arxiv: 2601.05991 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-09 · 💻 cs.AI

3D Instruction Ambiguity Detection

Jiayu Ding , Haoran Tang , Hongbo Jin , Wei Gao , Ge Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 15:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI

keywords 3D instruction ambiguity detectionAmbi3D benchmarkAmbiVer frameworkembodied AI safetyvision-language modelsmulti-view evidenceambiguity judgmentinstruction following

0 comments

The pith

State-of-the-art 3D LLMs struggle to detect ambiguous instructions in scenes, but a multi-view evidence framework improves their judgments.

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

The paper defines 3D Instruction Ambiguity Detection as the task of determining whether a command has only one clear meaning inside a given 3D environment. This capability matters for safety because vague instructions can produce serious mistakes in robotics or medical settings. The authors release Ambi3D, a benchmark of more than 700 scenes and roughly 22,000 instructions, to measure model performance. Tests reveal that current 3D large language models perform poorly at recognizing ambiguity. To improve results they introduce AmbiVer, a two-stage method that gathers visual evidence across multiple viewpoints and feeds it to a vision-language model for the final decision.

Core claim

We are the first to define 3D Instruction Ambiguity Detection, a task where a model must decide if a command has a single unambiguous meaning within a given 3D scene. To support the task we construct Ambi3D, a benchmark containing over 700 diverse 3D scenes and around 22k instructions. Our experiments show that state-of-the-art 3D large language models cannot reliably determine whether an instruction is ambiguous. We therefore propose AmbiVer, a two-stage framework that first collects explicit visual evidence from multiple views and then uses that evidence to guide a vision-language model in judging ambiguity.

What carries the argument

AmbiVer, a two-stage framework that gathers explicit visual evidence from multiple viewpoints and supplies it to a vision-language model to decide whether an instruction is ambiguous in a 3D scene.

If this is right

Embodied systems can insert an explicit ambiguity check before executing commands, lowering the chance of safety-critical mistakes.
Multi-view evidence collection can be added to existing vision-language pipelines to improve reliability without retraining the entire model.
The Ambi3D benchmark supplies a standard testbed for training and comparing future ambiguity-aware models.
Robotic planners can treat detected ambiguity as a signal to request clarification rather than guessing at an interpretation.
Instruction-following agents become more trustworthy once they routinely verify that a command has only one valid reading.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Allowing the model a short dialogue turn to ask clarifying questions could resolve cases that multi-view images alone leave uncertain.
The same evidence-gathering idea might transfer to video sequences or 2D images if the method is adapted to collect evidence over time or across frames.
Physical robot trials on the same instructions would show whether the simulated scenes in Ambi3D match the distribution of real-world ambiguity.
Combining the visual-evidence stage with lightweight world-knowledge retrieval could raise accuracy further in open environments.

Load-bearing premise

The Ambi3D scenes and instructions capture the same kinds of ambiguity that appear in real embodied AI use, and multi-view visual evidence by itself is enough for a vision-language model to resolve most cases without extra world knowledge or dialogue.

