Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Sparse multi-view reasoning is still near chance for current VLMs; grounding each thought step in visible boxes lifts performance and transfers to real data.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 23:41 UTC pith:QLDFN4D7

load-bearing objection Solid systems paper: sparse multi-view is still near chance, grounded CoT helps and transfers on MCQ, but multi-hop still does not scale and MindCube is a soft real-world check. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.16506 v2 pith:QLDFN4D7 submitted 2026-03-17 cs.CV

VIEW2SPACE: Studying Multi-View Visual Reasoning from Sparse Observations

Fucai Ke , Zhixi Cai , Boying Li , Long Chen , Beibei Lin , Weiqing Wang , Pari Delir Haghighi , Gholamreza Haffari
show 1 more author
Hamid Rezatofighi
This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords multi-view visual reasoningsparse viewpointsspatial reasoningvision-language modelsgrounded chain-of-thoughtsynthetic-to-real transferVIEW2SPACEvisual grounding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Real-world spatial understanding often depends on sparse, discrete viewpoints rather than a single image or a continuous video. The authors argue that this regime is understudied because real multi-view data with precise geometry is hard to collect at scale. They therefore build a physics-based 3D data engine that renders diverse scenes with exact per-view boxes, occlusions, and relations, and from it construct VIEW2SPACE: a graded benchmark of multiple-choice, counting, and grounding questions that force cross-view inference. On that benchmark most open and closed models sit near random, especially once answers must be localized rather than guessed. Supervised training with a Grounded Chain-of-Thought that forces intermediate steps to name the relevant boxes improves results under moderate difficulty and, without further fine-tuning, beats prior models on a real multi-view set. Scaling data and model size helps when objects remain visible, but deep multi-hop composition across sparse views stays hard.

Core claim

Current vision-language models largely fail at sparse multi-view spatial reasoning on VIEW2SPACE, yet training with Grounded Chain-of-Thought with Visual Evidence produces large gains under moderate difficulty and transfers to real multi-view data, while high-hop compositional reasoning remains a structural limit even as data and model size grow.

What carries the argument

Grounded Chain-of-Thought with Visual Evidence: a training regime in which each intermediate reasoning step must cite the 2D bounding box of the relevant object in the relevant view, tying the language chain to engine-verified geometry instead of free-form text.

Load-bearing premise

That success on the simulated scenes and the reported transfer to real images measure genuine sparse multi-view reasoning rather than regularities specific to the physics engine and its curated assets.

