Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can interpret a street view, but urban agency depends on whether such local evidence remains useful after the agent starts to move. In this paper, we investigate how far current MLLM agents can turn local urban perception into reliable action in a complicated real-scale city. We propose UrbanGround, the first sandbox to make this question testable in a physically constrained replica of Hong Kong built from territory-wide 3D geospatial data. UrbanGround supports closed-loop interaction from a first-person view and provides an interactive map for navigation. Agents can directly enter the 3D city and explore from a first-person view. Our analysis follows the growth of the spatial problem through three research questions. We first test whether an agent can ground a local scene well enough to answer spatial questions after active observation. Then we ask whether that grounding supports navigation as destinations become farther away and less explicit. Finally, we examine whether the resulting behavior survives changes in route availability and pedestrian motion. Contemporary MLLM agents usually show useful atomic abilities in visual recognition and short-range spatial reasoning, while orientation and pedestrian-aware movement remain unreliable. Their central failure emerges over extended exploration, where local abilities do not compose into sustained goal-directed behavior and errors accumulate without effective correction. We hope UrbanGround will support broader study of how far current MLLM agents can explore reliably in complex, open-ended urban environments.
Tianjie Ju, Zheng Wu, Yueqing Sun et al.· 0 citations
As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance in complex reasoning tasks, they have learned to heavily prioritize explicit conditions provided in the input. However, in everyday commonsense reasoning, this mechanism exposes a critical vulnerability which we term Salience Bias: models become easily hijacked by useless explicit distractors (e.g., numerical values), leading them to ignore the implicit physical or commonsense prerequisites of a task. A critical open question is whether this failure reflects a genuine gap in commonsense knowledge or merely its suppression under misleading task framing. To investigate this, we construct the SaliTrap Benchmark, a high-quality dataset across four trap dimensions. Evaluating 12 state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that all mainstream models suffer significantly from salience bias, with severity scaling with distractor density and detecting the trap often decoupled from actually avoiding it. Crucially, by re-eliciting the same models with the task framing stripped away, we show that this is overwhelmingly a failure of \textbf{knowledge suppression rather than knowledge absence}: a context-free knowledge probe alone recovers over 90\% of sycophantic-compliance failures, revealing that the requisite commonsense is intrinsically present but actively crowded out by salient distractors that lure the model into over-compliant, unnecessary computation. Building on this diagnosis, we further show that lightweight, inference-time prompting alone substantially closes the gap without any retraining. Our findings relocate the bottleneck of commonsense reasoning failures from model competence to elicitation, and we release SaliTrap as a testbed for this blind spot. The codes are available at https://github.com/Wuzheng02/SaliTrap.
Zheng Wu, Chenhao Xue, Shijie Zheng et al.· 0 citations