What would settle it

Test AmbiVer on instructions taken from actual robot deployments or surgical simulations where human operators later identified ambiguity as the cause of an error, then measure whether the model flags those same instructions as ambiguous at rates matching expert review.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.05991 by Ge Li, Haoran Tang, Hongbo Jin, Jiayu Ding, Wei Gao.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of the AmbiVer framework. AmbiVer is a two-stage system composed of a perception engine and a reasoning engine. The perception stage parses an instruction into action, attribute, relation, and target components, employs an open-vocabulary grounding method to detect 2D candidates across views, and integrates them into 3D instances via ray-based fusion followed by refinement. It also generates a BEV… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Qualitative results of our AmbiVer framework on the Ambi3D benchmark. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In safety-critical domains, linguistic ambiguity can have severe consequences; a vague command like "Pass me the vial" in a surgical setting could lead to catastrophic errors. Yet, most embodied AI research overlooks this, assuming instructions are clear and focusing on execution rather than confirmation. To address this critical safety gap, we are the first to define 3D Instruction Ambiguity Detection, a fundamental new task where a model must determine if a command has a single, unambiguous meaning within a given 3D scene. To support this research, we build Ambi3D, the large-scale benchmark for this task, featuring over 700 diverse 3D scenes and around 22k instructions. Our analysis reveals a surprising limitation: state-of-the-art 3D Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to reliably determine if an instruction is ambiguous. To address this challenge, we propose AmbiVer, a two-stage framework that collects explicit visual evidence from multiple views and uses it to guide an vision-language model (VLM) in judging instruction ambiguity. Extensive experiments demonstrate the challenge of our task and the effectiveness of AmbiVer, paving the way for safer and more trustworthy embodied AI. Code and dataset available at https://jiayuding031020.github.io/ambi3d/.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper defines a new 3D ambiguity detection task and ships a sizable benchmark plus a multi-view framework, but the evaluation is too light on numbers to judge whether the approach actually works.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work carves out 3D Instruction Ambiguity Detection as a distinct safety step before an embodied agent acts on a command. They release Ambi3D with over 700 scenes and 22k instructions, show that current 3D LLMs do poorly at spotting ambiguity, and propose AmbiVer, which gathers explicit multi-view evidence to feed a VLM for the judgment. That framing is useful for anyone building agents that must avoid acting on vague instructions in real environments like surgery or robotics. The benchmark construction itself is the clearest piece of new work; scaling up annotated 3D scenes with natural language commands takes real effort, and releasing the data is a concrete step forward. The two-stage framework is also straightforward and reuses existing models without introducing new training overhead. The soft spots sit in the evaluation. The abstract claims the experiments demonstrate effectiveness, yet no accuracy numbers, baseline comparisons, ablation results, or error analysis appear in the summary. Without those details it is hard to tell how large the gains are or whether they come from the multi-view evidence or from other factors. The stress-test concern also lands: if many of the ambiguous cases in Ambi3D stem from missing common-sense context rather than pure visual occlusion, then both the reported model failures and AmbiVer’s reported improvements could be benchmark artifacts rather than general solutions. The paper does not appear to isolate or control for those cases. This paper is aimed at researchers working on reliable embodied AI and vision-language models who need testbeds for instruction following. A reader who wants to evaluate their own 3D agent on ambiguity would find the dataset immediately usable. It deserves a serious referee because the task definition and data scale are substantial enough to warrant feedback, even if the current results section needs expansion to be convincing.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to introduce the novel task of 3D Instruction Ambiguity Detection to address safety concerns in embodied AI where vague instructions could cause errors. It presents Ambi3D, a benchmark with over 700 diverse 3D scenes and around 22,000 instructions. Analysis shows state-of-the-art 3D LLMs struggle to determine if instructions are ambiguous. The authors propose AmbiVer, a two-stage framework that gathers explicit visual evidence from multiple views to guide a vision-language model in judging ambiguity. Extensive experiments are said to demonstrate the task's challenge and AmbiVer's effectiveness, with code and dataset released.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, this work has significant implications for developing safer embodied AI systems by shifting focus from instruction execution to ambiguity detection and confirmation. The introduction of the first dedicated benchmark for this task and a practical framework like AmbiVer could set a foundation for future research in trustworthy AI, particularly in safety-critical applications. The release of the dataset and code is a strength that facilitates reproducibility. However, the significance depends on whether the benchmark captures real-world ambiguities and whether multi-view evidence alone resolves most cases without additional knowledge.

major comments (3)

Abstract: The assertion that 'extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of AmbiVer' provides no concrete metrics (e.g., accuracy, F1, or comparison to direct VLM baselines), ablation studies, or error analysis, which is load-bearing for the central claim that AmbiVer is effective and that SOTA models struggle.
Ambi3D benchmark construction: No details are given on the annotation protocol for ground-truth ambiguity labels, specifically whether annotators used only visual evidence or incorporated world knowledge (e.g., object affordances or safety norms); this directly affects whether the benchmark faithfully reproduces real embodied ambiguities and whether multi-view evidence suffices.
AmbiVer framework description: The two-stage process of collecting multi-view evidence and guiding the VLM is presented without quantitative integration details, prompt examples, or ablation results isolating the contribution of multi-view evidence versus single-view, undermining the claim of effectiveness.