What would settle it

Train the same Grounded CoT recipe on VIEW2SPACE, then evaluate on a real multi-view set that requires explicit localization of occluded or multi-hop targets (not only multiple-choice); if accuracy collapses to near chance while synthetic scores stay high, the transfer claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that sparse multi-view visual reasoning—integrating partial RGB observations across discrete, heterogeneous viewpoints—is largely unsolved for current VLMs, and that it can be studied at scale via a physically grounded Blender data engine. From this engine the authors release VIEW2SPACE (evaluation split VIEW2SPACE-v1 with MCQ/counting/detection under graded hop-based difficulty and visibility constraints) plus a disjoint 300K training split with deterministic geometry-derived supervision. Comprehensive evaluation (open MLLMs, spatial specialists, GPT family, random/frequency baselines, human upper bounds) shows most models near chance, especially under grounding. Supervised fine-tuning of Qwen3-VL-4B with Grounded Chain-of-Thought with Visual Evidence yields large gains on VIEW2SPACE (e.g., detection mIoU 69.34 vs 47.58 instruction-tuning) and zero-shot transfer to MindCube-Tiny (+9.24% absolute over official MindCube checkpoints). Difficulty-aware scaling (2B/4B, 1K–300K) indicates perceptual gains under sufficient visibility but poor scaling for deep multi-hop compositional reasoning.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial systems and empirical contribution for multi-view spatial intelligence: a controllable PE-annotated multi-view engine, a multi-task sparse-view benchmark with stricter evidence constraints than prior MCQ-only multi-view sets, a clean geometry-derived grounded-CoT training recipe, and a difficulty-stratified scaling study that separates visibility-limited perception from compositional multi-hop failure. Strengths include deterministic non-LLM answer generation, held-out scenes, human upper bounds (Table 5), thinking vs direct ablations (Table 4), three SFT variants on the same 300K set (Table 1), and external MindCube evaluation (Table 2). These make the negative result (near-chance SOTA) and the moderate-difficulty training gains falsifiable and useful to the community, even if deep multi-view reasoning remains open.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2 / Table 2] The abstract, contributions list, and §5.2 frame MindCube zero-shot gains as evidence that VIEW2SPACE training teaches sparse multi-view spatial reasoning that transfers to real data. Table 2 reports +9.24% absolute over MindCube-Plain, but the paper itself states MindCube often encodes inter-view relations in language, uses limited human-centric viewpoints, simpler relations, and only MCQ (no grounding). VIEW2SPACE supervision is dense geometry-derived CoT with explicit 2D boxes (§3 Stage 4, Appendix G). Success on MindCube is therefore consistent with improved multi-image MCQ / language-mediated spatial priors rather than the harder capability the benchmark targets (cross-view geometric alignment under sparse heterogeneous RGB views with strict grounding). Either add a real multi-view grounding transfer evaluation, or substantially qualify the transfer claim so it does not underwrite t
  2. [§5.3 / Fig. 4 / Appendix D] Scaling conclusions in §5.3 and Fig. 4 rest on a hop-count + log2(N) difficulty proxy (§4.1, Appendix D) and isolation cuts (visibility <0.5 for reasoning curves; reasoning difficulty <6 for visibility curves). The paper acknowledges the metric is noisy (e.g., one-hop rotation vs one-hop relation). Because the central claim that “deep compositional reasoning … remains a fundamental challenge” while “geometric perception can benefit from scaling” is drawn from these stratified curves, the manuscript needs either (i) sensitivity analysis under alternative difficulty definitions, or (ii) clearer separation of metric-dependent vs metric-robust findings. Without that, the structural-limitation interpretation risks over-reading an approximate difficulty axis.
  3. [§4.1–4.2 / Table 1] VIEW2SPACE-v1 is deliberately skewed toward lower difficulty (§4.1–4.2: “relatively higher proportion of lower-difficulty cases”; 3,591 questions). Aggregate Table 1 numbers (including the large Grounded-CoT gains) therefore mix perceptual/low-hop success with multi-hop failure. The paper’s own scaling analysis shows diminishing returns as hop complexity rises. For the claim that training “substantially improves performance under moderate difficulty” while deep reasoning remains unsolved, report primary metrics stratified by reasoning and visibility difficulty for the SFT models in the main text (not only appendix dense plots), so readers cannot over-read overall mIoU/ACC as solving sparse multi-view reasoning.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1 “Ours (Grounded CoT, Direct Answer at Test)” shows a large drop vs full Grounded CoT; a short discussion of whether test-time visual-evidence emission is required for the gains would clarify deployment implications.
  2. [§3 / §4.1] Relation discretization uses |cos θ|<0.1 (ε=0.1) and F1 uses IoU>50%; state these thresholds once in the main evaluation section for reproducibility.
  3. [Appendix A / Table 3] Appendix Table 3 comparison is helpful; ensure venue/year labels and “Sparse/FFR/R-scale” columns are defined consistently with the main text claims about prior multi-view work (InternSpatial, MindCube).
  4. [Fig. 4] Several figure captions (e.g., Fig. 4, Fig. 11–12) refer to dense empirical dots “in the appendix”; if space allows, one main-text panel with raw points would aid inspection of fit quality.
  5. [Throughout] Minor wording/typos: “RoBobrain” vs “RoboBrain” inconsistency; “ho” labels in Fig. 3; occasional missing spaces in compound words in the compiled text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: engine-grounded supervision and held-out/external evaluation are independent of model outputs

full rationale

VIEW2SPACE is an empirical benchmark-and-training paper, not a first-principles derivation. QA answers, CoT traces, and visual-evidence boxes are produced deterministically from Blender geometry and ray-cast visibility (Stage 4 / §B.4 / §G), not fitted to any model’s predictions; the training signal is therefore not circular by construction. Evaluation uses a scene-disjoint VIEW2SPACE-v1 split and the external real-world MindCube benchmark without MindCube fine-tuning (Table 2). Difficulty labels (hop count + log N, visibility via ray casting) are diagnostic axes for scaling plots, not quantities that the model is claimed to “predict” after being fitted to them. There is no self-definitional loop, no fitted parameter re-labeled as a prediction, no load-bearing uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled via self-citation. Standard self-citations of prior VLMs/benchmarks are ordinary related-work references and do not force the central empirical claims. Concerns about synthetic shortcuts or whether MindCube MCQ transfer fully validates sparse multi-view grounding are validity/generalization issues, not circularity of the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on standard VLM SFT practice plus domain assumptions that synthetic PE-grounded multi-view QA is a valid proxy for real sparse-view reasoning, and that hop/visibility metrics approximate true difficulty. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters are ordinary training and metric thresholds, not constants fitted to invent the main result.

