Do 3D Large Language Models Really Use 3D Evidence?
Organizations: Fudan University · University of Science and Technology of China
Abstract
Recent 3D Large Language Models (3D-LLMs) have shown strong performance on scene question answering with extensive post-training. Yet, existing benchmarks rarely evaluate how 3D-LLMs respond to referential ambiguity, insufficient scene evidence, or false presuppositions, obscuring whether their responses are grounded in 3D evidence. In this work, we introduce UNICORNS, a benchmark for evaluating the reliability of 3D-LLM responses across four evidence conditions. UNICORNS contains 11,387 questions across 557 ScanNet scans, covering eight challenge categories alongside answerable controls. A response passes only if it satisfies the required response behavior and contains no scene claim unsupported by the available evidence. Evaluation of six open-sourced 3D-LLMs reveals a pronounced performance gap: even the strongest zero-shot model achieves 61.22% accuracy on answerable controls, but only 40.94% across the eight challenge categories. To address this gap, we further propose HORN, an obligation-aware post-training method combining group-relative task rewards, leaf-conditioned obligation rewards, and supervised control replay. Extensive experiments demonstrate that HORN reaches across the challenge categories and overall, outperforming all baselines without degrading answerable-control accuracy. Our findings enable a systematic evaluation and improvement of evidence-grounded 3D reasoning for 3D-LLMs (code: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/unicorns-6B38/).
Figures & tables
| Benchmark | Evaluation target | Ambiguity | Unobserved evidence | False premise | Answerable or unambiguous | Claim-level veto |
| ScanQA | Scene QA | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| SQA3D | Situated QA | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Real-3DQA | Shortcuts; viewpoint consistency | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Ambi3D | Binary ambiguity detection | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Unicorns | Complete-response reliability | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Letter | Category | Required behavior |
| U | Underspecified class-only reference | Identify multiple same-class candidates; clarify or enumerate. |
| N | Non-disambiguating modifier | Explain modifier ambiguity; clarify or enumerate. |
| I | Information beyond scan coverage | State that the scan cannot determine the answer. |
| C | Closed-container interior | Do not assert unseen contents; express bounded uncertainty. |
| O | Object-class absence | Reject or correct the existence presupposition. |
| R | Refuted attribute claim | Reject or correct the attribute without inventing a replacement. |
| Challenge leaves | Aggregate metrics | ||||||||||
| Model | U | N | I | C | O | R | S | Challenge | Control | Overall | |
| Zero-shot | |||||||||||
| LEO | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.04 | 5.10 | 82.65 | 4.08 | 0.00 | 3.57 | 12.18 | 32.33 | 22.26 |
| 3D-LLM | 0.51 | 1.53 | 4.59 | 2.04 | 3.06 | 20.92 | 7.65 | 59.69 | 12.50 | 47.13 | 29.82 |
| Chat-3D-v2 | 3.06 | 3.06 | 0.51 | 9.69 | 53.57 | 4.08 | 1.53 | 34.18 | 13.71 | 53.25 | 33.48 |
| Chat-Scene | 9.18 | 10.20 | 2.55 | 17.86 | 66.84 | 3.57 | 1.02 | 29.08 | 17.54 | 51.47 | 34.50 |
| Model | Split | Strategic | Factual | Veto |
| SceneCOT | Overall | 46.14 | 37.47 | 34.95 |
| Challenge | 39.22 | 43.18 | 39.09 | |
| Control | 53.06 | 31.76 | 30.80 | |
| Horn | Overall | 88.04 | 79.85 | 77.20 |
| Challenge | 76.21 | 80.36 | 75.06 | |
| Control | 99.87 | 79.34 | 79.34 |
Appendix figures & tables21 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Category | Literature and principles | Construction idea |
| U : Underspecified class-only reference | Graded ambiguity and enumerate/clarify responses ( Jang and Kim, 2026 ) ; reverse synthesis ( Jian et al., 2025 ) ; unique-reference testing in 3D ( Ding et al., 2026 ) | Ask class-only questions in scenes containing multiple same-class objects, leaving the target referent ambiguous. |
