SpaceOm
Model creator: remyxai
Original model: SpaceOm
GGUF quantization: llama.cpp
commit 2baf07727f921d9a4a1b63a2eff941e95d0488ed
Description

Model Overview
SpaceOm improves over SpaceThinker by adding:
- the target module
o_proj
in LoRA fine-tuning - SpaceOm dataset for longer reasoning traces
- Robo2VLM-Reasoning dataset for more robotics domain and MCVQA examples
The choice to include o_proj
among the target modules in LoRA finetuning was inspired by the study here, which argues for
the importance of this module in reasoning models.
The reasoning traces in the SpaceThinker dataset average ~200 "thinking" tokens so now we've included longer reasoning traces in the training data to help the model use more tokens in reasoning.
Aiming to improve alignment for robotics applications, we've trained with synthetic reasoning traces, derived from the Robo2VLM-1 dataset.
Model Evaluation
SpatialScore - 3B and 4B models
Model | Overall | Count. | Obj.-Loc. | Pos.-Rel. | Dist. | Obj.-Prop. | Cam.&IT. | Tracking | Others |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SpaceQwen2.5-VL-3B | 42.31 | 45.01 | 49.78 | 57.88 | 27.36 | 34.11 | 26.34 | 26.44 | 43.58 |
SpatialBot-Phi2-3B | 41.65 | 53.23 | 54.32 | 55.40 | 27.12 | 26.10 | 24.21 | 27.57 | 41.66 |
Kimi-VL-3B | 51.48 | 49.22 | 61.99 | 61.34 | 38.27 | 46.74 | 33.75 | 56.28 | 47.23 |
Kimi-VL-3B-Thinking | 52.60 | 52.66 | 58.93 | 63.28 | 39.38 | 42.57 | 32.00 | 46.97 | 42.73 |
Qwen2.5-VL-3B | 47.90 | 46.62 | 55.55 | 62.23 | 32.39 | 32.97 | 30.66 | 36.90 | 42.19 |
InternVL2.5-4B | 49.82 | 53.32 | 62.02 | 62.02 | 32.80 | 27.00 | 32.49 | 37.02 | 48.95 |
SpaceOm (3B) | 49.00 | 56.00 | 54.00 | 65.00 | 41.00 | 50.00 | 36.00 | 42.00 | 47.00 |
See all results for evaluating SpaceOm on the SpatialScore benchmark.
Compared to SpaceQwen, this model outperforms by all categories

And comparing to SpaceThinker:

SpaCE-10 Benchmark Comparison
This table compares SpaceOm
evaluated using GPT scoring against several top models from the SpaCE-10 benchmark leaderboard. Top scores in each category are bolded.
Model | EQ | SQ | SA | OO | OS | EP | FR | SP | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SpaceOm | 32.47 | 24.81 | 47.63 | 50.00 | 32.52 | 9.12 | 37.04 | 25.00 | GPT Eval |
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct | 32.70 | 31.00 | 41.30 | 32.10 | 27.60 | 15.40 | 26.30 | 27.50 | Table |
LLaVA-OneVision-7B | 37.40 | 36.20 | 42.90 | 44.20 | 27.10 | 11.20 | 45.60 | 27.20 | Table |
VILA1.5-7B | 30.20 | 38.60 | 39.90 | 44.10 | 16.50 | 35.10 | 30.10 | 37.60 | Table |
InternVL2.5-4B | 34.30 | 34.40 | 43.60 | 44.60 | 16.10 | 30.10 | 33.70 | 36.70 | Table |
Legend:
- EQ: Entity Quantification
- SQ: Scene Quantification
- SA: Size Assessment
- OO: Object-Object spatial relations
- OS: Object-Scene spatial relations
- EP: Entity Presence
- FR: Functional Reasoning
- SP: Spatial Planning
ℹ️ Note: Scores for SpaceOm are generated via
gpt_eval_score
on single-choice (*-single
) versions of the SpaCE-10 benchmark tasks. Other entries reflect leaderboard accuracy scores from the official SpaCE-10 evaluation table.
Read more about the SpaCE-10 benchmark
Limitations
- Performance may degrade in cluttered environments or camera perspective.
- This model was fine-tuned using synthetic reasoning over an internet image dataset.
- Multimodal biases inherent to the base model (Qwen2.5-VL) may persist.
- Not intended for use in safety-critical or legal decision-making.
Users are encouraged to evaluate outputs critically and consider fine-tuning for domain-specific safety and performance. Distances estimated using autoregressive transformers may help in higher-order reasoning for planning and behavior but may not be suitable replacements for measurements taken with high-precision sensors, calibrated stereo vision systems, or specialist monocular depth estimation models capable of more accurate, pixel-wise predictions and real-time performance.
Citation
@article{chen2024spatialvlm,
title = {SpatialVLM: Endowing Vision-Language Models with Spatial Reasoning Capabilities},
author = {Chen, Boyuan and Xu, Zhuo and Kirmani, Sean and Ichter, Brian and Driess, Danny and Florence, Pete and Sadigh, Dorsa and Guibas, Leonidas and Xia, Fei},
journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12168},
year = {2024},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12168},
}
@misc{qwen2.5-VL,
title = {Qwen2.5-VL},
url = {https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5-vl/},
author = {Qwen Team},
month = {January},
year = {2025}
}
@misc{vl-thinking2025,
title={SFT or RL? An Early Investigation into Training R1-Like Reasoning Large Vision-Language Models },
author={Hardy Chen and Haoqin Tu and Fali Wang and Hui Liu and Xianfeng Tang and Xinya Du and Yuyin Zhou and Cihang Xie},
year = {2025},
publisher = {GitHub},
journal = {GitHub repository},
howpublished = {\url{https://github.com/UCSC-VLAA/VLAA-Thinking}},
}
@article{wu2025spatialscore,
author = {Wu, Haoning and Huang, Xiao and Chen, Yaohui and Zhang, Ya and Wang, Yanfeng and Xie, Weidi},
title = {SpatialScore: Towards Unified Evaluation for Multimodal Spatial Understanding},
journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17012},
year = {2025},
}
@article{gong2025space10,
title = {SpaCE-10: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models in Compositional Spatial Intelligence},
author = {Ziyang Gong and Wenhao Li and Oliver Ma and Songyuan Li and Jiayi Ji and Xue Yang and Gen Luo and Junchi Yan and Rongrong Ji},
journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07966},
year = {2025},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07966}
}
- Downloads last month
- 374
2-bit
3-bit
4-bit
5-bit
6-bit
8-bit
16-bit
Model tree for mgonzs13/SpaceOm-GGUF
Dataset used to train mgonzs13/SpaceOm-GGUF
Evaluation results
- Overall Success Rate on 3DSRBenchself-reported0.542
- Overall Success Rate on BLINKself-reported0.599
- Overall Success Rate on MMIUself-reported0.388
- Overall Success Rate on MMVPself-reported0.583
- Overall Success Rate on QSpatialBench-Plusself-reported0.446
- Overall Success Rate on QSpatialBench-ScanNetself-reported0.488
- Overall Success Rate on RealWorldQAself-reported0.611
- Overall Success Rate on SpatialSenseself-reported0.704
- Overall Success Rate on VGBenchself-reported0.350
- Overall Success Rate on VSI-Bench_8self-reported0.256