free parameters (4)
  • SFT hyperparameters (LR 3e-5, 2 epochs, batch 2, grad accum 32, warmup 0.05)
    Standard training knobs that affect absolute fine-tuned scores; not derived from theory.
  • Visibility difficulty threshold ~0.7 and reasoning-difficulty isolation cutoffs (<0.5 visibility; <6 reasoning)
    Analysis cutoffs used to separate scaling regimes in §5.3 / Fig. 4; chosen for diagnostic plots.
  • Relation discretization epsilon |cos θ|<0.1 and IoU>0.5 F1 threshold
    Metric/geometry discretization choices that define labels and detection success.
  • VIEW2SPACE-v1 sampling (3,591 Qs balanced toward lower difficulty)
    Evaluation subset design affects reported absolute accuracies and cost trade-offs.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Physically based Blender rendering with curated real-scale assets yields multi-view RGB+metadata that transfers to real sparse-view reasoning.
    Load-bearing for both benchmark validity and synthetic-to-real claims (§3, §5.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Minimal hop count on per-view object–relation graphs plus log2(N) combinatorial term is a useful difficulty proxy.
    Defines graded difficulty and scaling axes; authors note residual noise (Appendix D).
  • domain assumption Deterministic geometric rules produce correct QA and grounded CoT without generative label noise.
    Core of the data engine’s supervision quality claim (§3 Stage 4).
  • domain assumption Full-parameter SFT of Qwen3-VL with explicit box evidence is a fair test of whether training can close the multi-view gap.
    Training section §5.1; alternative RL/search methods not compared.
  • standard math Standard accuracy/MAE/mIoU/F1 and random/frequency baselines are appropriate for MCQ/count/detection.
    Conventional evaluation metrics in VQA/detection.
invented entities (2)
  • VIEW2SPACE data engine and benchmark (incl. OSD-Tag pipeline) no independent evidence
    purpose: Scalable generation of sparse multi-view scenes, metadata, and grounded QA/CoT supervision.
    Primary artifact; independent evidence is the released split and transfer experiments once public, not a physical particle.
  • Grounded Chain-of-Thought with Visual Evidence no independent evidence
    purpose: Force intermediate reasoning steps to emit view-specific object boxes, reducing ungrounded linguistic shortcuts.
    Training method; evidence is ablation gains on VIEW2SPACE and MindCube transfer, not external physics.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 29927 in / 3633 out tokens · 34655 ms · 2026-07-13T23:41:41.449437+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Multi-view visual reasoning is essential for intelligent systems that must understand complex environments from sparse and discrete viewpoints, yet existing research has largely focused on single-image or temporally dense video settings. In real-world scenarios, reasoning across views requires integrating partial observations without explicit guidance, while collecting large-scale multi-view data with accurate geometric and semantic annotations remains challenging. To address this gap, we leverage physically grounded simulation to construct diverse, high-fidelity 3D scenes with precise per-view metadata, enabling scalable data generation that remains transferable to real-world settings. Based on this engine, we introduce VIEW2SPACE, a multi-dimensional benchmark for sparse multi-view reasoning, together with a scalable, disjoint training split supporting millions of grounded question-answer pairs. Using this benchmark, a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art vision-language and spatial models reveals that multi-view reasoning remains largely unsolved, with most models performing only marginally above random guessing. We further investigate whether training can bridge this gap. Our proposed Grounded Chain-of-Thought with Visual Evidence substantially improves performance under moderate difficulty, and generalizes to real-world data, outperforming existing approaches in cross-dataset evaluation. We further conduct difficulty-aware scaling analyses across model size, data scale, reasoning depth, and visibility constraints, indicating that while geometric perception can benefit from scaling under sufficient visibility, deep compositional reasoning across sparse views remains a fundamental challenge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.16506 by Beibei Lin, Boying Li, Fucai Ke, Gholamreza Haffari, Hamid Rezatofighi, Long Chen, Pari Delir Haghighi, Weiqing Wang, Zhixi Cai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A single glance is often insufficient for completing real-world tasks. Humans nat￾urally integrate observations across sparse viewpoints to form a shared spatial under￾standing. Given heterogeneous views (e.g., robotic dog and drone), one can efficiently align what different agents observe and reason across sparse viewpoints. from sparse, discrete viewpoints, whether acquired by a single observer across lo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the multi-view data engine. Stage 1: Assets are collected, catego￾rized, and size-normalized, and annotated using OSD-Tag with