SpatialChain: A Benchmark for Auditing Spatial Reasoning Faithfulness in VLMs
On the map: LLM reasoning → Spatial and embodied reasoning
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Thinking-enabled vision-language models (VLMs) report ever-higher accuracy on spatial benchmarks, yet final-answer scores cannot reveal whether a correct prediction reflects faithful spatial reasoning or a linguistic shortcut. We introduce SpatialChain, a dataset of 28,350 training and 899 test examples pairing spatially-oriented GQA questions with scene-graph-grounded reasoning chains, retained only when the generated answer matches the symbolic ground truth, and a two-axis evaluation combining objective chain-overlap metrics with a scene-graph-aware LLM judge that scores faithfulness and completeness independently of the final answer. Applied to nine thinking-enabled VLMs, the protocol surfaces three findings invisible to standard accuracy: (i) four of nine models achieve ≥79% VQA accuracy while exhibiting shortcut rates above 39%, i.e., correct answers whose reasoning the judge marks as unfaithful; (ii) chain quality significantly predicts answer correctness for seven of nine models, but the two exceptions (Claude Sonnet 4.6, InternVL3.5-8B) reveal qualitatively distinct failure modes, terse output vs. verbose-decorative reasoning, that benchmark accuracy alone conflates; (iii) SFT on SpatialChain improves Qwen3-VL-8B by +6.2 pp in-domain and reduces its shortcut rate to 22%, while a stylistic specialization effect on external benchmarks motivates replay-augmented training as mitigation. The faithfulness judge is validated against 198 human-annotated items, where judge-human agreement matches human-human agreement, and against a second judge from a different provider, which preserves the model ranking (ρ = 0.88). Data, generation scripts, and evaluation code are released at https://github.com/spatialchain/SpatialChainBenchmark.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Spatial and embodied reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026SpatiaLQA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Spatial Logical Reasoning in Vision-Language Models
- 2025SpaRE: Enhancing Spatial Reasoning in Vision-Language Models with Synthetic Data
- 2025Mind the Gap: Benchmarking Spatial Reasoning in Vision-Language Models
- 2026Seeing Isn't Knowing: Do VLMs Know When Not to Answer Spatial Questions (and Why)?
- 2024Reasoning Paths with Reference Objects Elicit Quantitative Spatial Reasoning in Large Vision-Language Models
- 2026MindEdit-Bench: Benchmarking Object-Level Counterfactual Spatial Reasoning in VLMs from In-the-Wild Photos
- 2024SpatialVLM: Endowing Vision-Language Models with Spatial Reasoning Capabilities
- 2026SpatiaLab: Can Vision-Language Models Perform Spatial Reasoning in the Wild?