Spatial reasoning with metric constraints requires linking objects to geometric measurements and preserving their numerical content during language reasoning. We present DepthEvidence, a 4B model that uses its own dense metric predictions as object-grounded evidence for language generation. A camera-conditioned decoder predicts full-resolution metric depth using multi-scale visual features and high-resolution RGB refinement. A dense-to-language interface converts predicted depths and decoder features into object-aligned continuous geometry tokens anchored to object identifiers. Geometric supervision encourages metric information to remain recoverable before and after language-context interaction, while instruction tuning supports object measurement and compositional reasoning. We introduce a Depth-VQA benchmark evaluating object-depth queries, relative comparisons, and decisions combining spatial and numerical constraints. Across nine datasets, DepthEvidence achieves the highest average dense δ1 among evaluated methods, competitive with specialized estimators. It also leads the evaluated methods in instance-level metric depth estimation and overall accuracy on both relative and metric reasoning tracks, while broadly preserving general VQA performance and improving spatial understanding relative to the base model.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of DepthEvidence’s capabilities. (a) A metric-spatial question requires selecting objects by image location and mean camera depth; the dense-to-language interface rejects out-of-range distractors. (b) Dense metric depth results ( δ1 ) on four representative datasets and the nine-dataset average, compared with specialized estimators. (c) Level 1 metric estimation and Level 2 relative and metric reasoning, compared with general-purpose and depth-aware VLMs as well as the no-interface variant. (d) General VQA retention on MMMU, MMBench, and OCRBench, and spatial understanding on Ego3D. All scores are percentages and higher is better.
Figure 2: Overview of DepthEvidence. The dense decoder supplies metric predictions and features to the dense-to-language interface, which converts them into object-aligned geometry tokens for answer generation. This path connects Level-0 dense prediction to Level-1 instance measurement and Level-2 compositional reasoning within a shared VLM.
Track
Subbench
Question summary
Relative Depth
Spatial Pair
Compare two objects, optionally after resolving a spatial reference.
Spatial Group
Spatially filter candidates, then select the nearest or farthest.
Depth Ordering
Select an extreme or order a subset or all referenced objects.
Metric Depth
Metric Pair
Predict a mean-depth gap or compare it with a threshold.
Spatial Metric Pair
Resolve a spatial reference, then predict an absolute mean-depth gap.
Spatial Metric Group
Spatially filter candidates, then apply range or bound constraints.
Table 1: Level-2 tracks and subbench goals. Appendix Table 7 provides all question types and reasoning requirements.
Method
Outdoor
Indoor
Avg.
Argoverse2
Waymo
NuScenes
DDAD
Taskonomy
ScanNet++
HyperSim
SUN RGB-D
Booster
VLMs Trained on Metric Depth Estimation
Youtu-VL-4B-Instruct
0.6290
0.5121
0.6443
0.2995
0.7561
0.6006
0.4285
0.3525
0.3471
0.5077
DepthVLM-4B
0.7696
0.8056
0.8433
0.8232
0.6992
0.8568
0.4536
0.5089
0.2452
0.6673
DepthLM-12B †
0.7768
0.7758
0.8310
0.6638
0.8218
0.7962
0.4358
0.5508
0.5934
0.6939
Specialized Vision Models
Table 2: Level-0 dense metric depth comparison across outdoor and indoor benchmarks. We report δ1↑ and its unweighted average over all nine datasets. The best and second-best results in each column are shown in bold and underlined, respectively. Rankings are determined using the unrounded values. † DepthLM-12B follows its original sparse point-query protocol ( Cai et al., 2026 ) , using 8,192 randomly sampled pixels per dataset.
Figure 3: Qualitative dense depth on Argoverse2, Waymo, ScanNet++, and HyperSim. Columns show RGB, ground truth (GT), DepthVLM-4B, Youtu-VL-4B-Instruct, MetricAnything, UniDepth V2, and DepthEvidence. Outdoor GT is densified only for visualization; Table 2 uses the original sparse sensor GT. Each row shares one color scale; Figure 5 shows the other five datasets.
