Abstract
Robots that follow natural-language instructions in everyday indoor environments must act on incomplete human utterances. Instructions often omit essential information, such as the identity of an out-of-view object, an intended destination, or the user's goal. Existing datasets contain little real-world situated dialogue and provide few practice-grounded criteria for deciding when a robot should act, confirm, clarify, or refuse. We retrospectively analyze a pilot Wizard-of-Oz study in which five participants performed everyday indoor tasks, including door opening, drawer opening, feeding, drinking, and cleaning, with a wheelchair-mounted mobile manipulator while the wizard responded without a formal communication policy. This preserved authentic user behavior but produced inconsistent robot-side decisions, motivating an explicit decision scheme. From 40 episodes, we derived a hierarchical taxonomy of six response modes (ANSWER, REPORT_DONE, REFUSE, CONFIRM, CLARIFY, ACT) and four ambiguity types (intent, referential, spatial, intelligibility). Two human annotators and an AI annotator applied the scheme to the pilot data. Clean-label rates were 91% and 89%, and Cohen's ranged from 0.72 to 0.95 across decision-point, mode, and ambiguity levels for both human-human and human-AI comparisons. Fine-tuning LLaVA-1.6-7B on taxonomy-derived labels for ACT and CLARIFY indicates the feasibility of training vision-language models using annotations from our taxonomy. Remaining boundary cases in decision-point identification and REPORT_DONE motivate a constrained protocol for more consistent dialogue collection.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.19447
