RoboSpatial-Home
Models answer 350 spatial questions on home scenes for robots, in three types: object context, compatibility of placements and spatial configuration.
The test set of the RoboSpatial paper (CVPR 2025). Some answers are 2D points, others yes or no.
- Made by
- NVIDIA and The Ohio State University
- Released
- November 2024
- Kind
- Spatial reasoning and counting
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Short answer
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5 #70 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- September 2025, dropped before it saturated
- Last model added
- May 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Spatial understanding is a crucial capability that enables robots to perceive their surroundings, reason about their environment, and interact with it meaningfully. In modern robotics, these capabilities are increasingly provided by vision-language models. However, these models face significant challenges in spatial reasoning tasks, as their training data are based on general-purpose image datasets that often lack sophisticated spatial understanding. For example, datasets frequently do not capture reference frame comprehension, yet effective spatial reasoning requires understanding whether to reason from ego-, world-, or object-centric perspectives. To address this issue, we introduce RoboSpatial, a large-scale dataset for spatial understanding in robotics. It consists of real indoor and tabletop scenes, captured as 3D scans and egocentric images, and annotated with rich spatial information relevant to robotics. The dataset includes 1M images, 5k 3D scans, and 3M annotated spatial relationships, and the pairing of 2D egocentric images with 3D scans makes it both 2D- and 3D- ready. Our experiments show that models trained with RoboSpatial outperform baselines on downstream tasks such as spatial affordance prediction, spatial relationship prediction, and robot manipulation.
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B leads with 73.9% among models released by July 2026
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B leads with 73.9% across all independent runs
Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B leads with 73.9%, claims included
Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.
The newest model with a score here came out in July 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 1
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 73.9%
- 2
Cosmos3-Nano 66.3%
- 3
Cosmos3-Edge 63.4%
Source: Labs’ model cards
- 1
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B thinking 73.9%
- 2 GPT-5 52.5%
- 3 GPT-5 mini 51.3%
- 4
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct 49.1%
Source: Official RoboSpatial-Home leaderboard
- 1
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B thinking 73.9%
- 2
Cosmos3-Nano 66.3%
- 3
Cosmos3-Edge 63.4%
- 4 GPT-5 52.5%
- 5 GPT-5 mini 51.3%
- 6
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct 49.1%
Sources: Official RoboSpatial-Home leaderboard and labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 73.9% | Sep 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 66.3% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 63.4% | May 2026 | Lab model card |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 73.9% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GPT-5 | 52.5% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | GPT-5 mini | 51.3% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 49.1% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 73.9% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 66.3% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 63.4% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | GPT-5 | 52.5% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | GPT-5 mini | 51.3% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 49.1% | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
The benchmark's own leaderboard has 13 entries, 4 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
Number one over time 2 models have held number one across all independent runs since its release in November 2024 2 models have held number one with claims included since its release in November 2024
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.
Sources: Official RoboSpatial-Home leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official RoboSpatial-Home leaderboard and labs’ model cards
No launch post has listed it since September 2025
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2025 | 73.9 | RoboSpatialHome |
4 system cards report it, from 3 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2026 | | 66.3 | RoboSpatialHome, Cosmos3-Nano 8B column, Table 10 | Capabilities |
| May 31, 2026 | | 63.4 | RoboSpatialHome, Cosmos3-Edge 2B column, Table 10 | Capabilities |
| Nov 26, 2025 | | 73.9 | RoboSpatialHome (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| Sep 25, 2025 | | RoboSpatial-Pointing 31.1 and RoboSpatial-VQA 79.3 reported separately, no combined score (Table 19, thinking on) | Capabilities |
One lab claim next to the leaderboard
Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. 1 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.
| Model | Lab says | Board says | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| | 73.9% RoboSpatialHome | 73.9% Leaderboard, thinking | Same |
More in Vision
- MMMU In use 11.5K college-level multimodal questions across 30 subjects. Multiple-choice and open accuracy. GPT-5.1 85.4%
- MMMU-Pro In use Harder MMMU: college-level multimodal questions with more options and vision-only inputs to remove text shortcuts. GPT-5.6 Sol 84.6%
- CharXiv In use Chart understanding on real arXiv figures. Reasoning questions require synthesizing information from complex charts. Claude Fable 5 93.5%
- MATH-Vision (MathVision) In use 3,040 competition math problems with visual context. Answer accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 97.7%
- MMStar In use Models answer 1,500 human-curated image questions that cannot be solved without the image, across 6 core capabilities. Scored by accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 85.9%
- ChartQA In use Models answer human-written and generated questions about chart images that need visual and arithmetic reasoning. Scored by relaxed accuracy with a 5 percent numeric tolerance.
Command A Vision 90.9%