跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+6109新增论文
+5222其中 AI 相关
+108已有论文修订
+122新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-05 06:01 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 06:17各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-04 06:52 — 2026-11-05 06:52(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-05 06:01最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 06:17库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-04 08:00

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

14,786 已收录论文12,897 AI 相关3,089 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-05 05:58(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.38405

SpaceAct: Benchmarking 3D Spatial and Temporal Reasoning via Closed-Loop Action and Active Perception

Chenglong Shi, Zekai Yuan, Yue Song, Jon Pu, Will Wu

To solve problems in 3D space rather than merely describe images, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) need 3D spatiotemporal reasoning: reconstructing 3D geometry from occluded 2D views, anticipating physical dynamics, and executing precise, closed-loop actions. Prior studies test passive VQA on static images or symbolic planning, requiring no execution or supplying privileged coordinates while ignoring collision, statics, and timing. We introduce SpaceAct, an interactive benchmark evaluating 3D spatiotemporal reasoning via closed-loop physical action and active perception, with SAPA, a Spatiotemporal Active-Probing Agent framework. Built on interlocking bricks and mechanical puzzles, it has 108 verified instances across 36 task families in six categories, without privileged coordinates, and diagnostic modes (+plan, +state, no-camera, blind, L7 levers). In brick-bridging or aperture-threading, models rotate the camera to resolve occlusion, read in-scene rulers, output 6-DoF poses under swept-collision and statics checks, and self-correct via split-screen rollback feedback (dynamic tasks freeze time during deliberation and give five strobe frames). Across 10 frontier MLLMs on the 44 hardest instances, scores span 4.8-79.1 (seven solve at most 27.3% of 6-DoF tasks); for the top three, a reference plan (+plan) closes 44% of the gap while leaving collisions at 5.2 per episode, whereas adding exact 3D state (+state) closes 90% and cuts collisions to 0.5; for four others, +plan lifts the mean score from 10.9 to 35.3 and +state to 81.8; and 46% of failures are collision or observation loops. SpaceAct and SAPA advance evaluation to closed-loop physical interaction, showing that even with a valid plan, MLLMs remain bottlenecked by 3D visual grounding and action refinement, while offering a testbed for active multi-view exploration and explicit 3D grounding.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.RO · cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