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.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.13225
