arxiv: 2604.15339 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-10 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI· cs.RO

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Uncertainty, Vagueness, and Ambiguity in Human-Robot Interaction: Why Conceptualization Matters

Xiaowen Sun , Cornelius Weber , Matthias Kerzel , Josua Spisak , Stefan Wermter

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 13:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AIcs.RO

keywords uncertaintyvaguenessambiguityhuman-robot interactionconceptual foundationterminologyHRI research

0 comments

The pith

Human-robot interaction needs consistent definitions of uncertainty, vagueness, and ambiguity to make studies comparable.

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

Contradictory definitions of uncertainty, vagueness, and ambiguity in human-robot interaction research prevent the comparison of results across studies. This slows the development of reliable theories about how robots should respond to unclear human communication. The paper proposes a foundation by drawing definitions from dictionaries, clarifying their differences and connections in HRI settings, and showing examples. A reader would care because such consistency could lead to robots that better manage real interactions where humans are imprecise or unclear. This in turn supports better method design and evaluation.

Core claim

The paper proposes a consistent conceptual foundation for the challenges of uncertainty, vagueness, and ambiguity in HRI. It does so by first examining the meanings of these three terms in dictionaries, then analyzing the nature of their distinctions and interrelationships within the context of HRI, illustrating these characteristics through examples, and finally demonstrating how this foundation facilitates the design of novel methods and the evaluation of existing methodologies.

What carries the argument

The consistent conceptual foundation derived from dictionary meanings, distinctions, and interrelationships in HRI contexts.

Load-bearing premise

Dictionary-based distinctions and HRI examples will suffice to resolve contradictory usages and improve study comparability.

What would settle it

A review of subsequent HRI literature that finds no reduction in inconsistent terminology or improved ability to compare results across papers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15339 by Cornelius Weber, Josua Spisak, Matthias Kerzel, Stefan Wermter, Xiaowen Sun.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: An everyday life scenario involving a humanoid intelligent robot. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: OSSA first distinguishes between an intact apple and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Uncertainty, vagueness, and ambiguity are closely related and often confused concepts in human-robot interaction (HRI). In earlier studies, these concepts have been defined in contradictory ways and described using inconsistent terminology. This conceptual confusion and lack of terminological consistency undermine empirical comparability, thereby slowing the accumulation of theory. Consequently, consistent concepts that clarify these challenges, including their definitions, distinctions, and interrelationships, are needed in HRI. To address this lack of clarity, this paper proposes a consistent conceptual foundation for the challenges of uncertainty, vagueness, and ambiguity in HRI. First, we examine the meanings of these three terms in dictionaries. We then analyze the nature of their distinctions and interrelationships within the context of HRI. We further illustrate these characteristics through examples. Finally, we demonstrate how this consistent conceptual foundation facilitates the design of novel methods and the evaluation of existing methodologies for these phenomena.

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 lays out a dictionary-based set of distinctions for uncertainty, vagueness, and ambiguity in HRI that could help standardize language, but it stops short of showing those distinctions actually fix the contradictory usages already in the empirical literature.

read the letter

The main thing here is a straightforward proposal to clean up three overlapping terms in HRI by pulling their meanings from dictionaries, spelling out how they differ in robot-interaction settings, and giving a few examples. That synthesis is the new part; it does not invent new phenomena or run new experiments. What it does reasonably well is lay out the distinctions in plain steps and show how they might shape method design or evaluation criteria. The examples make the differences concrete enough that a reader can see where the terms have been swapped in past work. The soft spot is the leap from “here are clearer definitions” to “this will improve comparability across studies.” The paper does not re-analyze any existing HRI experiments to demonstrate that the new scheme would re-categorize results or make them commensurable. Without that step the central claim stays assumptive. The argument is internally consistent and draws on external sources rather than circular reasoning, so the logic holds on its own terms. This is the kind of paper that belongs in a methods or theory section of an HRI venue. Readers who design experiments or write reviews will get the most direct use from it; people looking for new empirical findings or formal models will find less. It deserves a serious referee because the problem it names is real and the proposed fix is modest but checkable. I would send it out for review with the expectation that reviewers will ask for at least one worked re-analysis of prior studies to test whether the distinctions travel.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that uncertainty, vagueness, and ambiguity are frequently confused and inconsistently defined in HRI research, which impedes the comparability of empirical studies and the accumulation of theory. To address this, the authors review dictionary definitions of the three terms, analyze their distinctions and interrelationships specifically in HRI contexts, provide illustrative examples, and demonstrate how the resulting conceptual foundation can guide the design of new methods and the evaluation of existing ones for handling these phenomena.

