Benchmark Almanac

SpatialEval Spatial-Map

Only in system cards

Models answer questions about relations and counts among objects placed on a map given as text or images. 1,500 questions scored by accuracy.

Phi reasoning reports use the text-only version.

Released
June 2024
Kind
Spatial reasoning and counting
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
All public
Last in a system card
April 2025
Last model added
April 2025

In the authors’ words

Large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a wide range of tasks and domains. Despite this promise, spatial understanding and reasoning – a fundamental component of human cognition – remains under-explored. We propose SpatialEval, a novel benchmark that covers diverse aspects of spatial reasoning such as relationship understanding, navigation, and counting. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of competitive language and vision-language models. Our findings reveal several counter-intuitive insights that have been overlooked in the literature: (1) Spatial reasoning poses significant challenges where competitive models can fall behind random guessing; (2) Despite additional visual input, VLMs often under-perform compared to their LLM counterparts; (3) When both textual and visual information is available, multi-modal language models become less reliant on visual information if sufficient textual clues are provided. Additionally, we demonstrate that leveraging redundancy between vision and text can significantly enhance model performance. We hope our study will inform the development of multimodal models to improve spatial intelligence and further close the gap with human intelligence.

Abstract of Is A Picture Worth A Thousand Words? Delving Into Spatial Reasoning for Vision Language Models (arXiv:2406.14852, CC0)
2
Models scored in lab cards
2
System cards report it, from 1 lab

Phi-4-reasoning leads with 73.7%

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.

  1. 1 Phi-4-reasoning 73.7%
  2. 2 Phi-4-Reasoning-plus 73.3%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Phi-4-reasoning 73.7% Apr 2025 Lab model card
2 Phi-4-Reasoning-plus 73.3% Apr 2025 Lab model card

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) Phi-4-reasoning 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) Phi-4-reasoning

Source: Labs’ model cards

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

2 system cards report it, from 1 lab

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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Apr 30, 2025 Phi-4-reasoning technical report 73.7 Spatial Map, average pass@1 (Figure 8, printed bar label) Capabilities
Apr 30, 2025 Phi-4-Reasoning-plus technical report 73.3 Spatial Map, average pass@1 (Figure 8, printed bar label) Capabilities

More in Vision

All 281 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%