Vision-Language Models (VLMs) excel at 2D recognition but often fail to maintain consistent 3D relations across sparse viewpoints, leading to spatial hallucinations under occlusion and perspective changes. Existing methods commonly fuse all frames with dense geometry, incurring substantial computation and context overhead while encouraging blind reliance on imperfect estimators. We present Think-Capture, a query-conditioned framework that first identifies task-critical objects and then acquires their geometry on demand. A 3D toolkit lifts zero-shot masks into a common coordinate frame, and a Symbolic 3D State Abstraction compresses object and camera states into structured text. Hierarchical Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) trains the VLM on cases in which geometry either helps or misleads, teaching it when to use tool evidence and when to fall back on visual cues. Think-Capture-4B reaches 54.4% on MindCube-Tiny (+21.5 points over its backbone), 39.1% on the MMSI-Bench positional subset (+7.9), and 42.8% on ViewSpatial (+5.2). It also remains robust under coordinate and mask perturbations. The full stack fits one 24 GB GPU and serves as an asynchronous high-level reasoner on an Agibot G1. Our code is available at https://github.com/819346675/Think-Capture.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Spatial reasoning paradigms. (a) Passive methods fuse 2D and 3D features for every query. (b) Think-Capture first selects task-critical targets, acquires their geometry, and reasons jointly over visual tokens and explicit 3D state.
Figure 2: Think-Capture overview. Stage 1 selects query-relevant targets. SAM3 and π3 produce the object and camera state used with the images in Stage 2. In the training panel, the accuracy-branch labels denote racc , with +1/+2 for correct positive/negative examples (Sec. 3.4 ). The example annotations illustrate the interface.
Model
MindCube-Tiny
MMSI-Bench-Positional Relationship Subset
ViewSpatial
Among
Around
Rotation
Overall
Cam-Cam
Cam-Obj
Obj-Reg
Cam-Reg
Reg-Reg
Obj-Obj
Overall
Overall
Proprietary Models
GPT-4o
44.6
58.4
39.0
46.8
34.4
19.8
37.6
27.7
23.5
24.5
28.0
35.0
Gemini-2.5 Pro
40.2
56.7
84.3
52.5
39.7
45.3
35.2
43.3
39.5
31.9
39.0
43.6
Doubao-1.5
46.0
38.4
75.1
49.7
25.8
33.7
49.4
39.8
33.3
33.0
35.6
-
GLM-4.5V
44.1
23.5
46.9
39.7
38.7
30.2
40.0
39.8
29.6
35.1
35.6
-
Table 1: Comprehensive performance comparison on MindCube-Tiny, MMSI-Bench (Positional Relationship Subset), and ViewSpatial-Bench. Metrics are reported as accuracy (%). We grey out the proprietary models. The best performance among open-source models is highlighted in bold . The improvement of Think-Capture over the baseline ( Qwen3-VL-4B ) is shown in blue below the score.
Model setup
Clean
π3 coordinate noise
SAM3 mask dropout
0.2 m
0.4 m
15%
30%
Zero-shot tool use
39.9
32.8
26.7
37.2
36.2
w/o hierarchical GRPO
51.2
44.3
40.3
49.2
49.0
Think-Capture (full)
54.4
50.7
46.2
53.8
52.1
Table 2: Robustness to controlled tool perturbations on MindCube-Tiny (accuracy, %). Coordinate noise is zero-mean Gaussian perturbation of π3 outputs; mask noise randomly drops SAM3 foreground pixels. Hierarchical GRPO improves both clean accuracy and tolerance to corrupted evidence.
Size
MindCube
MMSI full
Base
Ours
Base
Ours
Qwen3-VL-2B
29.3
49.2 (+19.9)
25.8
34.7 (+8.9)
Qwen3-VL-4B
32.9
54.4 (+21.5)
28.9
38.9 (+10.0)
Qwen3-VL-8B
33.4
54.2 (+20.8)
29.6
38.4 (+8.8)
Table 3: Backbone scaling on MindCube-Tiny and full MMSI-Bench (accuracy, %). Parentheses give absolute gains over each matched backbone.
Stage-2 input
MindCube
MMSI full
ViewSpatial
2D boxes
36.9
31.8
37.9
Symbolic 3D state
54.4
38.9
42.8
Table 4: Matched visual-prompting control (accuracy, %). Both variants use the same Stage 1 target proposals and SAM3 masks.
Figure 3: Resolving egocentric spatial ambiguity on MindCube-Tiny. The baseline equates the background visible beyond the blue table with the observer’s rear and answers “sofa.” Think-Capture identifies the blue table as the facing anchor, relates the surrounding furniture in the common 3D frame, and correctly recovers the unseen seating bench behind the observer.
Base Model
TC
GRPO
Format
Tokens
Among
Around
Rotation
Overall
Qwen3-VL-4B
-
-
26.5
44.6
37.5
32.9
Qwen3-VL-4B
✓
-
-
28.9
41.2
36.4
33.3
Qwen3-VL-4B
✓
-
205
42.0
40.0
33.5
39.9
Qwen3-VL-4B
✓
✓
Unified
202
50.5
57.6
38.0
49.8
Qwen3-VL-4B
✓
✓
Template
100
57.6
54.1
45.0
54.4
Table 5: Ablation study on MindCube-Tiny. TC denotes Think-Capture; Tokens is the mean length of the 3D representation.