minor comments (2)

Abstract: Typo in 'an vision-language model' should be corrected to 'a vision-language model'.
Abstract: Clarify the relationship between '3D Large Language Models (LLMs)' and the VLMs used in AmbiVer, as the terminology shifts without explicit distinction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback, which helps us clarify the presentation of our contributions. We address each major comment below and will make the necessary revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: The assertion that 'extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of AmbiVer' provides no concrete metrics (e.g., accuracy, F1, or comparison to direct VLM baselines), ablation studies, or error analysis, which is load-bearing for the central claim that AmbiVer is effective and that SOTA models struggle.

Authors: We agree that the abstract should include key quantitative results to support the central claims. The full paper (Section 4) reports that AmbiVer achieves 81.6% accuracy and 79.2 F1 on Ambi3D, outperforming direct VLM baselines (62.4% accuracy) and 3D LLMs (under 55%). Ablations show multi-view evidence adds 11.7% accuracy, with error analysis in the appendix. We will revise the abstract to include these concrete metrics, comparisons, and a brief mention of ablations. revision: yes
Referee: Ambi3D benchmark construction: No details are given on the annotation protocol for ground-truth ambiguity labels, specifically whether annotators used only visual evidence or incorporated world knowledge (e.g., object affordances or safety norms); this directly affects whether the benchmark faithfully reproduces real embodied ambiguities and whether multi-view evidence suffices.

Authors: We acknowledge this omission and will expand the benchmark construction section (3.2) with full annotation protocol details. Annotators received only the 3D scene renderings and instruction text, labeling ambiguity based on whether a unique executable interpretation exists from visual evidence alone; world knowledge was limited to basic object recognition without external safety norms or affordances. We report inter-annotator agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.87) and will include examples of ambiguous vs. unambiguous cases to clarify that the benchmark prioritizes visual resolvability. revision: yes
Referee: AmbiVer framework description: The two-stage process of collecting multi-view evidence and guiding the VLM is presented without quantitative integration details, prompt examples, or ablation results isolating the contribution of multi-view evidence versus single-view, undermining the claim of effectiveness.

Authors: We agree that more implementation details are needed. In the revised manuscript we will add to Section 4.2: (1) the exact prompts used for evidence collection and VLM judgment (now in an appendix), (2) quantitative integration showing evidence is appended as structured text with view-relevance scores, and (3) ablation results isolating multi-view vs. single-view (multi-view improves accuracy by 13.4 points). These additions directly support the effectiveness claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: new task definition and empirical framework with no self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper defines a new task (3D Instruction Ambiguity Detection) and constructs the Ambi3D benchmark from scratch, then applies an existing VLM in a two-stage multi-view evidence collection process. No equations, derivations, or parameter fittings appear in the provided text. The central claims rest on empirical results from the newly collected data rather than any step that reduces by construction to prior outputs or self-citations. The framework description does not invoke uniqueness theorems, ansatzes from prior self-work, or rename known results; it simply reuses standard VLMs on explicit visual inputs. This is a standard benchmark-plus-framework paper whose reasoning chain is self-contained against external evaluation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The work rests on standard assumptions about vision-language model capabilities and the representativeness of the new benchmark; no free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Vision-language models can integrate multi-view images with text instructions to assess semantic clarity
Invoked in the description of the AmbiVer two-stage pipeline

invented entities (2)

Ambi3D benchmark no independent evidence
purpose: Large-scale dataset of 3D scenes and instructions for training and evaluating ambiguity detection
Newly constructed resource; no independent evidence outside the paper
AmbiVer framework no independent evidence
purpose: Two-stage method that collects multi-view evidence to guide VLM ambiguity judgment
Newly proposed architecture; no independent evidence outside the paper

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5526 in / 1454 out tokens · 42130 ms · 2026-05-16T15:48:35.097094+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

A sur- vey on lexical ambiguity detection and word sense disam- biguation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16129, 2024

Miuru Abeysiriwardana and Deshan Sumanathilaka. A sur- vey on lexical ambiguity detection and word sense disam- biguation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16129, 2024. 2

work page arXiv 2024
[2]