| N : Non-disambiguating modifier | Attribute-level ambiguity ( Ding et al., 2026 ) ; matched underspecified controls ( Cao et al., 2026 ) ; strategic responses ( Jang and Kim, 2026 ) | Add color descriptions shared by multiple candidates or similar-size modifiers, so the resulting reference remains ambiguous. |
| I : Information beyond scan coverage | Out-of-frame/insufficient-context decisions ( Tripathi, 2026 ) ; evidence acquisition ( De Min et al., 2026 ) ; information unavailability ( Wu et al., 2026 ) | Use scene boundaries or anchors such as doors to ask about information beyond the captured scan. |
| C : Closed-container interior | Visibility-aware abstention ( Tripathi, 2026 ) ; information unavailability ( Wu et al., 2026 ) | Ask about the interior contents of closed containers selected through class and description screening. |
| O : Object-class absence | False presupposition as an abstention cause ( Wu et al., 2026 ) ; clear-to-corrupted reverse construction ( Jian et al., 2025 ) | Introduce a plausible object class that is absent from the scene annotations. |
| R : Refuted attribute claim | False presupposition ( Wu et al., 2026 ) ; attribute ambiguity taxonomy ( Ding et al., 2026 ) ; minimal text edits ( Tripathi, 2026 ) | Preserve the target object and replace a verified attribute with a conflicting value. |
| Leaf | Positive acceptance checks | Exclusion criteria | Stored evidence and provenance |
| Underspecified class-only reference | At least two distinct objects share the queried class; all candidate IDs and geometry are present. | Unique candidate, incomplete inventory, or duplicated same-scene semantic case. | Candidate IDs, labels, centers and sizes; source sample or program ID. |
| Non-disambiguating modifier | At least two grounded candidates remain; color groups share a supported color, while size groups have maximum/minimum AABB volume ratio . | Fewer than two candidates, unsupported color, size ratio , or missing object evidence. | Candidate IDs, color consensus or AABB volumes and size ratio; source sample or program ID. |
| Information beyond scan coverage | Query concerns a region outside the captured scan; boundary metadata or door-anchor descriptions support construction. | Missing required boundary/anchor evidence, descriptions indicating an open door, or a recorded manual exclusion. | Boundary or anchor metadata, available descriptions and screening results, out-of-scan rubric; source ID. |
| Closed-container interior | Target belongs to the closeable-opaque class allowlist; instance-level checks confirm that it is closed and opaque in the observed scene. | Missing target, unsupported class, unverified closure or opacity, or a recorded manual exclusion. | Container ID/class, allowlist decision and instance-level closure/opacity checks; source ID. |
| Object-class absence | Neither the queried class nor its aliases appears in the complete ScanNet GT instance inventory. | Incomplete GT inventory or any matching class/alias. | Complete GT inventory, class/alias mapping and absence check; source ID. |
| Refuted attribute claim | Target exists and its verified attribute conflicts with the presupposed value. | Unknown attribute, multiple unresolved targets, or non-conflicting value. | Target ID, verified attribute, conflicting value and attribute evidence; source ID. |
| Split | Challenge | Control | Total |
| Train | 4,951 | 3,300 | 8,251 |
| Test | 1,568 | 1,568 | 3,136 |
| Train scenes | 445 | scene-disjoint from test | |
| Test scenes | 112 | challenge scenes | |
| Category | Required behavior and evidence checks |
| U | Identify multiple same-class candidates; clarify or enumerate. Check candidate identities and any stated count. |
| N | Explain modifier ambiguity; clarify or enumerate. Check the modifier-matching candidate set. |
| I | State that the scan cannot determine the answer. Respect the annotated observation boundary. |
| C | Express bounded uncertainty without asserting unseen contents. Distinguish hidden contents from verified absence. |
| O | Reject or correct the existence premise. Check the queried class against the supplied scene inventory. |