verification. Stage 2: Given theme configurations defining asset categories and spatial relations, scenes are synthesized by sampling layouts under compositional constraints. Stage 3: Multi-view images are rendered together with physics-based metadata. Stage 4: Spatial … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of VIEW2SPACE task design. VIEW2SPACE comprises three task types: MCQ, counting, and visual grounding detection. Reasoning difficulty ranges from one-hop perceptual queries to multi-hop cross-view spatial reasoning. Multi-View Rendering and Metadata Extraction. To support the di￾verse requirements of benchmarking, diagnostic analysis, and model training, we design a set of four canonical viewpoint… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scaling Behaviour across Reasoning and Key-Object Visibility Difficulty (see Sec. 4.1). Each subplot plots mIoU versus task difficulty. Each curve corresponds to a specific dataset size, fitted over the averaged performance at each difficulty level (aggregated across multiple samples and weighted accordingly). The dense empirical dot plots and detailed results are provided in the appendix. extend far beyon… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of VIEW2SPACE Scene Thematic Categories and further improving the scalability and automation of the data generation process. B.2 Overview-driven Semantic Differentiation and Tagging (OSD-Tag) In this subsection, we introduce our annotation and tagging pipeline for 3D assets, which is designed to capture both shared attributes and fine-grained distinctions among visually and semantically similar as… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pipeline of Overview-driven Semantic Differentiation and Tagging – Hierarchical richness. Each asset is annotated with a sufficiently rich set of hierarchical semantic tags, enabling a structured description of its properties at multiple levels of abstraction. – Cross-asset consistency. Tags used to describe one asset are carefully verified for transferability to other semantically related assets, ensuring… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Verify Comparison Keys: check comparison keys across objects within a category; (b) Verify Tag Libraries: check the completeness of the tag library; (c) Verify Tag Assignment: check whether tags are correctly assigned. sufficiently rich and expressive annotations across the asset set, as illustrated in the “Tag Libraries” component of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: For each RGB image (a), a high-resolution mesh (b) and the corresponding depth map (c) are provided, from which instance occlusion-aware 2D/3D bounding boxes (d/e) and segmentation masks (f) can be readily derived. Finally, all generated annotations undergo a rigorous three-step manual ver￾ification process ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Answer Distribution and Statistical Analysis of View2Space-V1 The word cloud in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Sample of training data - 1 If desired, visual evidence can be further converted into alternative represen￾tations such as object centre coordinates or segmentation masks. In this work, we adopt 2D bounding boxes as the grounding supervision, which already yields strong empirical performance. We provide qualitative examples below to illus￾trate the structure of the generated supervision. H Supervised Fine… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Scaling behavior of Qwen3-VL-2B and Qwen3-VL-4B under Grounded Chain￾of-Thought with Visual Evidence training on VIEW2SPACE. Performance is reported across increasing training data sizes (1k–300k) for count (accuracy), MCQ (accuracy), and detection (mIoU) tasks. While both models benefit from additional data, MCQ performance exhibits diminishing returns beyond 100k samples—particularly for the 4B model—wh… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Scaling behaviour across dataset size and difficulty. Each subplot reports mIoU. Empirical data points over dataset sizes (2B and 4B) are shown here. I.1 Scaling Behavior Across Visibility Difficulty Scaling data and model size improves performance across a broad range of vis￾ibility difficulty. Accuracy declines gradually as visibility decreases, indicating that current models can learn effective geometr… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Samples of counting task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Samples of multiple choice questioning tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Sample of detection tasks - 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Sample of detection tasks - 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Sample of detection tasks - 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Sample of detection tasks - 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Sample of detection tasks - 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Sample of detection tasks - 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_20.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. GlowGS: Generative Semantic Feature Learning for 3D Gaussian Splatting in Nighttime Glow Scenes

