跳到主要內容
AI News HubLIVE
來源內容 · 翻譯待補全3 分鐘閱讀

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

文章摘要

AI 服務暫時不可用,以下為來源摘要,待恢復後補全翻譯: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 c…

來源arXiv Computer Vision作者: Sarthak Sattigeri
待翻譯:Part Grounding, Not Action Knowledge: Locating the Bottleneck in VLM Affordance Prediction
報告錯誤

更正渠道尚未開通,可先複製下方文章資訊留存。

查看更正說明
直接讀正文

AI 服務暫時不可用,以下為來源正文,待恢復後補全翻譯。

[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?)

展開要點與分析

文章情報

投資人進階

要點

  • AI 服務暫時不可用,系統已先保留來源內容與降級元數據。
  • 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…

要點與分析由自動化流程生成,可能有誤,請結合原始來源核實。