SpatialReasoner-R1Fine-Grained Preference Optimization for Spatial Reasoning in VLMs

Yifan Shen♦︎, Yuanzhe Liu♣︎, Jingyuan Zhu♣︎, Xu Cao♦︎, Xiaofeng Zhang♥︎,
♦︎University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign♣︎University of Pennsylvania♥︎Shanghai Jiao Tong University♠︎Google

NeurIPS 2025

TL;DR

We introduce SpatialReasoner-R1, a model for answering fine-grained spatial questions with interpretable, step-by-step reasoning. SpatialReasoner-R1 learns to connect descriptions and logical deductions to visible spatial evidence, helping models reason about object locations, relationships, and layouts.

SpatialReasoner-R1 example with visually grounded multi-step spatial reasoning

Fine-grained preference optimization for spatial reasoning

SpatialReasoner-R1 connects descriptions and reasoning to the objects and relationships visible in the scene.

Abstract

Current Vision-Language Models (VLMs) struggle with fine-grained spatial reasoning, particularly when multi-step logic and precise spatial alignment are required. In this work, we introduce SpatialReasoner-R1 a vision-language reasoning model designed to address these limitations. To construct high-quality supervision for spatial reasoning, we design a Multi-Model Monte Carlo Tree Search (M3CTS) method that generates diverse, logically consistent Long Chain-of-Thought (LongCoT) reasoning trajectories. In addition, we propose fine-grained Direct Preference Optimization (fDPO), which introduces segment-specific preference granularity for descriptive grounding and logical reasoning, guided by a spatial reward mechanism that evaluates candidate responses based on visual consistency, spatial grounding, and logical coherence. Experimental results demonstrate that fDPO achieves an average improvement of 4.1% over standard DPO across spatial quality tasks, and a 9.0% gain in spatial quantity tasks. SpatialReasoner-R1, trained with fDPO, sets a new SoTA on SpatialRGPT-Bench, outperforming the strongest baseline by 9.4% in average accuracy, while maintaining competitive performance on general vision-language tasks.

Contributions

  • SpatialReasoner-R1. We introduce SpatialReasoner-R1, a VLM designed for fine-grained LongCoT spatial reasoning that effectively generates interpretable, step-by-step explanations directly from 2D images. SpatialReasoner-R1 establishes a new SoTA in spatial understanding tasks, while maintaining robust performance on general vision-language benchmarks.
  • Fine-grained Direct Preference Optimization. To enhance training stability and precision, we propose a new fine-grained Direct Preference Optimization fDPO method that employs segment-specific learning updates tailored explicitly for descriptive grounding and logical reasoning.
  • Multi-Model Monte Carlo Tree Search. To address the scarcity of high-quality spatial reasoning data, we introduce a data generation pipeline that combines Multi-Model Monte Carlo Tree Search (M3CTS) with fine-grained spatial rewards, enabling the creation of diverse, logically consistent LongCoT trajectories for fine-grained preference training.

SpatialReasoner-R1 Method

SpatialReasoner-R1 takes an image, a question, and visual region prompts to generate a grounded description and multi-step spatial reasoning. Its training pipeline first constructs reasoning trajectories, then selects preference pairs, and finally optimizes the descriptive and reasoning segments separately.

SpatialReasoner-R1 architecture and three-stage training pipeline with M3CTS, preference-pair construction, and fine-grained DPO
M3CTS produces reasoning paths. Spatial rewards select positive and negative responses, and fDPO applies distinct preference updates to descriptive grounding and logical reasoning.
  1. Generate reasoning paths with M3CTS

    Multi-Model Monte Carlo Tree Search explores diverse long reasoning trajectories grounded in the scene.

  2. Construct fine-grained preference pairs

    Candidate responses receive separate descriptive, spatial, and reasoning scores. Reward-based selection produces preferences for the relevant response segments.

  3. Optimize descriptions and reasoning with fDPO

    Segment-specific preference updates improve visual grounding and logical coherence instead of treating the entire response as one undifferentiated preference.

Quantitative Results

SpatialRGPT-Bench evaluates qualitative relations and quantitative measurements. The two tables report each question type separately.

Qualitative spatial relations

Accuracy on relative-position and relative-size questions in SpatialRGPT-Bench.

