Using Machine Mental Imagery for Representing Common Ground in Situated Dialogue
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Situated dialogue requires speakers to maintain a reliable representation of shared context rather than reasoning only over isolated utterances. Current conversational agents often struggle with this requirement, especially when the common ground must be preserved beyond the immediate context window. In such settings, fine-grained distinctions are frequently compressed into purely textual representations, leading to a critical failure mode we call representational blur, in which similar but distinct entities collapse into interchangeable descriptions. This semantic flattening creates an illusion of grounding, where agents appear locally coherent but fail to track shared context persistently over time. Inspired by the role of mental imagery in human reasoning, and based on the increased availability of multimodal models, we explore whether conversational agents can be given an analogous ability to construct some depictive intermediate representations during dialogue to address these limitations. Thus, we introduce an active visual scaffolding framework that incrementally converts dialogue state into a persistent visual history that can later be retrieved for grounded response generation. Evaluation on the IndiRef benchmark shows that incremental externalization itself improves over full-dialog reasoning, while visual scaffolding provides additional gains by reducing representational blur and enforcing concrete scene commitments. At the same time, textual representations remain advantageous for non-depictable information, and a hybrid multimodal setting yields the best overall performance. Together, these findings suggest that conversational agents benefit from an explicitly multimodal representation of common ground that integrates depictive and propositional information.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Apr 2026.
Builds on
19 of 47 references.
References · 19
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2025Qwen-Image Technical Reportcited by 973
- 2024BLINK: Multimodal Large Language Models Can See but Not Perceivecited by 529
- 2023What does CLIP know about a red circle? Visual prompt engineering for VLMscited by 215
- 2025Imagine while Reasoning in Space: Multimodal Visualization-of-Thoughtcited by 204
- 2025Machine Mental Imagery: Empower Multimodal Reasoning with Latent Visual Tokenscited by 120
- 20243D-Mem: 3D Scene Memory for Embodied Exploration and Reasoningcited by 73
- 2022CLIPasso: Semantically-Aware Object Sketchingcited by 57
- 2025Visual Thoughts: A Unified Perspective of Understanding Multimodal Chain-of-Thoughtcited by 34
- 2022"Do you follow me?": A Survey of Recent Approaches in Dialogue State Trackingcited by 22
- 2019MeetUp! A Corpus of Joint Activity Dialogues in a Visual Environmentcited by 19
7 more
- 2024Talk Less, Interact Better: Evaluating In-context Conversational Adaptation in Multimodal LLMscited by 18
- 2019Pragmatic inference and visual abstraction enable contextual flexibility during visual communicationcited by 14
- 2021Maintaining Common Ground in Dynamic Environmentscited by 9
- 2023Dealing with Semantic Underspecification in Multimodal NLPcited by 9
- 2024Conversational Grounding: Annotation and Analysis of Grounding Acts and Grounding Unitscited by 8
- 2025Taking Notes Brings Focus? Towards Multi-Turn Multimodal Dialogue Learningcited by 5
- 2026Frame of Reference: Addressing the Challenges of Common Ground Representation in Situational Dialogscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.