pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00963 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.AI

Ablation Study of Multimodal Perception, Language Grounding, and Control for Human-Robot Interaction in an Object Detection and Grasping Task

Zi Tian , Guanting Shen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.AI
keywords ablation studyhuman-robot interactionmultimodal perceptionlanguage groundingrobot controlobject graspingsystem evaluation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ablation study isolates how language models, perception, and controllers separately shape robot grasping success and speed.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper extends an existing multimodal human-robot system with a controlled ablation that tests three language models for action extraction, five perception configurations for visual grounding, and three controllers for motion execution. All variants run under one shared experimental protocol on an object detection and grasping task, after which the strongest candidates are evaluated together in a factorial design. The explicit aim is to separate which module choices drive most of the variation in execution time from those that drive most of the variation in task success, so that later engineering work can target the highest-leverage components.

Core claim

By holding the task, robot platform, and evaluation metrics fixed while varying only one module at a time, the study produces direct measurements of each module's isolated contribution to end-to-end performance; a second-stage factorial comparison of the top-scoring candidates then reveals the best practical combinations without requiring a full redesign of the pipeline.

What carries the argument

The three-module ablation protocol (LLM action extraction, perception visual grounding, motion controller) run under a common experimental protocol followed by factorial re-combination of the best performers.

If this is right

  • Perception configuration choices will account for the largest share of success-rate differences across trials.
  • Language-model selection will account for the largest share of execution-time differences across trials.
  • The factorial stage will identify a small set of module combinations that outperform the original baseline on both metrics.
  • Engineering attention can be reallocated toward whichever module shows the steepest performance slope under the common protocol.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same isolation method could be reused on other manipulation or navigation tasks to generate module-specific performance maps without redesigning entire systems.
  • If module interactions turn out to be larger than the isolated effects, future work would need joint optimization rather than independent tuning.
  • The protocol supplies a reusable template for comparing new models or sensors as they become available.

Load-bearing premise

The three modules can be isolated and compared under a single experimental protocol without large unmeasured interactions or task-specific biases that would invalidate the separation.

What would settle it

If swapping one module consistently changes the measured effect of another module by more than the isolated differences, or if the ranking of configurations reverses when modules are tested in different task contexts, the claim that the protocol cleanly isolates each module's contribution would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00963 by Guanting Shen, Zi Tian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Information flow of the complete pipeline. Hardware elements and data flow of the robotic manipulation system. Figure extracted from [27]. The baseline system is a closed-loop human–robot inter￾action pipeline in which a spoken instruction is converted into a structured action, grounded in the scene, and executed by a Dobot Magician arm. Across all experiments, the same physical platform, the same camera a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This manuscript extends our previous multimodal human-robot interaction system by introducing a controlled ablation study of the three modules that most strongly influence end-to-end performance: the large language model used for action extraction, the perception system used for visual grounding, and the controller used for motion execution. The goal is not to redesign the full pipeline, but to isolate the contribution of each component under a common experimental protocol and then evaluate the best combinations end-to-end. We therefore compare three language models, five perception configurations, and three controllers, followed by a second-stage factorial study over the best candidates. The resulting analysis is intended to clarify which choices primarily affect execution time, which primarily affect success rate, and where the largest engineering gains are likely to come from in future revisions of the system.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends a prior multimodal human-robot interaction system for object detection and grasping by performing a controlled ablation study on three core modules: the LLM for action extraction, the perception system for visual grounding, and the motion controller. It compares three LLMs, five perception configurations, and three controllers under a shared protocol, followed by a factorial study on the best-performing candidates to identify which choices primarily drive execution time versus success rate.

Significance. If the module isolations prove valid, the work could supply practical guidance for prioritizing engineering improvements in similar HRI pipelines by quantifying relative impacts on time and success metrics. The two-stage design (initial screening plus factorial follow-up) is a strength for focusing resources on high-gain components.

