跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.38405 · v1

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

首次提交 2026-10-28 15:51
版本更新 2026-10-28 15:51
雷达观测 2026-10-30 10:22
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

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.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-10-28 15:51 · 最新观测版本

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

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.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