Reference Games as a Testbed for the Alignment of Model Uncertainty and Clarification Requests
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In human conversation, both interlocutors play an active role in maintaining mutual understanding. When listeners are uncertain about what speakers mean, for example, they can request clarification. It is an open question for language models whether they can assume a similar listener role, recognizing and expressing their own uncertainty through clarification. We argue that reference games are a suitable testbed to approach this question as they are controlled, self-contained, and make clarification needs explicit and measurable. To test this, we evaluate three vision-language models comparing a baseline reference resolution task to an experiment where the models are instructed to request clarification when uncertain. The results suggest that even in such simple tasks, models often struggle to recognize internal uncertainty and translate it into adequate clarification behavior. This demonstrates the value of reference games as testbeds for interaction qualities of (vision and) language models.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jan 2026.
Builds on
14 of 34 references.
References · 14
- 2023Qwen-VL: A Versatile Vision-Language Model for Understanding, Localization, Text Reading, and Beyondcited by 2,179
- 2020Reducing conversational agents' overconfidence through linguistic calibrationcited by 209
- 2023Clarify When Necessary: Resolving Ambiguity Through Interaction with LMscited by 93
- 2017Colors in Context: A Pragmatic Neural Model for Grounded Language Understandingcited by 57
- 2023Large Language Models Help Humans Verify Truthfulness -- Except When They Are Convincingly Wrongcited by 51
- 2023Grounding Gaps in Language Model Generationscited by 45
- 2024Asking the Right Question at the Right Time: Human and Model Uncertainty Guidance to Ask Clarification Questionscited by 32
- 2023A Diachronic Perspective on User Trust in AI under Uncertaintycited by 23
- 2025LLMs Struggle to Reject False Presuppositions when Misinformation Stakes are Highcited by 11
- 2023Conversational Feedback in Scripted versus Spontaneous Dialogues: A Comparative Analysiscited by 10
- 2025Can LLMs Ground when they (Don't) Know: A Study on Direct and Loaded Political Questionscited by 9
- 2024RAcQUEt: Unveiling the Dangers of Overlooked Referential Ambiguity in Visual LLMscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Which one is banana man? Evaluating vision-language models in multi-turn pragmatic interpretation
- 2025Context informs pragmatic interpretation in vision-language models
- 2025ClarifyMT-Bench: Benchmarking and Improving Multi-Turn Clarification for Conversational Large Language Models
- 2026Referential Uncertainty in Human--AI Collaboration
- 2026Sycophancy Undermines Epistemic Vigilance in Cooperative Vision-Language Tasks
- 2025LVLMs are Bad at Overhearing Human Referential Communication
- 2026Human-Alignment, Calibration, and Activation Patterns in Large Language Model Uncertainty
- 2026Consistency Without Alignment: Item-Sensitive Language Models Indistinguishable From Random