Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending3 min read

Part Grounding, Not Action Knowledge: Locating the Bottleneck in VLM Affordance Prediction

Summary

arXiv:2609.13225v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks agree that vision-language models reason poorly about low-level manipulation, but an aggregate accuracy score does not say which step fails. We separate two steps that affordance questions conflate: identifying which part of an object to act on, and knowing what action that part requires. Across 19 articulated objects we asked eight models, spanning three developers, what motion a robot should apply. Under an open prompt, push was produced once in 64 evaluations where it was correct, despite being correct for 8 of 19 objects and appearing in the offered label set every time. Inspecting the outputs showed why: models described a different part than the one being scored, e.g. explaining how to pick up a camera rather than press its…

SourcearXiv Computer VisionAuthor: Sarthak Sattigeri
Part Grounding, Not Action Knowledge: Locating the Bottleneck in VLM Affordance Prediction
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 1 Sep 2026]

Title:Part Grounding, Not Action Knowledge: Locating the Bottleneck in VLM Affordance Prediction

View a PDF of the paper titled Part Grounding, Not Action Knowledge: Locating the Bottleneck in VLM Affordance Prediction, by Sarthak Sattigeri

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Benchmarks agree that vision-language models reason poorly about low-level manipulation, but an aggregate accuracy score does not say which step fails. We separate two steps that affordance questions conflate: identifying which part of an object to act on, and knowing what action that part requires. Across 19 articulated objects we asked eight models, spanning three developers, what motion a robot should apply. Under an open prompt, push was produced once in 64 evaluations where it was correct, despite being correct for 8 of 19 objects and appearing in the offered label set every time. Inspecting the outputs showed why: models described a different part than the one being scored, e.g. explaining how to pick up a camera rather than press its button. Naming the target part raises action accuracy by 0.32 to 0.63 for every model, from 0.158-0.474 to 0.684-0.947, and push recall from 0-1/8 to 7-8/8. No model beats a constant answer that ignores the image under the open prompt; once the part is named, all eight do. Asked to describe the same part in free prose with no label set, models produce pressing language for 6 to 8 of 8. These results are hard to reconcile with missing action knowledge, and instead point to part grounding as the dominant bottleneck, a pattern that holds across all three model families and does not diminish with capability. Naming the part supplies the grounding variable, so this bounds what a perfect part detector would offer rather than demonstrating a general model of mechanics. Two supporting results agree: on real photographs only three of eight models localize grasp points better than a constant baseline, and on rendered objects none do. We also document two measurement errors of our own, a threshold that let a constant baseline score 0.929 and a labelling rule wrong on 4 of 19 objects, both caught only by testing our numbers against trivial alternatives.

Subjects:

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Robotics (cs.RO)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.13225 [cs.CV]

(or arXiv:2609.13225v1 [cs.CV] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13225

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Sarthak Sattigeri [view email] [v1] Tue, 1 Sep 2026 05:03:51 UTC (7 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Part Grounding, Not Action Knowledge: Locating the Bottleneck in VLM Affordance Prediction, by Sarthak Sattigeri

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CV

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs cs.LG cs.RO

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

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.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.13225v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks agree that vision-language models reason poorly about low-level manipulation, but an aggregate accuracy score does not s…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.