Spatial reasoning requires more than access to geometric tools: a reasoner must decide when direct observation is sufficient and when to reconstruct, measure, or change reference frames. We present SpatialBrain, a framework that retains experience about these decisions while keeping its vision-language backbone fixed. The key distinction is between evidence about a scene and experience about how to reason with that evidence. 3DFusionMemory fuses current-scene observations into queryable spatial relations. A Spatial Skill Library provides reusable tool procedures, and Spatial Cognition associates task conditions with experience about when and how to use memory and skills. Completed trajectories are abstracted into process records and consolidated between task blocks, allowing later decisions to draw on earlier execution without transferring scene coordinates or reference answers. Across five spatial-reasoning benchmarks, SpatialBrain improves on direct answers from the same backbone on four and ties on the fifth. Component comparisons, experience-coverage curves, and traced resource decisions characterize how the framework accumulates and uses these resources.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SpatialBrain: spatial reasoning with experience reuse. Spatial Cognition chooses how to use direct reasoning, spatial skills, and scene evidence. Completed trajectories update procedures and resource-use experience for later tasks; 3DFusionMemory is rebuilt for each scene. The scene is illustrative.
Figure 2: Self-evolution from earlier trajectories. (a) Initial reasoning leaves the reference frame unresolved. (b) Completed earlier trajectories are abstracted and consolidated between task blocks. (c) Accumulated experience guides memory access and skill selection for the same target. The trajectories and outcomes are illustrative.
Figure 3: Multi-view observations become spatial relations. Three of six input views, a saved fused 3D scene, and view support for five estimated object nodes. Colors link identities. The RGB surface uses saved depth and camera poses; edges show unambiguous stored relations. Labels give stored directions and 3D measurements derived from object centers. Coordinates use A as origin and reconstruction-world axes; lengths are in units of d0=∣AB∣ , not meters.
Method
MMSI
MindCube
OmniSp.
SpaceDG
SAT
Avg
Foundation VLMs
Gemini-2.5-Pro
36.9
57.5
55.2
47.2
79.3
55.2
Qwen3-VL-8B [ 2 ]
27.4
43.4
51.5
43.1
74.7
48.0
GPT-5.5
51.0
74.3
67.8
57.5
84.7
67.1
GPT-5.6-sol
53.8
67.2
68.3
56.9
91.3
67.5
Training-based Spatial VLMs
Table 1: Spatial reasoning performance across five benchmarks. Scores are percentages; higher is better. Our SpaceDG evaluations use a 1,000-question subset. Avg is the unweighted mean across benchmarks. Bold marks the best displayed score; dashes indicate unavailable results. Evaluation settings are given in Appendix A .
Figure 4: Errors by task type and reasoning demand. All 1,050 MindCube and 1,000 MMSI items. (a) Direct GPT-5.6-sol and SpatialBrain by official category. (b) Input-derived categories for the same pair and component configurations, all using GPT-5.6-sol. Radii show pooled error rates (0–80%). Appendix B.3 gives the mapping, counts, and within-study comparisons.
Figure 5: Memory-grounded reference-frame reasoning. Saved 3D anchors are shown on an RGB cutaway of the reconstructed scene. The planner sees the memory atlas with single-view support flags; a tool verifies the stair-relative direction. Coordinates use reconstruction units. Full trajectory: Appendix C.1 .
Figure 6: MindCube component comparison. Accuracy overall and by task category on 1,050 items. The y-axis starts at 40%. Evaluation settings are given in Appendix A .
Figure 7: Test-time experience and seed-skill coverage. (a) Distinct task signatures with stored experience. (b) Distinct seed skills referenced by that experience. Each curve spans the benchmark’s full evaluation scope (Section 4.1 ).
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Factor
Setting
Applies to
Evaluation size
MMSI 1,000; MindCube 1,050; OmniSpatial 1,533; SpaceDG 1,000; SAT 150.
Our main-table evaluations
Metric
Accuracy (%); MRA for numeric SpaceDG questions.
Our scored comparisons
Option order
Fixed question-option order, without circular evaluation.
Our SAT evaluations
Backbone
GPT-5.6-sol.
Direct / SpatialBrain pair
Reference answers
Excluded from agent inputs and experience updates; predictions fixed before scoring.
Our agent evaluations
Unanswered items
Retained in the denominator and counted as wrong, including refusals.
Component comparisons
Appendix
Table A1 : Evaluation settings. The final column specifies which comparisons share each setting. Published baselines follow their original protocols.
Figure A1 : Stored spatial evidence across benchmarks. (a) Tasks with 3D objects or relations. (b) Snapshot availability and 3D-object presence. Coverage measures stored state, not retrieval or answer correctness.