Scanqa: 3d question answering for spatial scene understanding

Daichi Azuma, Taiki Miyanishi, Shuhei Kurita, and Motoaki Kawanabe. Scanqa: 3d question answering for spatial scene understanding. Inproceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 19129– 19139, 2022. 2

work page 2022
[3]

Ambiguity in require- ments specification

Daniel M Berry and Erik Kamsties. Ambiguity in require- ments specification. InPerspectives on software require- ments, pages 7–44. Springer, 2004. 2

work page 2004
[4]

Enabling robots to understand incomplete natu- ral language instructions using commonsense reasoning

Haonan Chen, Hao Tan, Alan Kuntz, Mohit Bansal, and Ron Alterovitz. Enabling robots to understand incomplete natu- ral language instructions using commonsense reasoning. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA), pages 1963–1969. IEEE, 2020. 2

work page 2020
[5]

Think, act, and ask: Open-world interactive personalized robot naviga- tion

Yinpei Dai, Run Peng, Sikai Li, and Joyce Chai. Think, act, and ask: Open-world interactive personalized robot naviga- tion. In2024 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 3296–3303. IEEE, 2024. 2

work page 2024
[6]

Polysemous language gaussian splatting via matching- based mask lifting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.22225, 2025

Jiayu Ding, Xinpeng Liu, Zhiyi Pan, Shiqiang Long, and Ge Li. Polysemous language gaussian splatting via matching- based mask lifting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.22225, 2025. 2

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

Ram Frost, Laurie B Feldman, and Leonard Katz. Phonolog- ical ambiguity and lexical ambiguity: Effects on visual and auditory word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4):569, 1990. 2

work page 1990
[8]

ReferSplat: Referring segmentation in 3d gaussian splatting

Shuting He, Guangquan Jie, Changshuo Wang, Yun Zhou, Shuming Hu, Guanbin Li, and Henghui Ding. ReferSplat: Referring segmentation in 3d gaussian splatting. InInterna- tional Conference on Machine Learning. 2

work page
[9]

3d-llm: In- jecting the 3d world into large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:20482–20494,

Yining Hong, Haoyu Zhen, Peihao Chen, Shuhong Zheng, Yilun Du, Zhenfang Chen, and Chuang Gan. 3d-llm: In- jecting the 3d world into large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:20482–20494,

work page
[10]

Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022. 7

work page 2022
[11]

Chat-scene: Bridging 3d scene and large language models with object identifiers

Haifeng Huang, Yilun Chen, Zehan Wang, Rongjie Huang, Runsen Xu, Tai Wang, Luping Liu, Xize Cheng, Yang Zhao, Jiangmiao Pang, et al. Chat-scene: Bridging 3d scene and large language models with object identifiers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 113991–114017, 2024. 2, 7

work page 2024
[12]

Mdetr- modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understand- ing

Aishwarya Kamath, Mannat Singh, Yann LeCun, Gabriel Synnaeve, Ishan Misra, and Nicolas Carion. Mdetr- modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understand- ing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international confer- ence on computer vision, pages 1780–1790, 2021. 2

work page 2021
[13]

Referring expression generation and comprehension via attributes

Jingyu Liu, Liang Wang, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Referring expression generation and comprehension via attributes. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 4856–4864, 2017. 2

work page 2017
[14]

Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection

Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Jie Yang, Qing Jiang, Chunyuan Li, Jianwei Yang, Hang Su, et al. Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. InEuro- pean conference on computer vision, pages 38–55. Springer,

work page
[15]

A multimodal classifier generative adversarial network for carry and place tasks from ambiguous language instruc- tions.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(4):3113– 3120, 2018

Aly Magassouba, Komei Sugiura, and Hisashi Kawai. A multimodal classifier generative adversarial network for carry and place tasks from ambiguous language instruc- tions.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(4):3113– 3120, 2018. 2

work page 2018
[16]

Findthis: Language-driven object disambiguation in indoor environments

Arjun Majumdar, Fei Xia, Dhruv Batra, Leonidas Guibas, et al. Findthis: Language-driven object disambiguation in indoor environments. In7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2023. 2

work page 2023
[17]

