SpatialWorld: Benchmarking Interactive Spatial Reasoning of Multimodal Agents in Real-World Tasks

Hugging Face Daily Papers Papers

Summary

SpatialWorld is a unified benchmark for evaluating interactive spatial reasoning in multimodal agents across diverse real-world tasks, revealing that even the strongest models achieve low task success rates.

Spatial reasoning is a foundational capability for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to perceive and operate within the physical world. However, existing benchmarks predominantly rely on passive evaluation (e.g., static VQA) or simulator-specific pipelines, failing to assess general interactive spatial understanding. We introduce SpatialWorld, a unified benchmark designed specifically for evaluating the interactive spatial understanding of multimodal agents in complex real-world tasks. Integrating eight heterogeneous simulation backends under a shared, simulator-agnostic protocol, SpatialWorld features 760 human-annotated tasks across diverse domains (e.g., household routines, travel, social collaboration). Agents must solve tasks under vision-only partial observability, actively gathering egocentric visual evidence and expressing decisions via a unified, text-based action interface native to MLLMs. For reliable evaluation, each task includes a human-validated initial state, a reference trajectory, and a terminal-state verifier. Evaluating 15 advanced agents reveals that robust spatial task solving remains challenging: the strongest model, GPT-5, achieves an average task success rate (TSR) of only 17.4%, while the leading open-source model, Qwen-3.5, reaches 14.1%. Further analysis exposes a clear mismatch between task success and execution efficiency, alongside substantial domain-specific performance variations. These bottlenecks in active exploration and long-horizon planning position SpatialWorld as a rigorous testbed for future spatial agents.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 06/09/26, 08:44 AM

Paper page - SpatialWorld: Benchmarking Interactive Spatial Reasoning of Multimodal Agents in Real-World Tasks

Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2606.09669 Authors:

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

Abstract

SpatialWorld presents a unified benchmark for evaluating interactive spatial understanding in multimodal agents through diverse real-world tasks with partial observability and text-based actions.

Spatial reasoningis a foundational capability formultimodal large language models(MLLMs) to perceive and operate within the physical world. However, existing benchmarks predominantly rely on passive evaluation (e.g., static VQA) or simulator-specific pipelines, failing to assess general interactive spatial understanding. We introduce SpatialWorld, a unified benchmark designed specifically for evaluating the interactive spatial understanding of multimodal agents in complex real-world tasks. Integrating eight heterogeneoussimulation backendsunder a shared, simulator-agnostic protocol, SpatialWorld features 760 human-annotated tasks across diverse domains (e.g., household routines, travel, social collaboration). Agents must solve tasks under vision-onlypartial observability, actively gathering egocentric visual evidence and expressing decisions via a unified,text-based action interfacenative to MLLMs. For reliable evaluation, each task includes a human-validated initial state, a reference trajectory, and a terminal-state verifier. Evaluating 15 advanced agents reveals that robust spatial task solving remains challenging: the strongest model, GPT-5, achieves an averagetask success rate(TSR) of only 17.4%, while the leading open-source model, Qwen-3.5, reaches 14.1%. Further analysis exposes a clear mismatch between task success and execution efficiency, alongside substantial domain-specific performance variations. These bottlenecks inactive explorationandlong-horizon planningposition SpatialWorld as a rigorous testbed for future spatial agents.

View arXiv pageView PDFProject pageGitHub4Add to collection

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2606\.09669

Don’t have the latest CLI?curl \-LsSf https://hf\.co/cli/install\.sh \| bash

Models citing this paper0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.09669 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.09669 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.09669 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to acollectionto link it from this page.

Similar Articles

SpatialAct: Probing Spatial Reasoning-to-Action Capabilities of VLM Agents in 3D Scenes

Hugging Face Daily Papers

SpatialAct is a new simulator-grounded benchmark that probes whether VLM agents can perform coherent spatial reasoning and translate it into actions in 3D environments across multi-turn feedback settings. Experiments reveal a significant reasoning-to-action gap, with current VLMs struggling to maintain spatial beliefs and produce reliable actions despite performing well on isolated reasoning tasks.

WorldMemArena: Evaluating Multimodal Agent Memory Through Action-World Interaction

Hugging Face Daily Papers

WorldMemArena is a new benchmark with 400 multi-session multimodal tasks for evaluating multimodal agent memory, comparing long-context, RAG, and harness-based memory approaches, revealing that better memory writing does not guarantee better performance and that systems struggle with visual evidence.

OVO-S-Bench: A Hierarchical Benchmark for Streaming Spatial Intelligence in Multimodal LLMs

Papers with Code Trending

OVO-S-Bench introduces a comprehensive human-annotated benchmark of 1,680 questions across 348 videos to evaluate streaming spatial intelligence in multimodal LLMs, revealing that even the best model (Gemini-3.1-Pro) trails human experts by 27 points. The benchmark exposes key limitations including allocentric mapping as a major bottleneck and chain-of-thought reasoning amplifying spatial errors.