Category
MindCube
MMSI
Pooled
Relations
178/98 (459)
279/247 (574)
457/345 (1,033)
Motion/rotation
117/7 (405)
64/63 (163)
181/70 (568)
Sequential reasoning
46/25 (153)
51/56 (113)
97/81 (266)
Measurement
—
49/44 (112)
49/44 (112)
Other attributes/actions
3/0 (33)
19/19 (38)
22/19 (71)
Appendix
Table A2: Errors within input-derived categories. Top: Direct/SpatialBrain wrong-answer counts, with category size in parentheses. Bottom: pooled error rates (%) for all radar curves. Each method uses the same 2,050 items and fixed category assignment.
Figure A2 : MMSI component errors by task family. Earlier component configurations on all 1,000 items. Bars count wrong answers, including unanswered questions. The four families partition the evaluation set; configuration and answer-availability differences are detailed in Appendix A .
Figure A3 : MMSI errors by task type. Direct GPT-5.6-sol answers and SpatialBrain on all 1,000 items. Each rate divides wrong answers by the number of items in that type. Lower is better.
Spatial reasoning agents can inspect tool outputs and repair errors, but reusing these lessons requires preserving both the computation and the conditions that make it valid. We introduce EvoSpatial, a framework that learns from execution experience by updating a library of linked skills and tools. Skills describe procedures, geometric assumptions, and verification steps; tools implement the operations those procedures require. When solving a task, the agent retrieves relevant skills and synthesizes reusable computational functions if existing tools are insufficient. After each task, execution feedback and evidence checks guide skill revision and tool consolidation, without ground-truth answers or benchmark scores. Across 20 benchmarks, EvoSpatial averages 63.9, 4.0 percentage points above the average reported by SpatialClaw. The evolved library also improves held-out and cross-benchmark performance when updates are disabled, and trajectories generated with evolved skills improve supervised fine-tuning, even without external skills at evaluation. Keeping checked procedures on record, together with the tools that support them, lets an agent carry spatial reasoning experience from one task to the next.
Bin Yu, Shijie Lian, Zhaolong Shen +10
Harbin Institute of Technology · Zhongguancun Academy · DeepCybo +5
Cross-view spatial reasoning requires a model to align different viewpoints into a coherent spatial representation, yet this ability remains challenging for vision-language models despite being natural to humans. Existing methods typically improve spatial reasoning by updating model weights, which keeps the acquired knowledge implicit and tied to a specific backbone. We propose SpatialSkill, a weight-update-free framework that enables a frozen vision-language model to accumulate explicit natural-language reasoning skills from offline trajectories. Unlike symbolic tasks, perceptual skills cannot be reliably verified simply by executing them: a plausible spatial rule may lack visual support or require transformations that the frozen model cannot perform. SpatialSkill therefore admits candidate skills only after visual-grounding and executability checks, constrains manual evolution to prevent harmful regressions, and routes skills by spatial-reasoning category to reduce negative transfer. On CityCube, across four frozen executors, SpatialSkill yields consistent gains, and a 9B executor equipped with SpatialSkill surpasses the strongest closed-source reference in our evaluation. The skills are stored in a versioned natural-language manual, making the reasoning strategies explicit and auditable without modifying model parameters. Code at https://github.com/vindahi/SpatialSkill.
Ruifan Zuo, Guocheng Hu, Wanshui Gan +3
Shandong University · Shanghai AI Laboratory · Zhiyang Innovation Co., Ltd.
Large vision-language models have achieved strong performance in multimodal reasoning, but they remain unreliable on fine-grained spatial tasks that demand both precise spatial perception and fine-grained geometric computation beyond end-to-end generation. Tool augmentation offers a natural solution, while existing methods either plan tool calls from scratch without explicit dependency constraints or rely on fixed pipelines that are redundant and generalize poorly across spatial tasks. An effective spatial reasoning agent should instead accumulate reusable experience and adaptively compose it for new problems. To this end, we propose NeSy-Spatial, a neuro-symbolic framework for self-evolving spatial skills. NeSy-Spatial abstracts tool interactions and geometric operations into typed executable atomic instructions and composes them into two complementary skill types: Tool-Use Skills for organizing tool execution and Geometry Skills for structured geometric reasoning. During inference, NeSy-Spatial retrieves and executes relevant skills in a closed-loop process. During evolution, it analyzes buffered successful and failed trajectories to refine skill structures and prune unreliable or inactive entries. Experiments on three spatial reasoning benchmarks show that NeSy-Spatial consistently improves reasoning accuracy with more precise tool utilization.
Shi-Yu Tian, Zhuo-Xia Wang, Xuan-Yi Zhu +6
National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University, China · College of Computer Science, Sichuan University