aiqbench analysis
On ScanRefer's 3D visual grounding benchmark, cross-epoch agreement tracks calibration far better than softmax on queries with multiple candidate objects (ECE 0.041 vs. 0.272 for fixed-final agreement), which matters for teams that never logged per-query logits. The authors also retract a non-monotone error pattern that didn't hold under the default protocol, and most errors are geometric misses or same-class wrong-instance picks rather than wrong-category ones. The results come from one model and one benchmark, so they're best read as a practical caution for abstention design, not a general claim.
Agreement versus Softmax under Spatial Disambiguation
arXiv:2610.14210v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: ScanRefer Multiple queries require spatial disambiguation: several instances of the target class are present, and the referencer must pick one. When per-query logits were never logged, a common substitute is cross-epoch agreement. On the full ScanRefer validation set (9,508 queries; GeoClassifier with ground-truth proposals), object-level softmax is similarly miscalibrated on Unique and Multiple (ECE 0.068 vs. 0.102; the scene-bootstrap gap interval includes zero). Fixed-final agreement on the same checkpoints reports ECE 0.041 vs. 0.272 (gap +0.231). Modal-vote agreement is 0.045 vs. 0.318. Most Multiple errors are same-class wrong-instance (45.6%); geometric miss (H2) is 59.6%, and wrong-category (H1) is 16.7%. A non-monotone H1 pattern does not appear under the default fixed-final protocol, and we retract it. Logit-free thresholds rank spatially hard queries poorly. If only agreement was logged, calibrate abstention on Multiple and report wrong-instance rates with H1.
Abstract:ScanRefer Multiple queries require spatial disambiguation: several instances of the target class are present, and the referencer must pick one. When per-query logits were never logged, a common substitute is cross-epoch agreement. On the full ScanRefer validation set (9,508 queries; GeoClassifier with ground-truth proposals), object-level softmax is similarly miscalibrated on Unique and Multiple (ECE 0.068 vs. 0.102; the scene-bootstrap gap interval includes zero). Fixed-final agreement on the same checkpoints reports ECE 0.041 vs. 0.272 (gap +0.231). Modal-vote agreement is 0.045 vs. 0.318. Most Multiple errors are same-class wrong-instance (45.6%); geometric miss (H2) is 59.6%, and wrong-category (H1) is 16.7%. A non-monotone H1 pattern does not appear under the default fixed-final protocol, and we retract it. Logit-free thresholds rank spatially hard queries poorly. If only agreement was logged, calibrate abstention on Multiple and report wrong-instance rates with H1.
7 pages, 2 figures. Accepted at the NeurIPS 2026 Workshop on Embodied Spatial Reasoning (non-archival)
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)
arXiv:2610.14210 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.14210v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.14210 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 252 words
Related coverage
Benchmarking Active Spot Selection for Cost-Efficient Spatial Transcriptomics
arXiv · Sep 24, 2026
Attention by Synchronization in Coupled Oscillator Networks
arXiv · Jun 12, 2026
Kuramoto Attention: Synchronizing Self-Attention on the Torus
arXiv · Jun 12, 2026
Debugging Logprob Mismatches in LLM Reinforcement Learning
AMD · Sep 23, 2026