major comments (1)
  1. [Ablation Study / Experimental Protocol] The ablation protocol (as described in the abstract and experimental methods) assumes modules can be isolated by holding others fixed, yet perception outputs directly shape LLM prompts and grounding accuracy while controller success depends on perception quality. This means each ablation samples from altered input distributions, so reported main effects on success rate and time may conflate direct module contributions with task-specific coupling. A full 3×5×3 factorial or explicit interaction-term analysis (e.g., ANOVA) is required to substantiate the attribution claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results tables should report error bars, sample sizes, and statistical tests (e.g., p-values for success-rate differences) to allow readers to assess the reliability of the reported differences.
  2. [Methods] Clarify the exact criteria used to select the 'best candidates' for the factorial stage and whether any runs were excluded (e.g., due to hardware failures or timeouts).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our ablation study. The concern about module interdependencies is well-taken, and we address it directly below while clarifying the rationale and limitations of our two-stage protocol.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Ablation Study / Experimental Protocol] The ablation protocol (as described in the abstract and experimental methods) assumes modules can be isolated by holding others fixed, yet perception outputs directly shape LLM prompts and grounding accuracy while controller success depends on perception quality. This means each ablation samples from altered input distributions, so reported main effects on success rate and time may conflate direct module contributions with task-specific coupling. A full 3×5×3 factorial or explicit interaction-term analysis (e.g., ANOVA) is required to substantiate the attribution claims.

    Authors: We agree that the modules exhibit couplings—perception quality directly affects LLM prompt content and controller outcomes—and that isolated ablations therefore operate on shifted input distributions. Our design intentionally uses a two-stage protocol: an initial screening phase that holds other modules at fixed baselines to identify promising candidates efficiently, followed by a targeted factorial study on the top-performing subsets to evaluate joint effects. A complete 3×5×3 design (45 conditions, each with repeated trials for reliability) would be prohibitively expensive in a physical robot environment. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated limitations subsection that explicitly discusses these interdependencies and their impact on causal attribution. We have also applied an ANOVA to the factorial-stage data to quantify main effects versus interactions, thereby strengthening the statistical support for our claims without requiring an exhaustive full-factorial experiment. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical module comparisons with independent experimental data

full rationale

The manuscript describes an ablation study that isolates and compares three LLMs, five perception configurations, and three controllers under a shared protocol, followed by a factorial evaluation of best candidates. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or self-referential definitions appear in the provided text. The extension of prior work is noted but does not serve as load-bearing justification for the current results; new experimental measurements of execution time and success rate provide the evidence. No steps reduce by construction to the paper's own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that modules can be ablated independently under a shared protocol; no free parameters, invented entities, or additional axioms are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The experimental protocol allows fair isolation of module contributions without confounding interactions.
    Required for the ablation results to attribute performance differences to specific modules.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5434 in / 1132 out tokens · 22357 ms · 2026-05-09T18:35:03.889209+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    An advanced medical robotic system augment- ing healthcare capabilities-robotic nursing assistant,

    J. Hu, A. Edsinger, Y .-J. Lim, N. Donaldson, M. Solano, A. Solochek, and R. Marchessault, “An advanced medical robotic system augment- ing healthcare capabilities-robotic nursing assistant,” in2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 2011, pp. 6264–6269

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    A human-robot interac- tion applicution based on augmented reality (ar) for industrial robot grasping process,

    L. Zhao, Z. Hu, H. Ding, S. Ji, and J. Yan, “A human-robot interac- tion applicution based on augmented reality (ar) for industrial robot grasping process,” in2022 7th International Conference on Robotics and Automation Engineering (ICRAE). IEEE, 2022, pp. 312–316

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    An educational robot system of visual question answering for preschoolers,

    B. He, M. Xia, X. Yu, P. Jian, H. Meng, and Z. Chen, “An educational robot system of visual question answering for preschoolers,” in2017 2nd international conference on robotics and automation engineering (ICRAE). IEEE, 2017, pp. 441–445

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Home robot service by ceiling ultrasonic locator and microphone ar- ray,

    S. Kagami, S. Thompson, Y . Nishida, T. Enomoto, and T. Matsui, “Home robot service by ceiling ultrasonic locator and microphone ar- ray,” inProceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006.IEEE, 2006, pp. 3171–3176

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    The human intention: a taxonomy attempt and its applications to robotics,

    J. E. Dom ´ınguez-Vidal and A. Sanfeliu, “The human intention: a taxonomy attempt and its applications to robotics,”International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 2479–2499, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Anticipatory robot control for efficient human-robot collaboration,

    C.-M. Huang and B. Mutlu, “Anticipatory robot control for efficient human-robot collaboration,” in2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2016, pp. 83–90

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Pointing gestures for human-robot interaction with the humanoid robot digit,

    V . Lorentz, M. Weiss, K. Hildebrand, and I. Boblan, “Pointing gestures for human-robot interaction with the humanoid robot digit,” in2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1886–1892

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Autonomous laparoscopic robotic suturing with a novel actuated suturing tool and 3d endoscope,

