Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

VSP: Assessing the dual challenges of perception and reasoning in spatial planning tasks for VLMs

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 2407.01863 v1 pith:REY6EJHY submitted 2024-07-02 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords planningspatialvlmsmodelstasksvisualcapabilitiesperception
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Vision language models (VLMs) are an exciting emerging class of language models (LMs) that have merged classic LM capabilities with those of image processing systems. However, the ways that these capabilities combine are not always intuitive and warrant direct investigation. One understudied capability in VLMs is visual spatial planning -- the ability to comprehend the spatial arrangements of objects and devise action plans to achieve desired outcomes in visual scenes. In our study, we introduce VSP, a benchmark that 1) evaluates the spatial planning capability in these models in general, and 2) breaks down the visual planning task into finer-grained sub-tasks, including perception and reasoning, and measure the LMs capabilities in these sub-tasks. Our evaluation shows that both open-source and private VLMs fail to generate effective plans for even simple spatial planning tasks. Evaluations on the fine-grained analytical tasks further reveal fundamental deficiencies in the models' visual perception and bottlenecks in reasoning abilities, explaining their worse performance in the general spatial planning tasks. Our work illuminates future directions for improving VLMs' abilities in spatial planning. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/UCSB-NLP-Chang/Visual-Spatial-Planning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. MentisOculi: Revealing the Limits of Reasoning with Mental Imagery

    cs.AI 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Visual thoughts — latent tokens, interleaved images, or video rollouts — do not currently improve multi-step reasoning over text-only baselines in frontier models.

  2. IMBench: A Benchmark for Intuitive Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    IMBench is a 35-task robosuite benchmark with a three-stage evaluation showing current VLMs and robot policies fail to convert physical reasoning into executable manipulation.

  3. Agent-RewardBench: Towards a Unified Benchmark for Reward Modeling across Perception, Planning, and Safety in Real-World Multimodal Agents

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new step-level reward-modeling benchmark for multimodal agents shows current MLLMs reach at most 61.6 percent accuracy, and benchmark score correlates strongly (r=0.981 across five models) with downstream A* search ...

  4. Large Language Models for Planning: A Comprehensive and Systematic Survey

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A structured survey of LLM planning methods, benchmarks, and interpretability work, organized around a three-way taxonomy.

Pith tools