Qualitative spatial relations
Model Below/Above Left/Right Big/Small Tall/Short Wide/Thin Behind/Front Qual. accuracy
Gemini 2.0 Flash 58.33 68.57 16.98 50.00 15.38 53.63 44.29
Llama 4 Maverick 54.17 61.90 33.02 50.89 25.96 55.45 47.18
Gemini 1.5 Pro 85.83 56.19 58.49 71.42 55.76 60.00 65.14
ChatGPT-4o 87.50 80.00 53.77 63.39 51.92 60.90 66.67
SpatialBot-3B 52.50 62.86 57.54 49.11 49.04 62.73 55.56
SpaceThinker Qwen2.5VL-3B 89.16 63.81 76.41 56.25 56.73 70.91 69.25
InternVL2.5-78B 94.16 94.28 64.15 65.17 55.76 58.18 72.29
Sa2va 4B 22.50 25.71 25.47 16.07 27.88 30.91 24.65
Sa2va 8B 50.00 39.04 45.28 26.78 45.19 53.63 43.37
SpatialRGPT-8B 99.17 100.00 84.90 89.28 91.34 90.90 92.69
SpatialReasoner-R1 SFT 4B 79.16 78.09 55.66 66.96 59.61 75.45 69.41
SpatialReasoner-R1 SFT 8B 81.66 81.90 75.47 75.89 79.80 83.63 79.75
SpatialReasoner-R1 DPO 4B 91.66 91.42 69.81 65.17 71.15 85.45 79.29
SpatialReasoner-R1 DPO 8B 94.16 93.33 89.62 90.18 88.64 92.27 91.48
SpatialReasoner-R1 fDPO 4B 95.83 93.33 83.96 74.10 87.50 89.09 87.37
SpatialReasoner-R1 fDPO 8B 98.33 98.10 95.28 96.43 91.34 93.64 95.59

Quantitative spatial measurements

Accuracy on distance, width, height, and direction questions in SpatialRGPT-Bench.

Quantitative spatial measurements
Model Direct distance Horizontal distance Vertical distance Width Height Direction Quant. accuracy
Gemini 2.0 Flash 9.45 10.65 26.41 10.52 30.82 54.20 22.43
Llama 4 Maverick 24.48 28.68 34.28 35.71 44.61 58.09 36.72
Gemini 1.5 Pro 14.18 17.21 14.15 19.54 36.09 30.84 21.90
ChatGPT-4o — — — — — 60.75 —
SpatialBot-3B 6.00 15.51 8.00 10.52 18.75 39.00 15.62
SpaceThinker Qwen2.5VL-3B 24.32 17.21 59.43 23.27 23.62 32.35 28.97
InternVL2.5-78B 27.70 22.13 41.50 29.32 34.58 62.61 35.25
Sa2va 4B 13.51 15.57 19.81 13.53 12.03 10.28 14.02
Sa2va 8B 14.18 14.75 9.43 14.28 19.54 14.18 14.55
SpatialRGPT-8B 45.90 68.00 56.60 48.90 61.70 95.30 61.42
SpatialReasoner-R1 SFT 4B 22.29 27.86 31.13 25.56 33.80 47.66 30.71
SpatialReasoner-R1 SFT 8B 28.43 20.49 44.05 33.59 51.63 46.72 37.12
SpatialReasoner-R1 DPO 4B 47.97 46.72 60.37 45.11 55.63 91.58 56.61
SpatialReasoner-R1 DPO 8B 62.83 56.55 60.37 70.45 68.42 93.45 68.22
SpatialReasoner-R1 fDPO 4B 60.13 59.01 71.70 65.41 57.89 92.52 66.76
SpatialReasoner-R1 fDPO 8B 70.95 72.13 74.52 80.45 74.43 94.39 77.30

Qualitative Results

Spatial Comparison
Additional Examples 2

BibTeX

@inproceedings{shen2025finegrainedpreferenceoptimizationimproves,
  title={Fine-Grained Preference Optimization Improves Spatial Reasoning in VLMs},
  author={Shen, Yifan and Liu, Yuanzhe and Zhu, Jingyuan and Cao, Xu and Zhang, Xiaofeng and He, Yixiao and Ye, Wenming and Rehg, James Matthew and Lourentzou, Ismini},
  booktitle={Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)},
  year={2025}
}
Template acknowledgements

This site is built upon the work of Nerfies, made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.