Method
Level-1: Instance Metric Depth
Level-2: Compositional Depth Reasoning
Relative
Metric
δ1↑
RMSE ↓
AbsRel ↓
Spatial Pair
Spatial Group
Ordering
Overall Acc
Metric Pair Acc
Metric Pair δ1↑
Spatial Pair δ1↑
Spatial Group
Set Decision
Overall Acc
General-Purpose VLMs
Qwen3.5-4B
0.0159
206.1221
9.5185
0.0930
0.0568
0.0102
0.0405
0.6304
0.2500
0.2234
0.3085
0.5532
0.4701
Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview
0.4108
52.4680
2.0927
0.6395
0.5795
0.3724
0.4838
0.6304
0.2292
0.2340
0.3085
0.5957
0.4872
Qwen3.7-plus
0.0766
107.2556
3.0477
0.5814
0.6136
0.3827
0.4838
0.6522
0.2917
0.1489
0.3511
0.4681
0.4573
Table 3: Instance-level depth estimation and reasoning results. The interface is enabled or disabled at both instance levels. Relative Overall Acc is computed over 370 questions, and Metric Overall Acc includes the 234 questions scored by accuracy. Bold and underlined entries denote the best and second-best results in each column.
Figure 4: Representative Level-2 cases corrected by the dense-to-language interface. The three panels test complete depth ordering, spatially filtered metric-range selection, and margin-aware ambiguity decisions, respectively. Each panel contrasts matched variants without and with the interface; green answers match the ground truth. Aggregate results are reported in Table 3 .
Method
STEM
General VQA
MathVision
MathVista
MMMU
MMMU-Pro
RealWorldQA
MMStar
MMBench
HallusionBench
Youtu-VL-4B-Instruct
–
76.50
61.10
43.00
74.60
71.10
83.90
59.10
GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking
54.40
80.70
68.00
57.10
–
72.90
85.80
63.20
Qwen3.5-4B
74.60
85.10
77.60
66.30
79.50
78.30
89.40
65.00
DepthEvidence (Ours)
74.10
84.90
78.71
64.05
78.06
78.30
89.52
68.21
Table 4: General and spatial capability evaluation. Metrics follow their native scales; all are higher-is-better except Ego3D RMSE. Bold marks the best result, and “–” denotes unavailable results.
Table 9
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Track
Subbench
Raw question type
Required reasoning
Relative Depth
Spatial Pair
closer_farther
Decide which of two objects is closer to or farther from the camera.
front_behind
Decide which of two objects is in front of or behind the other.
spatial_depth
Resolve a left/right reference, then compare the selected object with another object in depth.
Spatial Group
spatial_depth_group
Filter objects by a spatial relation, then select the nearest or farthest member.
Depth Ordering
depth_ordering_closest
Select the closest object from all candidates.
depth_ordering_farthest
Select the farthest object from all candidates.
Appendix
Table 7: Detailed composition of the Relative Depth and Metric Depth tracks in the Level-2 benchmark. “Subset” orders a specified subset of objects, whereas “all” orders every referenced object.
Component
Sampling unit
Scale or coverage
Task composition
Level-0 dense depth
Image
4,228 images from nine datasets
500 images from each of eight datasets and all 228 Booster images
Level-1 instance depth
Grounded-object query
757 queries from seven datasets
Center, nearest, farthest, mean, and median metric depth; box or referring prompts
Level-2 Relative
Multi-object question
370 questions
Spatial Pair (86), Spatial Group (88), and Depth Ordering (196)
Level-2 Metric
Multi-object question
376 questions
Metric Pair (46 threshold + 48 numerical gap), Spatial Metric Pair (94), Spatial Metric Group (94), and Metric Set Decision (94)
Appendix
Table 8: Compact statistics for the dense and instance-level depth benchmarks. Depth-VQA contains 1,503 questions in total.
Variant
Relative Overall
Metric Overall
No interface
0.5838
0.7692
No interface + metric supervision
0.5865
0.7949
Interface + Lans
0.5838
0.7735
Full interface
0.6270
0.8504
Appendix
Table 9: Disentangling direct metric supervision from the dense-to-language interface on Level-2 Relative and Metric Overall Acc.
