Evaluates the spatial reasoning and logical comprehension capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on synthetic, spatially precise images. It probes robustness to negations, logical operators (AND/OR), adversarial object substitutions, and complex spatial relationships. Use when the user wants to benchmark on RevQA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports performance.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill revqa-spatial-reasoning-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Revqa Spatial Reasoning Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-revqa-spatial-reasoning-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: revqa-spatial-reasoning-eval
description: Evaluates the spatial reasoning and logical comprehension capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on synthetic, spatially precise images. It probes robustness to negations, logical operators (AND/OR), adversarial object substitutions, and complex spatial relationships. Use when the user wants to benchmark on RevQA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports performance.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2408.02231
bibtex_key: chatterjee2024revision
confidence: high
---
# revqa-spatial-reasoning-eval
> REVISION: Rendering Tools Enable Spatial Fidelity in Vision-Language Models — Chatterjee et al. (2024) (arXiv:2408.02231, 2024)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the spatial reasoning and logical comprehension capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on synthetic, spatially precise images. It probes robustness to negations, logical operators (AND/OR), adversarial object substitutions, and complex spatial relationships.
## Datasets
- **RevQA** — total 50000; splits: test (50000)
## Metrics
- `performance` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Percentage of correct binary (Yes/No) predictions across all question types. Calculated as (number of correct answers / total number of questions) * 100.
## Input / output format
**Input**: A synthetic 3D-rendered image paired with a natural language question (yes/no format) testing spatial relationships and logical operators.
**Output**: Binary response: 'Yes' or 'No'.
## Scoring recipe
```python
correct = 0
total = 0
for pred, gold in zip(predictions, gold_labels):
if pred.strip().lower() in ['yes', 'no'] and pred.strip().lower() == gold.strip().lower():
correct += 1
total += 1
accuracy = (correct / total) * 100 if total > 0 else 0
```
## Common pitfalls
- Models may exhibit order bias when answering combined questions; the benchmark mitigates this by randomizing clause order, but evaluators should ensure consistent ordering or account for it.
- Evaluation requires deterministic decoding (temperature=0) to avoid stochasticity masking true reasoning capabilities, especially for negation and adversarial questions.
- Binary responses must be strictly parsed as 'Yes' or 'No'; free-form text generation will break the performance calculation.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We instruct all models to generate binary responses and set the temperature =0, to remove stochasticity in the generated responses. We present our evaluation results in Table 7 and find that all models have a large gap in performance in reasoning over spatial relationships.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{chatterjee2024revision,
title={REVISION: Rendering Tools Enable Spatial Fidelity in Vision-Language Models},
author={Chatterjee et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2408.02231}
}
```
- arXiv: 2408.02231
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!