.0 / 0.44
42.94
w/ Lgeo (Width)
58.3 / 0.28
25.0 / 1.64
31.0 / 1.39
60.9 / 0.48
50.0 / 0.44
41.18
Table 4. Impact of individual geometric constraints.
Method
Direct Dist.
Horiz. Dist.
Vert. Dist.
Width
Height
Average
w/o AT
61.1 / 0.25
23.3 / 1.50
34.5 / 1.27
56.5 / 0.44
68.2 / 0.32
43.53
w/o SPL
58.3 / 0.27
28.3 / 1.64
27.6 / 1.45
60.9 / 0.45
63.6 / 0.32
43.53
w/o UL
58.3 / 0.25
28.3 / 1.57
31.0 / 1.46
60.9 / 0.43
63.6 / 0.32
44.12
Ours
63.9 / 0.24
28.3 / 1.48
34.5 / 1.23
60.9 / 0.43
68.2 / 0.31
46.47
Table 5. Component-wise ablation of TTL-SR framework.
Param.
Value
Direct Dist.
Horiz. Dist.
Vert. Dist.
Width
Height
Average
τ
0.00
61.1 / 0.25
23.3 / 1.50
34.5 / 1.27
56.5 / 0.44
68.2 / 0.32
43.53
0.10
58.3 / 0.26
26.7 / 1.52
37.9 / 1.23
56.5 / 0.44
63.6 / 0.31
44.12
0.20
63.9 / 0.24
28.3 / 1.48
34.5 / 1.23
60.9 / 0.43
68.2 / 0.31
46.47
0.40
61.1 / 0.26
25.0 / 1.59
34.5 / 1.40
52.2 / 0.46
63.6 / 0.32
42.94
τlabel
0.10
61.1/ 0.25
25.0 / 1.56
37.9 / 1.25
47.8 / 0.46
68.2 / 0.33
43.53
0.20
63.9 / 0.24
28.3 / 1.48
34.5 / 1.23
60.9 / 0.43
68.2 / 0.31
46.47
Table 6. Sensitivity analysis of key hyper-parameters in TTL-SR, including the trigger threshold τ , the soft label tolerance interval τlabel , and the sampling top- k for UL.
Spatial reasoning studies how systems represent geometry, relations, viewpoints, and motion to understand scenes, plan actions, and solve spatial tasks.
Empowered by large-scale training, vision-language models (VLMs) achieve strong image and video understanding, yet their ability to perform spatial reasoning in both static scenes and dynamic videos remains limited. Recent advances try to handle this limitation by injecting geometry tokens from pretrained 3D foundation models into VLMs. Nevertheless, we observe that naive token fusion followed by standard fine-tuning in this line of work often leaves such geometric cues underutilized for spatial reasoning, as VLMs tend to rely heavily on 2D visual cues. In this paper, we propose GeoSR, a framework designed to make geometry matter by encouraging VLMs to actively reason with geometry tokens. GeoSR introduces two key components: (1) Geometry-Unleashing Masking, which strategically masks portions of 2D vision tokens during training to weaken non-geometric shortcuts and force the model to consult geometry tokens for spatial reasoning; and (2) Geometry-Guided Fusion, a gated routing mechanism that adaptively amplifies geometry token contributions in regions where geometric evidence is critical. Together, these designs unleash the potential of geometry tokens for spatial reasoning tasks. Extensive experiments on both static and dynamic spatial reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that GeoSR consistently outperforms prior methods and establishes new state-of-the-art performance by effectively leveraging geometric information. The project page is available at https://suhzhang.github.io/GeoSR/.
Spatial VLMs have made substantial progress in geometric perception, yet complex spatial reasoning requiring multi-step inference over depth, distance, and scene relations remains challenging. Moreover, different spatial queries call for fundamentally different strategies: some are best addressed through purely linguistic, step-by-step deduction, while others require explicit 3D grounding before quantitative inference. We present Dual-Path Spatial Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning for Spatial VLMs (SR-REAL), a unified framework that equips a spatial VLM with two complementary reasoning paths: Language-Only Reasoning (LOR), which performs step-by-step linguistic deduction, and Detect-Then-Reason (DTR), which detects 3D geometric cues (e.g., centers or bounding boxes) via region tokens before explicit geometric inference. SR-REAL begins with a cold-start supervised fine-tuning stage that constructs LOR and DTR chain-of-thought supervision and exposes a region-to-3D interface, followed by RL that optimizes the policy model with accuracy and format rewards; for DTR, a discrete center-based detection reward further refines geometric alignment. Across diverse spatial benchmarks, SR-REAL significantly outperforms spatial VLM baselines: (i) a single RL-trained model supports both reasoning paths, with DTR excelling in region-aware tasks through precise 3D localization and LOR enhancing general spatial reasoning; (ii) jointly training both paths fosters mutual reinforcement; (iii) high-quality, blended cold-start data is crucial for stable RL optimization; and (iv) the model generalizes across datasets and domains without per-task tuning, demonstrating positive transfer between LOR and DTR.
Yatai Ji, An-Chieh Cheng, Yang Fu +13
The University of Hong Kong · NVIDIA · University of California, San Diego
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.