| R | Reject or correct the false attribute. Check any stated replacement against the verified attribute. |
| Category | Ordered conditions and scores |
| U, N | Existence-denial template or leading “No”: ; clarification or multiplicity: ; otherwise: . |
| I | Existence-denial template: ; uncertainty or information-seeking: ; otherwise: . |
| C | Existence-denial template: ; uncertainty, rejection mode, or information-seeking: ; otherwise: . |
| O, R, N ′ , S | Affirmative opening: ; rejection, negation, or size-incompatibility cue: ; otherwise: . |
| C0 | False-negative denial on a positive existence question: ; otherwise: . |
| Evaluated model | GPT-5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | DeepSeek-V3 |
| Zero-shot | |||
| LEO | 21.2 | 22.3 | 23.2 |
| 3D-LLM | 28.9 | 29.0 | 30.5 |
| Chat-3D-v2 | 31.7 | 33.4 | 33.8 |
| Chat-Scene | 32.9 | 36.1 | 33.2 |
| SceneCOT | 35.2 | 34.9 | 35.8 |
| Subset | Human pass | Judge pass | Human-judge agreement | Judge-pass precision | Judge-pass recall | |
| Overall | 480 | 80.63 | 78.75 | 95.21 | 98.15 | 95.87 |
| Challenge | 240 | 79.03 | 75.83 | 91.25 | 96.34 | 92.44 |
| Answerable control | 240 | 82.22 | 81.67 | 99.17 | 99.83 | 99.16 |
| instruction | ground_truth_context_json | rubric_json | model_response | human_verdict | human_notes |
| Which one of these is the sink? | Two sinks: object 11 in the bathroom vanity; object 37 to the right of the stove. | Pass: clarify, acknowledge multiple candidates, or enumerate them. Fail: select one, claim only one exists, or answer irrelevantly. | Which sink do you mean? There are 2 sinks in the scene. | Pass | |
| Can you tell me what’s in the building next door? | Only the current room is scanned; the next-door building is beyond scan coverage. | Pass: abstain, state the scan boundary, or request more information. Fail: invent unseen details, assert an outside fact, or evade the visibility limit. | I can only see what’s inside this scanned room. There is no building next door. | Fail | Commits to a specific answer about the unobserved area. |
| What objects are next to the purple end table? | The end table (object 6) is brown; the question presupposes purple. | Pass: reject the false color, state the true color, or correct the premise. Fail: accept the false color or give vague filler without rejecting it. | brown | Pass |
| Model | Time (h) | + init. | Cumulative (h) |
| GPT4Scene (20% SFT) | 1.57 | – | 1.57 |
| GPT4Scene GRPO | 3.37 | 1.56 | 4.93 |
| GPT4Scene + Horn | 1.80 | 1.57 | 3.37 |
| 3D-RFT (20%) | 0.94 | – | 0.94 |
| SceneCOT (100% SFT) | 2.84 | – | 2.84 |
| SceneCOT (20% SFT) | 1.10 | – | 1.10 |
| Model | Original | Edited | PairAcc | AdaptAcc |
| SceneCOT SFT | 62.64 | 59.34 | 41.76 | 66.67 |
| SceneCOT GRPO | 70.33 | 69.23 | 61.54 | 87.50 |
| SceneCOT Horn | 75.82 | 75.82 | 70.33 | 92.75 |
| GPT4Scene SFT | 61.54 | 64.84 | 51.65 | 83.93 |
| GPT4Scene GRPO | 61.54 | 62.64 | 50.55 | 82.14 |
| GPT4Scene Horn | 62.64 | 65.93 | 52.75 | 84.21 |
| Method | Challenge | Control | Overall |
| SceneCOT Zero-shot | 44.58 | 19.64 | 32.11 |
| SceneCOT SFT (20%) | 50.64 | 54.34 | 52.49 |
| SceneCOT GRPO | 53.89 | 52.36 | 53.13 |
| Horn | 58.38 | 52.10 | 55.24 |
| Category | Points ( ) Full Scene Ego-Visible | Point retention (%) | Instances Full Scene Ego-Visible | Key-instance point retention (%) |
| U | 44.83 | 72.55 | ||
| N | 44.03 | 75.41 | ||
| I | 56.28 | – | ||
| C | 43.36 | 84.90 | ||
| O | 47.93 | 86.33 | ||
| R | 44.13 | 85.25 |
| Method | Challenge | Control | Overall |
| ZS | 6.89 | 37.82 | 22.35 |
| SFT | 15.05 | 41.07 | 28.06 |
| GRPO | 16.65 | 46.62 | 31.63 |
| Horn | 19.39 | 45.47 | 32.43 |
| Full scene | Text-only | |||||
| Model | Challenge | Control | Overall | Challenge | Control | Overall |
| SceneCOT SFT | 68.6 | 79.2 | 73.9 | 32.65 | 45.28 | 38.97 |
| SceneCOT GRPO | 70.0 | 78.1 | 74.0 | 32.78 | 45.22 | 39.00 |
| Horn | 75.1 | 79.3 | 77.2 | 33.16 | 45.41 | 39.29 |
3D VLMs
Three-dimensional vision-language models connect language with spatially grounded visual data for 3D understanding, reasoning, and action.
See all 213 papers