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    GlowGS improves 3D Gaussian Splatting in nighttime glow scenes via semantic feature generation from diffusion models and novel-view semantic learning with vision foundation models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 18 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631 (2025)

    Bai, S., Cai, Y., Chen, R., Chen, K., Chen, X., Cheng, Z., Deng, L., Ding, W., Gao, C., Ge, C., Ge, W., Guo, Z., Huang, Q., Huang, J., Huang, F., Hui, B., Jiang, S., Li, Z., Li, M., Li, M., Li, K., Lin, Z., Lin, J., Liu, X., Liu, J., Liu, C., Liu, Y., Liu, D., Liu, S., Lu, D., Luo, R., Lv, C., Men, R., Meng, L., Ren, X., Ren, X., Song, S., Sun, Y., Tang, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    5-vl technical report

    Bai, S., Chen, K., Liu, X., Wang, J., Ge, W., Song, S., Dang, K., Wang, P., Wang, S., Tang, J., et al.: Qwen2. 5-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07403 (2025)

    Batra, H., Tu, H., Chen, H., Lin, Y., Xie, C., Clark, R.: Spatialthinker: Re- inforcing 3d reasoning in multimodal llms via spatial rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07403 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings oftheIEEE/CVFConferenceonComputerVisionandPatternRecog- nition

    Chen, B., Xu, Z., Kirmani, S., Ichter, B., Sadigh, D., Guibas, L., Xia, F.: Spa- tialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities. In: Proceedings oftheIEEE/CVFConferenceonComputerVisionandPatternRecog- nition. pp. 14455–14465 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.18563 (2025)

    Chen, Q., Zhang, C., Fu, C.W., Ye, J., Cai, J.: Openview: Empowering mllms with out-of-view vqa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.18563 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01773 (2025)

    Chen, S., Zhu, T., Zhou, R., Zhang, J., Gao, S., Niebles, J.C., Geva, M., He, J., Wu, J., Li, M.: Why is spatial reasoning hard for vlms? an attention mechanism perspective on focus areas. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01773 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Chen, S., Chen, X., Zhang, C., Li, M., Yu, G., Fei, H., Zhu, H., Fan, J., Chen, T.: Ll3da: Visual interactive instruction tuning for omni-3d understanding reasoning and planning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 26428–26438 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05271 (2024)

    Chen, Z., Wang, W., Cao, Y., Liu, Y., Gao, Z., Cui, E., Zhu, J., Ye, S., Tian, H., Liu, Z., et al.: Expanding performance boundaries of open-source multimodal models with model, data, and test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05271 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Chen, Z., Wu, J., Wang, W., Su, W., Chen, G., Xing, S., Zhong, M., Zhang, Q., Zhu, X., Lu, L., et al.: Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 24185–24198 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 135062–135093 (2024)

    Cheng, A.C., Yin, H., Fu, Y., Guo, Q., Yang, R., Kautz, J., Wang, X., Liu, S.: Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision-language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 135062–135093 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10611 (2026)

    Clark, C., Zhang, J., Ma, Z., Park, J.S., Salehi, M., Tripathi, R., Lee, S., Ren, Z., Kim, C.D., Yang, Y., et al.: Molmo2: Open weights and data for vision-language models with video understanding and grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10611 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Blender Foun- dation, Blender Institute, Amsterdam (2018)

    Community, B.O.: Blender-a 3D modelling and rendering package. Blender Foun- dation, Blender Institute, Amsterdam (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Deitke, M., Clark, C., Lee, S., Tripathi, R., Yang, Y., Park, J.S., Salehi, M., Muen- nighoff, N., Lo, K., Soldaini, L., et al.: Molmo and pixmo: Open weights and open data for state-of-the-art vision-language models. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 91–104 (2025) VIEW2SPACE 41

    2025

  14. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18385 (2025)

    Deng, N., Gu, L., Ye, S., He, Y., Chen, Z., Li, S., Wang, H., Wei, X., Yang, T., Dou, M., et al.: Internspatial: A comprehensive dataset for spatial reasoning in vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18385 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Fu, X., Hu, Y., Li, B., Feng, Y., Wang, H., Lin, X., Roth, D., Smith, N.A., Ma, W.C., Krishna, R.: Blink: Multimodal large language models can see but not per- ceive. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 148–166. Springer (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    MIT press (2004)

