Linear Mechanisms for Spatiotemporal Reasoning in Vision Language Models
Raphi Kang, Hongqiao Chen, Georgia Gkioxari, Pietro Perona

TL;DR
This paper uncovers a linear mechanism in vision-language models that encodes spatial and temporal information through IDs, enabling better interpretability and understanding of their reasoning processes.
Contribution
It identifies and characterizes a linear spatiotemporal ID mechanism in VLMs, advancing interpretability and causal understanding of their reasoning capabilities.
Findings
VLMs encode object locations via linear spatial IDs
Spatial IDs mediate model beliefs at intermediate layers
Analogous temporal IDs found in video VLMs
Abstract
Spatio-temporal reasoning is a remarkable capability of Vision Language Models (VLMs), but the underlying mechanisms of such abilities remain largely opaque. We postulate that visual/geometrical and textual representations of spatial structure must be combined at some point in VLM computations. We search for such confluence, and ask whether the identified representation can causally explain aspects of input-output model behavior through a linear model. We show empirically that VLMs encode object locations by linearly binding \textit{spatial IDs} to textual activations, then perform reasoning via language tokens. Through rigorous causal interventions we demonstrate that these IDs, which are ubiquitous across the model, can systematically mediate model beliefs at intermediate VLM layers. Additionally, we find that spatial IDs serve as a diagnostic tool for identifying limitations in…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
1. The problem the paper focus on, spatial reasoning of VLM, is clearly defined and important. 2. The experiments especially in section 2 are clear and well-designed. 3. The discovered spatial IDs show that models confuse "up/down" with "front/back", which helps explain real errors in 3D cases and gives a useful diagnostic. The temporal ID result is similarly clear and interesting. 4. The discovered spatial IDs exist among different VLMs though different backbones and training procedure.
1. The paper explains how models work in spatial reasoning but does not show that using these IDs can improve benchmark accuracy in a training-free manner or help train better models. 2. The authors could test whether stronger or clearer IDs mean better spatial reasoning ability. For example, by checking the correlation between an "ID strength score" or something similar, and model accuracy on a spatial reasoning benchmark. This would make the finding more practical and convincing.
1. Interesting mechanistic discovery: Identifying spatial IDs as linear features that mediate spatial reasoning in VLMs is novel and insightful, revealing how models bind location information to object tokens for subsequent linguistic processing. 2. Robust experimental validation: The paper provides rigorous evidence through well-controlled experiments (mirror-swapping with controls, causal interventions across 11 models achieving 64.4% vs 29.5% belief swap rates) and validates the framework acr
1. Limited spatial relation coverage: The analysis focuses primarily on simple binary spatial queries ("left/right", "up/down"), while more complex and diverse spatial relationships like "near", "far", "between", or "surrounded by" remain unexplored. The generalizability of the linear spatial ID framework to these richer spatial concepts is unclear, limiting the scope of the findings. 2. Insufficient guidance for model improvement: While the paper offers valuable diagnostic insights, it lacks ac
The strengths of the work include its discovery and derivation of spatial IDs, and its thorough utilization for a variety of insights. The paper defended spatial IDs thoroughly, through adversarial steering as well as how deviations from the ground truth spatial ID results in worse predictions.
Whereas the Spatial ID was thoroughly explored, much less attention was put on Temporal IDs. Furthermore, the "before" and "after" evaluation is a bit more simplistic than spatial reasoning. One expects a smoother interpolation; but in Figure 9(C) for 'After', both changes in logprob decrease past frame 5. Furthermore, the queries are quite limited to simple position-based analysis. General reasoning should utilize other attributes beyond position, such as properties of the model (e.g. an ic
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMultimodal Machine Learning Applications · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Language and cultural evolution