Mode
Generation latency (s) ↓
End-to-end latency (s) ↓
Throughput (tokens/s) ↑
Peak allocated memory (GiB) ↓
No-interface
4.174
4.289
15.333
10.36
Two-pass
4.535
4.710
14.111
13.56
Single-prefill
4.323
4.491
14.804
13.73
Appendix
Table 10: Inference efficiency with a fixed output length of 64 tokens and end-of-sequence stopping disabled. Single-prefill is the cached geometry-continuation scheme used by DepthEvidence.
Figure 5: Additional qualitative dense metric depth comparisons on NuScenes, DDAD, Taskonomy, SUN RGB-D, and Booster. Columns show RGB, ground truth (GT), DepthVLM-4B, Youtu-VL-4B-Instruct, MetricAnything, UniDepth V2, and DepthEvidence. Outdoor GT is densely completed for visualization only; quantitative evaluation uses the original sparse sensor GT. All depth maps within a row use the same color scale.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) excel at 2D tasks such as grounding and captioning, yet remain limited in 3D understanding. A key limitation is their text-only supervision paradigm, which under-constrains fine-grained visual perception and prevents the recovery of dense geometry. Prior methods either distill geometry from external vision models, introducing error accumulation, or enable direct prediction with inefficient per-pixel query or coarse token-level outputs. In this paper, we propose DepthVLM, a simple yet effective framework that transforms a single VLM into a native dense geometry predictor while preserving its multimodal capability. By attaching a lightweight depth head to the LLM backbone and training under a unified vision-text supervision paradigm with a two-stage schedule, DepthVLM generates full-resolution depth maps alongside language outputs in a single forward pass. We further introduce a unified indoor-outdoor metric depth benchmark in a VLM-compatible format. Experiments show that DepthVLM significantly outperforms existing VLMs with higher inference efficiency, surpasses leading pure vision models, and improves complex 3D spatial reasoning, moving toward a truly unified multimodal foundation model. The project page is available at https://depthvlm.github.io/
Hanxun Yu, Xuan Qu, Yuxin Wang +2
Zhejiang University · Tencent Hunyuan LLM · HKUST +1
Vision-language models (VLMs) are expected to reason about physical space -- which object is closer, what lies behind what, and how objects are arranged in 3D -- yet they still struggle with such spatial judgments. A natural remedy is to show the model a depth map, but we find that this can make performance worse. We show that depth is not absent: it reaches the language model, but becomes difficult to access for downstream reasoning, while rendered pseudo-depth maps act as noisy auxiliary images that frozen VLMs cannot easily regulate. We propose Depth-Ordinal Prompting (DOP), a training-free method that converts monocular depth into a single question-targeted ordinal text cue at the queried objects, without adding a depth image, training a module, injecting features, or using labels. Our key finding is form dependence: the same depth signal can hurt when shown as an image but help when told as text.Across benchmarks, models, and depth estimators, DOP improves spatial reasoning when pseudo-depth provides reliable object-level ordering and remains largely neutral in strong original-image regimes. It is also competitive with the strongest training-free depth-prompting alternative while being simpler and more targeted.
Quynh Vo, Phuc Dao, Cong-Duy Nguyen +1
National University of Singapore · Center of AI Research, VinUniversity
Image and video generators can produce spatially consistent visual content, but how to use this capability to improve spatial understanding remains underexplored. We study this problem from two perspectives: geometric supervision during training and explicit geometric evidence during inference. To this end, we introduce a unified geometric understanding and generation model (GeoUG) that integrates depth and multi-view generation with spatial understanding. First, we design a multi-scale depth codec that enables metric-depth generation using a pretrained visual autoencoder, and show that joint training yields task-dependent gains in spatial understanding. Second, we introduce 3DCueBench to control geometric difficulty while balancing selected 2D cues, and find that generated depth provides larger reasoning gains on questions requiring fine-grained geometric discrimination. Building on this finding, we develop adaptive interleaved reasoning, in which GeoUG first drafts an answer and then decides whether to generate geometric evidence to confirm or revise it. We train this decision through reinforcement learning, balancing accuracy gains over retaining the draft against generation cost. GeoUG achieves circular accuracies of 97.9%, 90.8%, and 94.2% on CV-Bench-3D, 3DCueBench, and DA-2K with fewer generation calls than always generating.
Rui Yang, Yanwei Li, Sili Chen +3
1The University of Hong Kong · 2Shanghai Jiao Tong University · 3ByteDance Seed