Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This article introduces SSoN, a new benchmark evaluating vision-language models on their ability to resolve cross-view contradictions in spatial reasoning without relying on trusted references. Results reveal a significant gap between human performance and current VLMs, highlighting that maintaining coherent scene representations across multiple perspectives remains a critical weakness requiring targeted supervision.
Sources coveringarXiv, Latent Space

Same Space or Not: Benchmarking Spatial Intelligence Through Cross-View Contradictions

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2610.23959v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Spatial intelligence, the capacity to represent and reason about physical space, underlies embodied perception and real-world visual understanding. Existing benchmarks probe it through spatial relations, perspective-taking, and mental modeling. What remains underexamined is whether a model can maintain a coherent scene representation across views, since pairwise comparison alone cannot reveal which view departs from the truth. We thus introduce Same Space or Not (SSoN), a benchmark of cross-view contradiction resolution comprising 1,000 questions from seven indoor scene sources and six categories of controlled 3D edits. Each question presents three views of an unchanged scene and one view of an edited variant. Models must identify the inconsistent view and explain the contradiction without a designated trusted reference or a marked target. Our pipeline iteratively translates human review into generation constraints. Automated checks and exhaustive human validation screen out both trivial visual shortcuts and questions lacking sufficient evidence for a unique answer. Humans achieve 83.3% accuracy, compared with 39.7% for the strongest vision-language models (VLMs), falling to 34.9% when a valid visual explanation is also required. We investigate prompting, camera information, and 3D reconstruction as interventions. On a 100-question intervention set with a 24% baseline, prompting and 3D reconstruction remain below 50% answer accuracy, except when ground-truth camera information is supplied, which reaches 61% answer accuracy but only 48% True solve accuracy. On a held-out 201-question test set, Qwen2.5-VL-7B achieves 21.89% accuracy, 33.33% after answer-only fine-tuning, and 41.79% after fine-tuning on both rationales and answers. These results identify cross-view contradiction resolution as a substantial weakness of current VLMs that can be partly addressed by targeted supervision.

Abstract:Spatial intelligence, the capacity to represent and reason about physical space, underlies embodied perception and real-world visual understanding. Existing benchmarks probe it through spatial relations, perspective-taking, and mental modeling. What remains underexamined is whether a model can maintain a coherent scene representation across views, since pairwise comparison alone cannot reveal which view departs from the truth. We thus introduce Same Space or Not (SSoN), a benchmark of cross-view contradiction resolution comprising 1,000 questions from seven indoor scene sources and six categories of controlled 3D edits. Each question presents three views of an unchanged scene and one view of an edited variant. Models must identify the inconsistent view and explain the contradiction without a designated trusted reference or a marked target. Our pipeline iteratively translates human review into generation constraints. Automated checks and exhaustive human validation screen out both trivial visual shortcuts and questions lacking sufficient evidence for a unique answer. Humans achieve 83.3% accuracy, compared with 39.7% for the strongest vision-language models (VLMs), falling to 34.9% when a valid visual explanation is also required. We investigate prompting, camera information, and 3D reconstruction as interventions. On a 100-question intervention set with a 24% baseline, prompting and 3D reconstruction remain below 50% answer accuracy, except when ground-truth camera information is supplied, which reaches 61% answer accuracy but only 48% True solve accuracy. On a held-out 201-question test set, Qwen2.5-VL-7B achieves 21.89% accuracy, 33.33% after answer-only fine-tuning, and 41.79% after fine-tuning on both rationales and answers. These results identify cross-view contradiction resolution as a substantial weakness of current VLMs that can be partly addressed by targeted supervision.

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2610.23959 [cs.CV]

(or arXiv:2610.23959v1 [cs.CV] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.23959 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 362 words

Related coverage