'What are you referring to?' Evaluating the Ability of Multi-Modal Dialogue Models to Process Clarificational Exchanges
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Referential ambiguities arise in dialogue when a referring expression does not uniquely identify the intended referent for the addressee. Addressees usually detect such ambiguities immediately and work with the speaker to repair it using meta-communicative, Clarificational Exchanges (CE): a Clarification Request (CR) and a response. Here, we argue that the ability to generate and respond to CRs imposes specific constraints on the architecture and objective functions of multi-modal, visually grounded dialogue models. We use the SIMMC 2.0 dataset to evaluate the ability of different state-of-the-art model architectures to process CEs, with a metric that probes the contextual updates that arise from them in the model. We find that language-based models are able to encode simple multi-modal semantic information and process some CEs, excelling with those related to the dialogue history, whilst multi-modal models can use additional learning objectives to obtain disentangled object representations, which become crucial to handle complex referential ambiguities across modalities overall.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2023.
Builds on
19 of 53 references.
References · 19
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
- 2019LXMERT: Learning Cross-Modality Encoder Representations from Transformerscited by 1,548
- 2016Visual Dialogcited by 377
- 2022Bridging the Gap to Real-World Object-Centric Learningcited by 219
- 2016GuessWhat?! Visual object discovery through multi-modal dialoguecited by 112
- 2021Building and Evaluating Open-Domain Dialogue Corpora with Clarifying Questionscited by 63
- 2020VD-BERT: A Unified Vision and Dialog Transformer with BERTcited by 54
- 2021SIMMC 2.0: A Task-oriented Dialog Dataset for Immersive Multimodal Conversationscited by 54
- 2019The PhotoBook Dataset: Building Common Ground through Visually-Grounded Dialoguecited by 46
- 2020History for Visual Dialog: Do we really need it?cited by 32
- 2022Learning to Execute Actions or Ask Clarification Questionscited by 30
7 more
- 2021A recipe for annotating grounded clarificationscited by 13
- 2021Multimodal Incremental Transformer with Visual Grounding for Visual Dialogue Generationcited by 11
- 2023Instruction Clarification Requests in Multimodal Collaborative Dialogue Games: Tasks, and an Analysis of the CoDraw Datasetcited by 11
- 2020CompGuessWhat?!: A Multi-task Evaluation Framework for Grounded Language Learningcited by 8
- 2021Decision-Theoretic Question Generation for Situated Reference Resolution: An Empirical Study and Computational Modelcited by 3
- 2022Exploring Multi-Modal Representations for Ambiguity Detection & Coreference Resolution in the SIMMC 2.0 Challengecited by 2
- 2021An Empirical Study on the Generalization Power of Neural Representations Learned via Visual Guessing Gamescited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3.
3 papers.
- 2024RAcQUEt: Unveiling the Dangers of Overlooked Referential Ambiguity in Visual LLMscited by 8
- 2024Taking Action Towards Graceful Interaction: The Effects of Performing Actions on Modelling Policies for Instruction Clarification Requestscited by 4
- 2024Repairs in a Block World: A New Benchmark for Handling User Corrections with Multi-Modal Language Modelscited by 3
- 2024RAcQUEt: Unveiling the Dangers of Overlooked Referential Ambiguity in Visual LLMs18 Dec 2024
- 2024Repairs in a Block World: A New Benchmark for Handling User Corrections with Multi-Modal Language Models21 Sep 2024
- 2024Taking Action Towards Graceful Interaction: The Effects of Performing Actions on Modelling Policies for Instruction Clarification Requests30 Jan 2024