Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research identifies a critical limitation in current multimodal models where they suffer from "ambiguity collapse," over-specifying outputs rather than leveraging open-ended interpretation like humans do. Furthermore, the study highlights a significant deficit in cultural fluency, noting that AI-generated clues lack culturally situated knowledge and figurative language even when explicitly prompted for them. These findings underscore the gap between human communicative richness and the rigid, literal nature of current large-scale models.
Sources coveringarXiv, Latent Space
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Calibrated Ambiguity in Multimodal Language Models: Humans reach for cultural references, while models describe the picture

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.12575v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Ambiguity is often treated as a bug for AI systems to resolve---but in human communication and culture, ambiguity can also be a generative resource. From humour to politics to art, people express themselves in words and images that are open enough to invite different interpretations, yet constrained enough to be interpretable. We operationalise this notion of calibrated ambiguity with a task drawn from the parlour game Dixit. We compare differences in clues generated by human vs multimodal language models, based on a novel coding rubric for calibrated ambiguity, and find that models consistently exhibit ambiguity collapse (i.e., their outputs are over-specified, leaving no room for multiple legitimate interpretations). Unlike human clues, AI-generated clues also exhibit cultural flattening; they almost never make reference to culturally-situated knowledge, even when prompted to use allusion and figurative language.

Abstract:Ambiguity is often treated as a bug for AI systems to resolve---but in human communication and culture, ambiguity can also be a generative resource. From humour to politics to art, people express themselves in words and images that are open enough to invite different interpretations, yet constrained enough to be interpretable. We operationalise this notion of calibrated ambiguity with a task drawn from the parlour game Dixit. We compare differences in clues generated by human vs multimodal language models, based on a novel coding rubric for calibrated ambiguity, and find that models consistently exhibit ambiguity collapse (i.e., their outputs are over-specified, leaving no room for multiple legitimate interpretations). Unlike human clues, AI-generated clues also exhibit cultural flattening; they almost never make reference to culturally-situated knowledge, even when prompted to use allusion and figurative language.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2609.12575 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.12575v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.12575 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 · 235 words

Related coverage