Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 cited by

Do Vision-Language Models Represent Space and How? Evaluating Spatial Frame of Reference Under Ambiguities

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.17385 v2 pith:76FHTYSG submitted 2024-10-22 cs.CL cs.CV

classification cs.CLcs.CV
keywords modelsspatialvlmsambiguitiesreasoningreferencevision-languageambiguous
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Spatial expressions in situated communication can be ambiguous, as their meanings vary depending on the frames of reference (FoR) adopted by speakers and listeners. While spatial language understanding and reasoning by vision-language models (VLMs) have gained increasing attention, potential ambiguities in these models are still under-explored. To address this issue, we present the COnsistent Multilingual Frame Of Reference Test (COMFORT), an evaluation protocol to systematically assess the spatial reasoning capabilities of VLMs. We evaluate nine state-of-the-art VLMs using COMFORT. Despite showing some alignment with English conventions in resolving ambiguities, our experiments reveal significant shortcomings of VLMs: notably, the models (1) exhibit poor robustness and consistency, (2) lack the flexibility to accommodate multiple FoRs, and (3) fail to adhere to language-specific or culture-specific conventions in cross-lingual tests, as English tends to dominate other languages. With a growing effort to align vision-language models with human cognitive intuitions, we call for more attention to the ambiguous nature and cross-cultural diversity of spatial reasoning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. GenSpace: Benchmarking Spatially-Aware Image Generation

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    GenSpace benchmarks spatial awareness in image generation with a 3D reconstruction-based evaluator, showing models struggle with allocentric relations and metric measurements.

  2. LLM-Based Social Simulations Require a Boundary

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM-based social simulations are scientifically useful only within boundaries set by behavioral variance, and current validation practice under-checks variance.

  3. RobotSmith: Generative Robotic Tool Design for Acquisition of Complex Manipulation Skills

    cs.RO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RobotSmith autonomously designs, 3D-prints, and uses task-specific tools for robotic manipulation, raising task success from 2.8% (no tool) to 50% in simulation.

  4. SpaRE: Enhancing Spatial Reasoning in Vision-Language Models with Synthetic Data

    cs.CV 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SpaRE builds a 3.4M-question synthetic spatial QA dataset from captioning sources and reports large gains on VSR and What's Up after fine-tuning Qwen2-VL models.

  5. Vision language models are unreliable at trivial spatial cognition

    cs.CV 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Three vision-language models give inconsistent left/right judgments on simple synthetic tabletop images when the same relation is probed with logically equivalent prompt variations.

  6. Augmented Vision-Language Models: A Systematic Review

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A structured taxonomy of inference-time augmentation techniques that connect vision-language models to external symbolic systems, tools, and knowledge sources.

  7. Scaling and Beyond: Advancing Spatial Reasoning in MLLMs Requires New Recipes

    cs.LG 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The authors argue that spatial reasoning in multimodal LLMs requires dedicated new recipes in data, architecture, and training objectives, and will not emerge from scaling alone.

Pith tools