Vision-language models still struggle to understand 3D spatial relations across views and update spatial judgments as the observer moves. A common approach fuses 3D reconstruction features into visual tokens, but aligning these features with pretrained semantic representations remains challenging under limited spatial supervision. We propose DK-VLM with Dual-Kernel Attention, which computes attention from both a visual token's input position and its geometric position in the scene. A semantic kernel retains the pretrained model's native attention and positional encoding, while a separate geometric kernel uses estimated 3D points and camera poses to directly modulate attention through point displacements and relative view transformations. Then, a learned gate fuses their outputs. Geometry thus enters attention as position rather than as fused reconstruction features. We further introduce Reference-Frame Composition (RC) supervision to train the model to update its reference frame across successive judgments. It provides stepwise turn and heading targets derived from verified single-step annotations. Among the compared methods, DK-VLM-8B achieves the highest average score across six spatial benchmarks and the highest overall scores on VSI-Bench (74.33) and ReVSI-32 (58.28). RC supervision further improves multi-step spatial reasoning, while the full model preserves general video understanding. Project page: https://sumuru789.github.io/DK-VLM-website/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Geometry as position in DK-VLM. Left: 2D input positions do not fully capture 3D relations. Right: DK-VLM retains the native positional encoding and introduces scene geometry into attention as position.
Figure 2: Geometry as Position via Dual-Kernel Attention. Selected decoder layers retain the backbone-native semantic kernel and introduce a geometric kernel over geometry-valid visual tokens. A learned gate fuses both outputs into the shared residual stream, while Lpair directly supervises the pre-fusion geometric representation during training.
Figure 3: Reference-frame composition. Verified single-step relations sharing endpoints form a training chain with stepwise turn targets.
(a) VSI-Bench
Model
Overall
Obj. Count
Abs. Dist.
Obj. Size
Room Size
Rel. Dist.
Rel. Dir.
Route Plan
Appr. Order
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
29.30
25.20
10.50
36.40
29.60
38.40
38.00
29.80
26.80
Qwen3-VL-8B
57.90
67.60
47.00
76.30
61.90
58.00
51.00
35.00
66.30
VG-LLM-8B
62.20
71.40
56.80
69.00
69.10
67.90
83.20
47.40
32.50
VLM-3R-7B
60.90
70.20
49.40
69.20
67.10
65.40
80.50
45.40
40.10
Cambrian-S-7B
67.50
73.20
50.50
74.90
72.20
71.10
76.20
41.80
80.10
Table 1: Spatial reasoning on VSI-Bench and ReVSI-32. Both panels report overall scores and task results. Higher is better. Darker and lighter shading mark the best and second best results in each column. ∗ denotes results obtained using public checkpoints and official evaluation code.
Model
Avg.
VSI- Bench
MMSI- Bench
MindCube
ViewSpatial
SITE
CV- Bench
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
40.31
29.30
26.80
36.00
36.80
37.60
75.40
Qwen3-VL-8B
47.73
57.90
28.80
29.80
39.00
45.80
85.10
Cambrian-S-7B
47.28
67.50
25.80
39.60
40.90
33.00
76.90
VLM-3R-7B
45.40
60.90
27.90
40.00
40.50
31.30
71.80
VG-LLM-8B
51.05
62.20
30.00
36.10
45.80
50.50
81.70
GeoThinker-7B
60.43
68.50
31.70
83.60
41.90
54.80
82.10
Table 2: Results across six spatial benchmarks. Avg. is the mean of the six overall scores. Higher is better.
Model
VSI Route
ReVSI Route
MMSI Multi-Step
ViewSpatial Person
DK-VLM (Full)
60.31
47.67
34.34
61.72
DK-VLM w/o RC
51.21
43.48
29.19
56.32
Table 3: Effect of RC supervision on public tasks. Both models use Qwen3-VL-8B. Person denotes the average score across three person-perspective tasks in ViewSpatial: relative direction, object view orientation, and scene simulation relative direction.
Chain Length
w/o RC
w/ RC
2
10.6 / 2.2
52.2 / 45.6
3
9.0 / 0.3
50.0 / 37.5
4 (unseen)
8.2 / 0.0
35.4 / 20.6
Table 4: Performance across reasoning chain lengths. Each entry reports Progress / Chain Acc. (%). See Appendix A.8 for metric definitions.