    Gardenfors, P.: Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. MIT press (2004)

    2004

  17. [17]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters3(3), 1687–1694 (2018)

    Gawel, A., Del Don, C., Siegwart, R., Nieto, J., Cadena, C.: X-view: Graph-based semantic multi-view localization. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters3(3), 1687–1694 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems23(8), 12572–12587 (2021)

    Ge, H., Gao, D., Sun, L., Hou, Y., Yu, C., Wang, Y., Tan, G.: Multi-agent trans- fer reinforcement learning with multi-view encoder for adaptive traffic signal con- trol. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems23(8), 12572–12587 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06266 (2025)

    Gholami, M., Rezaei, A., Weimin, Z., Mao, S., Zhou, S., Zhang, Y., Akbari, M.: Spatial reasoning with vision-language models in ego-centric multi-view scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06266 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Hong, Y., Lin, C., Du, Y., Chen, Z., Tenenbaum, J.B., Gan, C.: 3d concept learning and reasoning from multi-view images. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 9202–9212 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12871 (2023)

    Huang, J., Yong, S., Ma, X., Linghu, X., Li, P., Wang, Y., Li, Q., Zhu, S.C., Jia, B., Huang, S.: An embodied generalist agent in 3d world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12871 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23478 (2025)

    Huang, T., Zhang, Z., Tang, H.: 3d-r1: Enhancing reasoning in 3d vlms for unified scene understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23478 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 (2024)

    Hurst, A., Lerer, A., Goucher, A.P., Perelman, A., Ramesh, A., Clark, A., Os- trow, A., Welihinda, A., Hayes, A., Radford, A., et al.: Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Ji, Y., Tan, H., Shi, J., Hao, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Wang, P., Zhao, M., Mu, Y., An, P., et al.: Robobrain: A unified brain model for robotic manipulation from abstract to concrete. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 1724–1734 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    In: The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2026), https://openreview.net/forum?id=6nZKT2rL0H

    Jia, M., Qi, Z., Zhang, S., Zhang, W., Yu, X., He, J., Wang, H., Yi, L.: Omnispatial: Towards comprehensive spatial reasoning benchmark for vision language models. In: The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (2026), https://openreview.net/forum?id=6nZKT2rL0H

    2026

  26. [26]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research(2024)

    Jiang, D., He, X., Zeng, H., Wei, C., Ku, M., Liu, Q., Chen, W.: Mantis: Interleaved multi-image instruction tuning. Transactions on Machine Learning Research(2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025

    Kim, Y., Abdulle, Y., Wu, H.: Biohopr: A benchmark for multi-hop, multi-answer reasoning in biomedical domain. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025. pp. 12894–12908 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    In: Inter- national Semantic Web Conference

    Koner, R., Li, H., Hildebrandt, M., Das, D., Tresp, V., Günnemann, S.: Graph- hopper: Multi-hop scene graph reasoning for visual question answering. In: Inter- national Semantic Web Conference. pp. 111–127. Springer (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Laurençon, H., Tronchon, L., Cord, M., Sanh, V.: What matters when building vision-language models? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 87874–87907 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17207 (2025) 42 F

    Lee, P.Y., Je, J., Park, C., Uy, M.A., Guibas, L., Sung, M.: Perspective-aware reasoning in vision-language models via mental imagery simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17207 (2025) 42 F. Ke et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics11, 635–651 (2023)

    Liu, F., Emerson, G., Collier, N.: Visual spatial reasoning. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics11, 635–651 (2023)

    2023

  32. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05525 (2024)

    Lu, H., Liu, W., Zhang, B., Wang, B., Dong, K., Liu, B., Sun, J., Ren, T., Li, Z., Yang, H., et al.: Deepseek-vl: towards real-world vision-language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05525 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Ma, W., Chen, H., Zhang, G., Chou, Y.C., Chen, J., de Melo, C., Yuille, A.: 3dsr- bench: A comprehensive 3d spatial reasoning benchmark. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 6924–6934 (2025)

    2025

  34. [35]

