# Mechanistic Diagnostics of Spatial Lexical Bias in Multimodal Large Language Model Spatial Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01914 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.01914/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Spatial and embodied reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 5 of its 45 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Spatial and embodied reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/spatial-and-embodied-reasoning/)
- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [Embodied and 3D vision-language models](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/embodied-and-3d-vision-language-models/)
- Mechanistic interpretability / [Interpreting vision and multimodal models](https://mlsanity.com/mechinterp/interpreting-vision-and-multimodal-models/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Model's Perception of the World at Any Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12191/) (2024)
- [Qwen3-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21631/) (2025)
- [Expanding Performance Boundaries of Open-Source Multimodal Models with Model, Data, and Test-Time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05271/) (2024)
- [Microsoft COCO Captions: Data Collection and Evaluation Server](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1504.00325/) (2015)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) remain unreliable on spatial multiple-choice questions, and their failures are often attributed to poorly attended visual information. We identify a complementary failure mode, spatial lexical bias: a spatial relation word added to the answer options can act as a lexical-semantic distractor that draws the model's decision toward that option. Using nine open-weight MLLMs, we show that this phenomenon is widespread. We then isolate diagnostic cases in which a model answers a binary spatial question correctly yet consistently chooses a newly added third spatial option, which we call binary-stable but ternary-fragile cases. Leveraging mechanistic interpretability tools on these cases, we find that the failure arises on the language side rather than the visual side: visual attention analyses and residual-stream probes show the correct spatial relation remains internally available, while irrelevant-option controls, activation patching, and sparse component interventions trace the bias to specific LLM-side channels and neurons. Accordingly, we show that a lightweight LLM-only DPO update on tiny single-object-pair synthetic data mitigates the bias, lifting four-way robust accuracy by up to 100 points on synthetic data, and by 68.0, 32.6, and 20.1 points on broader evaluation datasets WhatsUp, SpatialMQA-Direct, and VSR.