Seeing Isn't Knowing: Do VLMs Know When Not to Answer Spatial Questions (and Why)?
:::info Stub — Full Engineering Breakdown Coming This paper has a linked code implementation and was featured on Hugging Face Papers with 3 upvotes. A full breakdown with production viability rating, implementation notes, and honest limitations is being written. Subscribe to AI Letters → :::
| Authors | Yue Zhang et al. |
| Year | 2026 |
| HF Upvotes | 3 |
| arXiv | 2605.30557 |
| Download | |
| Code | https://github.com/zhangyuejoslin/SpatialUncertain_code |
Abstract
Spatial reasoning is a fundamental capability for vision-language models (VLMs) deployed in real-world environments. However, visual observations are inherently limited representations of a 3D world: occlusion can render objects invisible, and perspective can make geometric properties misleading. Despite this, existing spatial reasoning benchmarks typically assume that observations are sufficient and reliable, focusing on whether models produce correct answers rather than whether they recognize when a question cannot be answered and what additional observations would be needed. In this work, we challenge this assumption by constructing a controlled evaluation framework, SpatialUncertain, and introducing two types of observation challenges: (1) occlusion, which hides target information, and (2) perspective ambiguity, which produces misleading visual cues. For each configuration, we design spatial questions that are answerable under clean observations but require abstention under the introduced challenges. We further evaluate whether models can identify which additional viewpoints would resolve perspective ambiguity. Our results across a diverse set of frontier open- and closed-source VLMs reveal two consistent failure modes. First, models are prone to overconfident answering, attempting to solve spatial reasoning tasks even when visual evidence is incomplete or misleading, with average accuracy around 30% under occlusion and below 10% under perspective ambiguity. Second, even when additional views are available, some models perform near random chance in identifying which would provide reliable evidence. Together, our findings call for moving beyond answer correctness toward evaluating whether models know when to abstain and how to seek reliable evidence.
Engineering Breakdown
The Problem
However, visual observations are inherently limited representations of a 3D world: occlusion can render objects invisible, and perspective can make geometric properties misleading. Despite this, existing spatial reasoning benchmarks typically assume that observations are sufficient and reliable, focusing on whether models produce correct answers rather than whether they recognize when a question cannot be answered and what additional observations would be needed.
The Approach
In this work, we challenge this assumption by constructing a controlled evaluation framework, SpatialUncertain, and introducing two types of observation challenges: (1) occlusion, which hides target information, and (2) perspective ambiguity, which produces misleading visual cues.
Key Results
Together, our findings call for moving beyond answer correctness toward evaluating whether models know when to abstain and how to seek reliable evidence.
Research Areas
This paper contributes to the following areas of AI/ML engineering:
- Machine learning
- Deep learning
- Neural networks
- Model optimization
- AI systems
- Questions
:::tip Subscribe Get weekly breakdowns of papers like this in AI Letters - the newsletter for engineers building production AI systems. :::