    H. Saeidi, H. N. Le, J. D. Opfermann, S. L ´eonard, A. Kim, M. H. Hsieh, J. U. Kang, and A. Krieger, “Autonomous laparoscopic robotic suturing with a novel actuated suturing tool and 3d endoscope,” in 2019 international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1541–1547

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Perception– intention–action cycle in human–robot collaborative tasks: the col- laborative lightweight object transportation use-case,

    J. E. Dom ´ınguez-Vidal, N. Rodr´ıguez, and A. Sanfeliu, “Perception– intention–action cycle in human–robot collaborative tasks: the col- laborative lightweight object transportation use-case,”International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 1927–1956, 2025

    work page 1927

  10. [10]

    Exploring transformers and visual transformers for force prediction in human-robot collaborative transportation tasks,

    J. E. Dominguez-Vidal and A. Sanfeliu, “Exploring transformers and visual transformers for force prediction in human-robot collaborative transportation tasks,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 3191–3197

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Force and velocity predic- tion in human-robot collaborative transportation tasks through video retentive networks,

    J. E. Dom ´ınguez-Vidal and A. Sanfeliu, “Force and velocity predic- tion in human-robot collaborative transportation tasks through video retentive networks,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 9307–9313

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Language and sketching: An llm-driven interactive multimodal multitask robot navigation framework,

    W. Zu, W. Song, R. Chen, Z. Guo, F. Sun, Z. Tian, W. Pan, and J. Wang, “Language and sketching: An llm-driven interactive multimodal multitask robot navigation framework,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1019–1025

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Interactive navigation in environments with traversable obstacles using large language and vision-language models,

    Z. Zhang, A. Lin, C. W. Wong, X. Chu, Q. Dou, and K. S. Au, “Interactive navigation in environments with traversable obstacles using large language and vision-language models,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 7867–7873

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Physically grounded vision-language models for robotic manipulation,

    J. Gao, B. Sarkar, F. Xia, T. Xiao, J. Wu, B. Ichter, A. Majumdar, and D. Sadigh, “Physically grounded vision-language models for robotic manipulation,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 12 462–12 469

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    When the inference meets the explicitness or why multimodality can make us forget about the perfect predictor,

    J. E. Dom ´ınguez-Vidal and A. Sanfeliu, “When the inference meets the explicitness or why multimodality can make us forget about the perfect predictor,”International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 2965–2980, 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Anticipation and proactivity. unraveling both concepts in human-robot interaction through a han- dover example,

    J. E. Dominguez-Vidal and A. Sanfeliu, “Anticipation and proactivity. unraveling both concepts in human-robot interaction through a han- dover example,” in2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN). IEEE, 2024, pp. 957–962

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi`ere, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azharet al., “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    GPT-4 Technical Report

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkatet al., “Gpt-4 technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Leveraging large language models in human-robot in- teraction: a critical analysis of potential and pitfalls,

    J. Atuhurra, “Leveraging large language models in human-robot in- teraction: a critical analysis of potential and pitfalls,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00693, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Florence-2: Advancing a unified representation for a variety of vision tasks,

    B. Xiao, H. Wu, W. Xu, X. Dai, H. Hu, Y . Lu, M. Zeng, C. Liu, and L. Yuan, “Florence-2: Advancing a unified representation for a variety of vision tasks,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 4818–4829

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak super- vision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak super- vision,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Ast: Audio spectrogram transformer,

    Y . Gong, Y .-A. Chung, and J. Glass, “Ast: Audio spectrogram trans- former,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.01778, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Fuzzy logic systems for engineering: a tutorial,

    J. M. Mendel, “Fuzzy logic systems for engineering: a tutorial,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 345–377, 2002

    work page 2002

  24. [24]

    Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: theory and design,

    Q. Liang and J. M. Mendel, “Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: theory and design,”IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy systems, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 535–550, 2000

    work page 2000

  25. [25]

    Fuzzy logic introduction,

    M. Hellmann, “Fuzzy logic introduction,”Universit ´e de Rennes, vol. 1, no. 1, 2001

    work page 2001

  26. [26]

    A type-2 fuzzy logic controller for autonomous mobile robots,

    H. Hagras, “A type-2 fuzzy logic controller for autonomous mobile robots,” in2004 IEEE International conference on fuzzy systems (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37542), vol. 2. IEEE, 2004, pp. 965–970

    work page 2004

  27. [27]

    An approach to combining video and speech with large language models in human-robot interaction,

    G. Shen and Z. Tian, “An approach to combining video and speech with large language models in human-robot interaction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.20219, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026