Figure 4: Cross-view perspective taking on MMSI-Bench. The baseline describes the mirror relative to the scene or to the wrong view and predicts “back left.” Think-Capture’s response uses the photographer-relative description and gives the correct front-left answer.
Figure 5: Real-world deployment on Agibot G1. Four snapshots show the initial observation, target approach, and medicine grasp. Think-Capture uses task-relevant symbolic geometry to supply a global waypoint to the high-frequency StarVLA motor policy.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Value
Base Model
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
Trainable Params
4,022M / 4,438M (vision encoder frozen)
Optimizer
AdamW
Learning Rate
5×10−7 , Cosine Schedule + 50-step Warmup
GRPO Configuration
Generations ( G )
8 per prompt
Appendix
Table S1 : Detailed hyperparameters for GRPO training.
Figure S1 : GRPO training dynamics: accuracy on positive/negative samples and mean reward.
Figure S2 : Training loss over the GRPO optimization trajectory.
Model setup
Clean
π3 noise
SAM3 noise
0.2 m
0.4 m
15%
30%
Zero-shot model
39.9
32.8
26.7
37.2
36.2
w/o hierarchical GRPO
51.2
44.3
40.3
49.2
49.0
Ours (full)
54.4
50.7
46.2
53.8
52.1
Appendix
Table S2 : Accuracy (%) under controlled tool perturbations on MindCube-Tiny.
Model size
MindCube-Tiny
MMSI full
Base
Ours
Base
Ours
Qwen3-VL-2B
29.3
49.2 (+19.9)
25.8
34.7 (+8.9)
Qwen3-VL-4B
32.9
54.4 (+21.5)
28.9
38.9 (+10.0)
Qwen3-VL-8B
33.4
54.2 (+20.8)
29.6
38.4 (+8.8)
Appendix
Table S3 : Backbone scaling on MindCube-Tiny and full MMSI-Bench. Parentheses show absolute gains over the corresponding base model.
Stage-2 input
MindCube
MMSI-Bench
ViewSpatial
2D boxes
36.9
31.8
37.9
Symbolic 3D state
54.4
38.9
42.8
Appendix
Table S4 : Comparison with 2D-box visual prompting (accuracy, %).
Stage
Component
Avg. Time
Description
Stage 1
Planner & Proposal
6.8s
VLM analyzes query & proposes targets
Tool
Geometry & Perception
3.1s
Parallel π3 + targeted SAM3
Stage 2
Spatial Reasoning
11.9s
CoT reasoning
Total
End-to-End
21.8s
Median: 20.4s
Appendix
Table S5 : Mean inference latency on MindCube-Tiny.
Despite rapid progress, most existing vision-language models (VLMs) built from 2D visual inputs often struggle when handling various 3D tasks that require fine-grained spatial understanding and reasoning. To bridge this gap, we present VLM-IE3D, a unified framework that enhances the 3D spatial awareness of VLMs by equipping them with both implicit and explicit 3D geometries learned from RGB videos. Our VLM-IE3D introduces Implicit Geometry Tokens (IGTs) that capture high-level geometric priors from input videos, as well as complementary Explicit Geometry Tokens (EGTs) that encode detailed geometric structures from reconstructed 3D attributes. On top of that, VLM-IE3D comes with a 3D-aware adapter that effectively fuses the two types of geometric representations with 2D visual cues. This RGB-only design injects strong 3D inductive biases for fine-grained spatial understanding and reasoning without requiring any additional 3D inputs. Extensive experiments show that VLM-IE3D achieves superior performance consistently across various 3D tasks including 3D video detection, 3D visual grounding, 3D dense captioning, and spatial reasoning. Code and models are available at https://github.com/Vegetebird/VLM-IE3D.
Wenhao Li, Xueying Jiang, Quanhao Qian +4
1Nanyang Technological University · 2DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group · 3HuPan Lab +1
We present GR3D, a spatial vision language model equipped with three complementary grounding capabilities--explicit 2D grounding, implicit 2D grounding, and monocular 3D grounding--within a single framework. GR3D introduces an implicit grounding mechanism that identifies entity mentions during generation and inserts the corresponding region tokens into the text stream, allowing the model to reference visual evidence on the fly when producing spatial chain-of-thought responses. In parallel, a region-prompted monocular 3D grounding design predicts 3D bounding boxes in the camera view from grounded region queries, supported by intrinsic-aware normalization and dense geometric supervision. Together, these grounding capabilities enable GR3D to decompose complex spatial understanding problems into grounded 2D perception followed by 3D inference. GR3D achieves consistent improvements across grounded and non-grounded spatial benchmarks, demonstrating grounding as an effective inductive bias for strengthening spatial understanding in VLMs. These grounding capabilities collectively enhance general spatial understanding beyond the grounding task itself.
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.