What Makes a Good Visual Representation for Spatial Understanding in MLLMs?

Spatial understanding is a necessary step in moving multimodal large language models (MLLMs) toward reasoning about the 3D physical world. Their visual pretraining data, however, is almost entirely 2D, so the visual tokens processed by MLLMs often lack inherent 3D structural information. A growing number of methods inject such structure by transferring representations from external vision or geometry models, and collectively establish that such transfer helps. Behind these methods lies a largely underexplored question: what makes a visual representation good for spatial understanding? To answer it, we first separate what is transferred from how it is transferred, and then trace the resulting differences back to properties of the representations themselves. What we transfer comes from 3D geometry models, self-supervised image and video models, vision-language models, and generative models, in the form of latent features or explicit depth and point maps. We transfer it either by distillation, using it as a supervision target, or by fusion, feeding it as an additional input. We find that a representation's 3D structure correlates strongly with how much it helps, measured by cross-view consistency for latent features and by depth and reconstruction accuracy for explicit geometry. We further show that the form of a representation dictates the mechanism it needs. Latent features gain as much from fusion as from distillation; explicit geometry gains little from fusion, and most of its distillation gain depends on a geometry decoding head. Guided by these findings, we distill both latent features and explicit geometry into a single MLLM. Taking only RGB video as input, it consistently improves over its base model on both static 3D and dynamic 4D spatial reasoning benchmarks.