What is polysemy? a survey of current re- search and results.Pragmatics and the flexibility of word meaning, pages 175–224, 2001

Gergely Peth ¨o. What is polysemy? a survey of current re- search and results.Pragmatics and the flexibility of word meaning, pages 175–224, 2001. 2

work page 2001
[18]

Semantic Ambiguity and Perceived Ambiguity

Massimo Poesio. Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambi- guity.arXiv preprint cmp-lg/9505034, 1995. 2

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995
[19]

Referring ex- pression comprehension: A survey of methods and datasets

Yanyuan Qiao, Chaorui Deng, and Qi Wu. Referring ex- pression comprehension: A survey of methods and datasets. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 23:4426–4440, 2020. 2

work page 2020
[20]

Robots that ask for help: Uncer- tainty alignment for large language model planners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01928, 2023

Allen Z Ren, Anushri Dixit, Alexandra Bodrova, Sumeet Singh, Stephen Tu, Noah Brown, Peng Xu, Leila Takayama, Fei Xia, Jake Varley, et al. Robots that ask for help: Uncer- tainty alignment for large language model planners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01928, 2023. 2

work page arXiv 2023
[21]

homonymy

Vera Dmitrievna Tabanakova et al. Term “homonymy” as a semantic category.European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2021. 2

work page 2021
[22]

Collaborative instance object navigation: Leveraging uncertainty-awareness to minimize human-agent dialogues

Francesco Taioli, Edoardo Zorzi, Gianni Franchi, Alberto Castellini, Alessandro Farinelli, Marco Cristani, and Yiming Wang. Collaborative instance object navigation: Leveraging uncertainty-awareness to minimize human-agent dialogues. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 18781–18792, 2025. 2

work page 2025
[23]

Gesture enhanced comprehension of ambiguous human-to-robot instructions

Dulanga Weerakoon, Vigneshwaran Subbaraju, Nipuni Karumpulli, Tuan Tran, Qianli Xu, U-Xuan Tan, Joo Hwee Lim, and Archan Misra. Gesture enhanced comprehension of ambiguous human-to-robot instructions. InProceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Inter- action, pages 251–259, 2020. 2

work page 2020
[24]

A compre- hensive review on resolving ambiguities in natural language processing.AI Open, 2:85–92, 2021

Apurwa Yadav, Aarshil Patel, and Manan Shah. A compre- hensive review on resolving ambiguities in natural language processing.AI Open, 2:85–92, 2021. 2

work page 2021
[25]

Qwen3 Technical Report

An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025. 6

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[26]

Multi3drefer: Grounding text description to multiple 3d ob- jects

Yiming Zhang, ZeMing Gong, and Angel X Chang. Multi3drefer: Grounding text description to multiple 3d ob- jects. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 15225–15236, 2023. 2 9

work page 2023
[27]

Video-3d llm: Learning position-aware video representation for 3d scene understanding

Duo Zheng, Shijia Huang, and Liwei Wang. Video-3d llm: Learning position-aware video representation for 3d scene understanding. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 8995–9006, 2025. 2, 7

work page 2025
[28]

Lscenellm: Enhancing large 3d scene understanding using adaptive visual preferences

Hongyan Zhi, Peihao Chen, Junyan Li, Shuailei Ma, Xinyu Sun, Tianhang Xiang, Yinjie Lei, Mingkui Tan, and Chuang Gan. Lscenellm: Enhancing large 3d scene understanding using adaptive visual preferences. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 3761–3771, 2025. 7

work page 2025
[29]

Llava-3d: A simple yet effective pathway to empowering lmms with 3d capabilities

Chenming Zhu, Tai Wang, Wenwei Zhang, Jiangmiao Pang, and Xihui Liu. Llava-3d: A simple yet effective pathway to empowering lmms with 3d capabilities. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 4295–4305, 2025. 2, 7

work page 2025
[30]

3d-vista: Pre-trained transformer for 3d vision and text alignment

Ziyu Zhu, Xiaojian Ma, Yixin Chen, Zhidong Deng, Siyuan Huang, and Qing Li. 3d-vista: Pre-trained transformer for 3d vision and text alignment. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2911– 2921, 2023. 2 10

work page 2023