Skip to content
← Back to explorer

SpatiaLab: Can Vision-Language Models Perform Spatial Reasoning in the Wild?

Azmine Toushik Wasi, Wahid Faisal, Abdur Rahman, Mahfuz Ahmed Anik, Munem Shahriar, Mohsin Mahmud Topu, Sadia Tasnim Meem, Rahatun Nesa Priti, Sabrina Afroz Mitu, Md. Iqramul Hoque, Shahriyar Zaman Ridoy, Mohammed Eunus Ali, Majd Hawasly, Mohammad Raza, Md Rizwan Parvez · Feb 3, 2026 · Citations: 0

Abstract

Spatial reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human cognition, yet it remains a major challenge for contemporary vision-language models (VLMs). Prior work largely relied on synthetic or LLM-generated environments with limited task designs and puzzle-like setups, failing to capture the real-world complexity, visual noise, and diverse spatial relationships that VLMs encounter. To address this, we introduce SpatiaLab, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating VLMs' spatial reasoning in realistic, unconstrained contexts. SpatiaLab comprises 1,400 visual question-answer pairs across six major categories: Relative Positioning, Depth & Occlusion, Orientation, Size & Scale, Spatial Navigation, and 3D Geometry, each with five subcategories, yielding 30 distinct task types. Each subcategory contains at least 25 questions, and each main category includes at least 200 questions, supporting both multiple-choice and open-ended evaluation. Experiments across diverse state-of-the-art VLMs, including open- and closed-source models, reasoning-focused, and specialized spatial reasoning models, reveal a substantial gap in spatial reasoning capabilities compared with humans. In the multiple-choice setup, InternVL3.5-72B achieves 54.93% accuracy versus 87.57% for humans. In the open-ended setting, all models show a performance drop of around 10-25%, with GPT-5-mini scoring highest at 40.93% versus 64.93% for humans. These results highlight key limitations in handling complex spatial relationships, depth perception, navigation, and 3D geometry. By providing a diverse, real-world evaluation framework, SpatiaLab exposes critical challenges and opportunities for advancing VLMs' spatial reasoning, offering a benchmark to guide future research toward robust, human-aligned spatial understanding. SpatiaLab is available at: https://spatialab-reasoning.github.io/.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper has direct human-feedback and/or evaluation protocol signal and is likely useful for eval pipeline design.

Eval-Fit Score

25/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

High-confidence candidate

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Web Browsing
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.55
  • Flags: ambiguous, runtime_fallback_extraction

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

DROP

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

To address this, we introduce SpatiaLab, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating VLMs' spatial reasoning in realistic, unconstrained contexts. HFEPX signals include Automatic Metrics, Web Browsing with confidence 0.55. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 4, 2026, 9:23 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • To address this, we introduce SpatiaLab, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating VLMs' spatial reasoning in realistic, unconstrained contexts.
  • In the multiple-choice setup, InternVL3.5-72B achieves 54.93% accuracy versus 87.57% for humans.

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Cross-check benchmark overlap: DROP.
  • Validate metric comparability (accuracy).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To address this, we introduce SpatiaLab, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating VLMs' spatial reasoning in realistic, unconstrained contexts.
  • In the multiple-choice setup, InternVL3.5-72B achieves 54.93% accuracy versus 87.57% for humans.
  • In the open-ended setting, all models show a performance drop of around 10-25%, with GPT-5-mini scoring highest at 40.93% versus 64.93% for humans.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • To address this, we introduce SpatiaLab, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating VLMs' spatial reasoning in realistic, unconstrained contexts.
  • In the multiple-choice setup, InternVL3.5-72B achieves 54.93% accuracy versus 87.57% for humans.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: DROP

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.