analiza aiqbench
This research evaluates the limitations of current vision-language models in multi-turn pragmatic reasoning, revealing a critical gap between human and AI performance in building shared context during conversation. The study highlights that while models can utilize prior information, they struggle to effectively construct the necessary contextual framework for efficient linguistic collaboration. These findings underscore the need for advanced architectural improvements to enable true conversational fluidity in AI agents.
Which one is banana man? Evaluating vision-language models in multi-turn pragmatic interpretation
arXiv:2608.29571v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Flexible adaptation to context and shared pragmatic intuitions contribute to smooth human conversation. Iterated reference games---in which players repeatedly pick out novel referents using language---present a test case for agents' ability to perform context-sensitive pragmatic reasoning in multi-turn linguistic environments. We tested humans and vision--language models on their ability to identify the intended meaning of descriptions produced in iterated reference games, varying the provided context in terms of amount, order, and relevance. While humans performed well consistently, the models we evaluated could make use of prior context to interpret humans' referring expressions, but they struggled to build up the relevant context to interpret those expressions effectively. Our results suggest that the models we evaluated lack core skills needed for efficient linguistic collaboration.
Title:Which one is banana man? Evaluating vision-language models in multi-turn pragmatic interpretation
Abstract:Flexible adaptation to context and shared pragmatic intuitions contribute to smooth human conversation. Iterated reference games---in which players repeatedly pick out novel referents using language---present a test case for agents' ability to perform context-sensitive pragmatic reasoning in multi-turn linguistic environments. We tested humans and vision--language models on their ability to identify the intended meaning of descriptions produced in iterated reference games, varying the provided context in terms of amount, order, and relevance. While humans performed well consistently, the models we evaluated could make use of prior context to interpret humans' referring expressions, but they struggled to build up the relevant context to interpret those expressions effectively. Our results suggest that the models we evaluated lack core skills needed for efficient linguistic collaboration.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2608.29571 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.29571v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.29571 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 229 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · 17 oct. 2026

[AINews] TypeSafe/Jev at >$100M ARR, $7.5B valuation 3 weeks after launch
Latent Space · 10 oct. 2026

How to Evaluate General-Purpose Robot Policies for Real-World Deployment
NVIDIA · 12 iul. 2026
Amazon is investing in the Lean Focused Research Organization
Amazon Science · 26 iul. 2026