Model
VideoMME
MVBench
Qwen3-VL-8B + SFT
64.59
68.42
DK-VLM-8B
66.22 (+1.63)
67.93 ( −0.49 )
Table 5: General video understanding. Parentheses show changes from the corresponding Qwen SFT baseline in percentage points.
Configuration
Overall
Full
74.33
w/o Point GTA
71.81
w/o Camera GTA
72.46
w/o Point & Camera GTA
70.02
w/o Pairwise Supervision
73.20
Table 6: Component ablations.
Model
w/o RC
w/ RC
Δ
Backbone
68.80
69.20
+0.40
DK-VLM
73.28
74.33
+1.05
Table 7: Effect of RC supervision.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
DK-VLM-7B
DK-VLM-8B
Backbone
8,292.17
8,767.12
LoRA
40.37
61.34
Geometric branch (including gates)
146.82
209.72
Pairwise prediction head
51.43
67.16
Total trainable parameters
238.62
338.22
Relative to backbone
2.88%
3.86%
Appendix
Table 8: Parameter counts of DK-VLM. Parameter counts are reported in millions (M). Trainable parameters include LoRA, the geometric branch, and the pairwise prediction head. The prediction head is used only during training and removed at inference. All counts exclude the frozen VGGT- Ω frontend.
Chain Length
SPAR Delta
SPAR Heading
VSI Angle
VSI Action
Total
2
80
80
80
80
320
3
80
80
80
80
320
4
80
80
80
8
248
Appendix
Table 9: Composition of the RC evaluation set. Counts denote evaluation examples for each target type and chain length.
Injection Layers
Layer Indices
VSI-Bench
3
6, 18, 33
62.28
5
6, 12, 18, 27, 33
63.05
7
6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 27, 33
63.11
Appendix
Table 10: Effect of the number of injection layers on VSI-Bench.
Placement
Layer Indices
VSI-Bench
Early
6, 9, 12, 15, 18
62.43
Distributed
6, 12, 18, 27, 33
63.05
Late
18, 21, 24, 27, 30
61.29
Appendix
Table 11: Effect of injection layer placement on VSI-Bench. All configurations use five injection layers.
Geometry Frontend
Overall
VGGT- Ω
74.33
VGGT
73.91
MASt3R-SLAM
73.64
Pi3X
73.62
DA3-Large
72.99
Appendix
Table 12: Geometry frontend comparison on VSI-Bench. All configurations use the same DK-VLM-8B checkpoint and 32 input frames, without retraining.
Input Frames
Overall
8
65.29
16
69.94
32
74.33
64
75.13
128
75.32
Appendix
Table 13: Effect of input frame count on VSI-Bench. All configurations use the same DK-VLM-8B checkpoint and VGGT- Ω frontend, without additional training.
Configuration
VSI-Bench Overall ↑
Qwen3-VL-8B + SFT
59.48
3D positional embeddings at input
59.21
3D positional embeddings at five layers
59.74
Single-kernel GTA (three layers)
45.98
Single-kernel GTA (five layers)
39.14
DK-VLM-8B (five layers)
62.78
Appendix
Table 14: Comparison of geometry injection strategies on VSI-Bench. All configurations omit the pairwise geometric loss.
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
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have made impressive progress in connecting vision and language, but they still struggle with spatial understanding and viewpoint-aware reasoning. Recent efforts aim to augment the input representations with geometric cues rather than explicitly teaching models to reason in 3D space. We introduce Loc3R-VLM, a framework that equips 2D Vision-Language Models with advanced 3D understanding capabilities from monocular video input. Inspired by human spatial cognition, Loc3R-VLM relies on two joint objectives: global layout reconstruction to build a holistic representation of the scene structure, and explicit situation modeling to anchor egocentric perspective. These objectives provide direct spatial supervision that grounds both perception and language in a 3D context. To ensure geometric consistency and metric-scale alignment, we leverage lightweight camera pose priors extracted from a pre-trained 3D foundation model. Loc3R-VLM achieves state-of-the-art performance in language-based localization and outperforms existing 2D- and video-based approaches on situated and general 3D question-answering benchmarks, demonstrating that our spatial supervision framework enables strong 3D understanding. Project page: https://kevinqu7.github.io/loc3r-vlm
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.