Sudarshan Nikhil

Ankur Sikarwar, Debangan Mishra, Sudarshan Nikhil et al.

Humans build shared spatial understanding by communicating partial, viewpoint-dependent observations. We ask whether Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can do the same, aligning distinct egocentric views through dialogue to form a coherent, allocentric mental model of a shared environment. To study this systematically, we introduce COSMIC, a benchmark for Collaborative Spatial Communication. In this setting, two static MLLM agents observe a 3D indoor environment from different viewpoints and exchange natural-language messages to solve spatial queries. COSMIC contains 899 diverse scenes and 1250 question-answer pairs spanning five tasks. We find a consistent capability hierarchy, MLLMs are most reliable at identifying shared anchor objects across views, perform worse on relational reasoning, and largely fail at building globally consistent maps, performing near chance, even for the frontier models. Moreover, we find thinking capability yields consistent gains in anchor grounding, but is insufficient for higher-level spatial communication. To contextualize model behavior, we additionally collect 250 human-human dialogues. Humans achieve 95% aggregate accuracy, leaving significant room for improvement for even the best performing model Gemini-3-Pro-Thinking which achieves 72% aggregate accuracy. Moreover, human conversations become increasingly specific as partners converge on a shared mental model, whereas model dialogues continue to explore new possibilities rather than converging, consistent with a limited ability to build and maintain a robust shared mental model. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/ankursikarwar/Cosmic

Sujay Belsare, Sudarshan Nikhil, Sushant Kumar et al.

With the increasing development of Vision-Language Models, it becomes imperative that their predictions are readily explainable to relevant stakeholders. However, the field of explainability has not kept pace with the multimodal surge. While recent Multimodal Explainable AI (MxAI) methods generate explanations to attribute the interaction between different modalities, current evaluation protocols lack the ground truth required to distinguish between true cross-modal reasoning (e.g., spatial composition) and shallow cross-modal shortcuts (e.g., Bag-of-Words attribute matching). It remains unknown whether MxAI methods faithfully capture synergistic interactions or merely hallucinate reasoning on models acting as simple feature detectors. In this paper, we introduce GridVQA-X, the first diagnostic framework specifically designed to evaluate cross-modal explainability. Unlike natural datasets, GridVQA-X leverages a closed-world synthesis logic to generate unique, mathematically guaranteed explanations. We utilize this controlled environment to train paired ground-truth models on identical architectures: $M_{\text{pure}}$, which learns robust spatial-relational reasoning and $M_{\text{spur}}$, which is structurally forced to rely on cross-modal shortcuts. This behavioral divergence creates a rigorous testbed: a faithful explainer must report distinct reasoning pathways for each model. Our findings reveal that widely used methods fail to distinguish between models relying on genuine spatial-relational reasoning and those exploiting cross-modal shortcuts, highlighting a critical gap in capturing true cross-modal synergy and misrepresenting how multimodal models actually make decisions.