ReSTI: A Source-Grounded Audit and Repair of STI-Bench

Spatial reasoning from egocentric videos is inherently challenging because the observable evidence is constrained by the camera trajectory. Existing methods rely on single-turn inference, forcing models to resolve geometric ambiguity through semantic priors rather than verifiable evidence. We argue that spatial reasoning should be revisitable: conclusions formed under limited evidence should remain open to revision when complementary viewpoints become available. Building on this insight, we propose Reason, then Re-reason (ReRe), a training-free, inference-time framework with two phases: in the Reason Phase, an MLLM forms a spatial hypothesis from the original video; in the Re-reason Phase, it verifies or revises the hypothesis by observing a synthesized novel-view video. To enable effective cross-view revisiting, we design a Geometry-to-Video pipeline that renders strategically complementary novel views from predicted 3D geometry. These views feature an elevated, oblique perspective with scene-spanning coverage, while preserving the MLLM's native video interface without architectural modifications. Extensive evaluations on VSI-Bench and STI-Bench demonstrate that ReRe substantially boosts open-source MLLMs to rival proprietary state-of-the-art performance. Project page: https://zhenjiemao.github.io/ReRe/

Spatial reasoning benchmarks evaluate vision-language models across diverse tasks, but task-level scores do not reveal which underlying capabilities account for success or failure. Each task requires recovering spatial evidence, representing geometry, and reasoning over it. We disentangle these capabilities by comparing predicted and ground-truth spatial context under a shared schema and coordinate contract. This comparison reveals four recurring sources of error: inaccurate perception, missing information in the spatial context, selection of the wrong measurement, and errors in reference frames or in tracking position and orientation. Guided by this diagnosis, we develop CROSS, a training-free library of typed geometric operators and spatial skills that function over available evidence to support reliable video spatial reasoning. The resulting library supplies verified context to non-coding VLMs or callable skills to a SpatialClaw agent. We evaluate \methodname{} on five benchmarks. \methodname{} raises the average score from 55.9% to 60.2% on ReVSI and improves the SpatialClaw result from 62.8% to 66.3% on DSI-Bench. These gains demonstrate that explicit handling of spatial conventions can repair systematic reasoning failures without additional training.

Current evaluations of spatial intelligence can be systematically invalid under modern vision-language model (VLM) settings. First, many benchmarks derive question-answer (QA) pairs from point-cloud-based 3D annotations originally curated for traditional 3D perception. When such annotations are treated as ground truth for video-based evaluation, reconstruction and annotation artifacts can miss objects that are clearly visible in the video, mislabel object identities, or corrupt geometry-dependent answers (e.g., size), yielding incorrect or ambiguous QA pairs. Second, evaluations often assume full-scene access, while many VLMs operate on sparsely sampled frames (e.g., 16-64), making many questions effectively unanswerable under the actual model inputs. We improve evaluation validity by introducing ReVSI, a benchmark and protocol that ensures each QA pair is answerable and correct under the model's actual inputs. To this end, we re-annotate objects and geometry across 381 scenes from 5 datasets to improve data quality, and regenerate all QA pairs with rigorous bias mitigation and human verification using professional 3D annotation tools. We further enhance evaluation controllability by providing variants across multiple frame budgets (16/32/64/all) and fine-grained object visibility metadata, enabling controlled diagnostic analyses. Evaluations of general and domain-specific VLMs on ReVSI reveal systematic failure modes that are obscured by prior benchmarks, yielding a more reliable and diagnostic assessment of spatial intelligence.