mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Dynamic-Semantics Framework for Grounding Human Referring Expressions in Visual Perceptual Data

arXiv 2608.08663 ↗First posted 9 Aug 2026cs.HC cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Humans converge on shared names for novel, hard-to-describe objects through repeated interaction, a process psycholinguists call lexical entrainment. Leading vision-language models fail at this: recent empirical work documents that they do not shorten references, reuse successful expressions, or maintain stable pact state across turns. We present a framework that addresses the gap by externalizing pact state into three explicit, inspectable sets of referent-object bindings (Gamma, Xi, Omega), updated by a dynamic-semantics context-change rule. The symbolic layer sits on top of a lightweight perceptual-alignment pipeline that grounds noisy human referring expressions in crowd-sourced imagery via SIFT homographies and the Universal Quality Index. Evaluated on the Stanford Repeated Reference Game corpus (over 15,000 director-matcher utterances on abstract tangram stimuli), the framework places the correct target in its top-5 hypothesis set 83.56% of the time from a single director utterance. Human matcher top-1 accuracy on the same corpus is approximately 77-80%. We also report results on a held-out condition in which obvious tangram-adjacent images are excluded from the retrieved set, which provides a more conservative measurement of the grounding signal. Ablations isolate the contribution of each component: SIFT alignment, UQI, query preprocessing, and image augmentation. The central contribution is the combination: a transparent, auditable symbolic layer that recovers the structure of lexical entrainment turn by turn, paired with a perceptual channel whose behavior can be examined ablation by ablation. We also discuss in detail what the framework does not do. It is not interactive, it does not close the loop with the director, and its retrieval-driven perceptual channel is vulnerable to a class of leakage effects that we quantify and bound rather than wave away.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Aug 2026.

Builds on

11 of 34 references.

References · 11

  1. 2020Emergent Multi-Agent Communication in the Deep Learning Eracited by 168
  2. 2021Deep Lucas-Kanade Homography for Multimodal Image Alignmentcited by 38
  3. 2019Characterizing the dynamics of learning in repeated reference gamescited by 34
  4. 2021Few-shot Language Coordination by Modeling Theory of Mindcited by 32
  5. 2024A Review of the Applications of Deep Learning-Based Emergent Communicationcited by 17
  6. 2025Shaping Shared Languages: Human and Large Language Models' Inductive Biases in Emergent Communicationcited by 9
  7. 2025Measuring How (Not Just Whether) VLMs Build Common Groundcited by 8
  8. 2026LVLMs and Humans Ground Differently in Referential Communicationcited by 8
  9. 2024Language Evolution with Deep Learningcited by 5
  10. 2026Gesturing Toward Abstraction: Multimodal Convention Formation in Collaborative Physical Taskscited by 4
  11. 2024Cognitive Spillover in Human-AI Teamscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Vision-Language Models Are Not Pragmatically Competent in Referring Expression Generation
  2. 2026Ref-Adv: Exploring MLLM Visual Reasoning in Referring Expression Tasks
  3. 2024R2-Bench: Benchmarking the Robustness of Referring Perception Models under Perturbations
  4. 2026Towards Open-World Referring Expression Comprehension: A Benchmark with Training-free Multi-task Consistency Checker
  5. 2025RefBench-PRO: Perceptual and Reasoning Oriented Benchmark for Referring Expression Comprehension
  6. 2025LVLMs are Bad at Overhearing Human Referential Communication
  7. 2026Implicit vs. Explicit Prompting Strategies for LVLMs in Referential Communication
  8. 2026Learning to Refer from Estimated Listener Gaze