    In: Proceedings of the Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision

    Ma, Y., Ye, W., Cui, C., Zhang, H., Xing, S., Ke, F., Wang, J., Miao, C., Chen, J., Rezatofighi, H., et al.: Position: Prospective of autonomous driving-multimodal llms world models embodied intelligence ai alignment and mamba. In: Proceedings of the Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. pp. 1010–1026 (2025)

    2025

  35. [36]

    OpenAI: Introducing gpt-5.2.https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5- 2/(Dec 2025), accessed: 2025-12-30

    2025

  36. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15485 (2025)

    Pothiraj, A., Stengel-Eskin, E., Cho, J., Bansal, M.: Capture: Evaluating spatial reasoning in vision language models via occluded object counting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15485 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17349 (2025)

    Qi, J., Liu, J., Tang, H., Zhu, Z.: Beyond semantics: Rediscovering spatial aware- ness in vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17349 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  38. [39]

    Ramakrishnan, S.K., Wijmans, E., Kraehenbuehl, P., Koltun, V.: Does spatial cognition emerge in frontier models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06468 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267 (2025)

    Singh, A., Fry, A., Perelman, A., Tart, A., Ganesh, A., El-Kishky, A., McLaughlin, A., Low, A., Ostrow, A., Ananthram, A., et al.: Openai gpt-5 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [41]

    In: The First Workshop on Mul- timodal Knowledge and Language Modeling (2025)

    Tang, Y., Qu, A., Wang, Z., Zhuang, D., Wu, Z., Ma, W., Wang, S., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Z., Zhao, J.: Sparkle: Mastering basic spatial capabilities in vision language models elicits generalization to spatial reasoning. In: The First Workshop on Mul- timodal Knowledge and Language Modeling (2025)

    2025

  41. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02029 (2025)

    Team, B.R., Cao, M., Tan, H., Ji, Y., Chen, X., Lin, M., Li, Z., Cao, Z., Wang, P., Zhou, E., et al.: Robobrain 2.0 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02029 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786 (2025)

    Team, G., Kamath, A., Ferret, J., Pathak, S., Vieillard, N., Merhej, R., Perrin, S., Matejovicova, T., Ramé, A., Rivière, M., et al.: Gemma 3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23747 (2025)

    Wu, D., Liu, F., Hung, Y.H., Duan, Y.: Spatial-mllm: Boosting mllm capabilities in visual-based spatial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23747 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [46]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Yang, J., Yang, S., Gupta, A.W., Han, R., Fei-Fei, L., Xie, S.: Thinking in space: How multimodal large language models see, remember, and recall spaces. In: Pro- ceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 10632– 10643 (2025)

    2025

  45. [47]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Yang, J., Yang, S., Gupta, A.W., Han, R., Fei-Fei, L., Xie, S.: Thinking in space: How multimodal large language models see, remember, and recall spaces. In: Pro- ceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 10632– 10643 (2025) VIEW2SPACE 43

    2025

  46. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Yang, S., Li, G., Yu, Y.: Graph-structured referring expression reasoning in the wild. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 9952–9961 (2020)

    2020

  47. [49]

    Advances in neural information processing systems36, 11809–11822 (2023)

    Yao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T., Cao, Y., Narasimhan, K.: Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems36, 11809–11822 (2023)

    2023

  48. [50]

    In: Structural Priors for Vision Workshop at ICCV’25 (2025)

    Yin, B., Wang, Q., Zhang, P., Zhang, J., Wang, K., Wang, Z., Zhang, J., Chan- drasegaran, K., Liu, H., Krishna, R., et al.: Spatial mental modeling from limited views. In: Structural Priors for Vision Workshop at ICCV’25 (2025)

    2025

  49. [51]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20022 (2025)

    Yu, S., Lee, S., Kim, N., Shin, J., Park, J., Ryu, W., Jung, R., Shim, H.: Way- moqa: A multi-view visual question answering dataset for safety-critical reasoning in autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20022 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  50. [52]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11094 (2025)

    Zhang, W., Zhou, Z., Zheng, Z., Gao, C., Cui, J., Li, Y., Chen, X., Zhang, X.P.: Open3dvqa: A benchmark for comprehensive spatial reasoning with multimodal large language model in open space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11094 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  51. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18125 (2024)

    Zhu, C., Wang, T., Zhang, W., Pang, J., Liu, X.: Llava-3d: A simple yet effective pathway to empowering lmms with 3d-awareness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18125 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024