Multimodal Language Models Cannot Spot Spatial Inconsistencies

Om Khangaonkar, Hadi J. Rad, Hamed Pirsiavash
4/1/2026
cs.CVcs.CLcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Spatial consistency is a fundamental property of the visual world and a key requirement for models that aim to understand physical reality. Despite recent advances, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often struggle to reason about 3D geometry across multiple views. Rather than asking models to describe scene attributes, we introduce a more challenging task: given two views of the same scene, identify the object that violates 3D motion consistency. We propose a simple and scalable method for generating realistic, spatially inconsistent image pairs from multi-view scenes, enabling systematic evaluation of this capability. Our results show that state-of-the-art MLLMs significantly underperform human observers and exhibit substantial variability across different scene attributes, revealing a fragile and incomplete understanding of 3D structure. We hope our findings underscore the need for approaches that develop a more deeply grounded understanding of the physical world.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{khangaonkar2026multimodal,
  title  = {Multimodal Language Models Cannot Spot Spatial Inconsistencies},
  author = {Om Khangaonkar and Hadi J. Rad and Hamed Pirsiavash},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2604.00799},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00799v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2604.00799.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2604.00799)

Discussion