Significance. If the proposed distinctions prove robust and are widely adopted, the work could significantly enhance conceptual clarity in HRI, leading to more consistent terminology, improved cross-study comparability, and faster theoretical development in areas involving human-robot interactions under uncertainty. The dictionary-based foundation offers a transparent and externally grounded starting point, which is a strength for reproducibility of the conceptual analysis. However, the significance is tempered by the need for empirical demonstration that these distinctions actually reconcile existing contradictory usages in the literature.

major comments (2)

Demonstration section: The paper shows how the conceptual foundation facilitates method design and evaluation through general illustrations, but does not re-analyze or re-categorize any specific contradictory definitions or usages from the prior HRI empirical studies referenced in the introduction. Without this mapping, the claim that the foundation resolves inconsistencies and improves comparability remains unverified.
Analysis of distinctions and interrelationships: The HRI-context extensions of the dictionary definitions are presented as clarifying, yet the manuscript provides no explicit side-by-side comparison showing how the new scheme would alter the classification or interpretation of the contradictory examples cited earlier, leaving open whether the distinctions are corrective or merely additive.

minor comments (2)

Introduction: The motivation would be strengthened by quoting or citing 2-3 concrete contradictory definitions from the HRI literature rather than summarizing them generically.
Examples section: Some examples could benefit from more detail on the robot's decision process to make the distinctions between uncertainty, vagueness, and ambiguity more operational for designers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive comments. We agree that the demonstration of the framework's utility can be strengthened by explicit mappings to prior contradictory usages, and we will revise accordingly to better verify the claims about resolving inconsistencies.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Demonstration section: The paper shows how the conceptual foundation facilitates method design and evaluation through general illustrations, but does not re-analyze or re-categorize any specific contradictory definitions or usages from the prior HRI empirical studies referenced in the introduction. Without this mapping, the claim that the foundation resolves inconsistencies and improves comparability remains unverified.

Authors: We acknowledge that the current demonstration relies on general illustrations rather than specific re-categorizations of the contradictory examples cited in the introduction. To address this, we will revise the demonstration section to include an explicit re-analysis of at least two such examples from the referenced HRI studies. This addition will map the original definitions to our proposed framework, showing concrete changes in classification and how the distinctions improve comparability. We believe this will verify the claims more robustly while remaining within the paper's conceptual scope. revision: yes
Referee: Analysis of distinctions and interrelationships: The HRI-context extensions of the dictionary definitions are presented as clarifying, yet the manuscript provides no explicit side-by-side comparison showing how the new scheme would alter the classification or interpretation of the contradictory examples cited earlier, leaving open whether the distinctions are corrective or merely additive.

Authors: We agree that an explicit side-by-side comparison would more clearly demonstrate the corrective nature of our distinctions rather than leaving them potentially additive. In the revised manuscript, we will add a structured comparison (e.g., a table) in the analysis section that directly contrasts the contradictory examples from prior work with our dictionary-grounded definitions and HRI extensions. This will highlight specific alterations in classification and interpretation, strengthening the argument that the framework resolves rather than merely supplements existing inconsistencies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: conceptual proposal rests on external dictionaries and examples

full rationale

The paper's derivation consists of dictionary lookups for the terms, followed by contextual analysis of distinctions and interrelationships in HRI, plus illustrative examples. No equations, fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations appear; the foundation is built from independent linguistic sources rather than reducing to its own inputs by construction. This is a standard non-circular conceptual clarification effort.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a purely conceptual paper with no quantitative models, data, or derivations; it relies on standard linguistic assumptions and domain knowledge of HRI.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Dictionary definitions provide a reliable starting point for distinguishing terms in technical HRI literature
The paper begins by examining dictionary meanings as the foundation for its analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5472 in / 1046 out tokens · 35260 ms · 2026-05-15T13:47:55.468555+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

dictionary definitions of uncertainty, vagueness, ambiguity; epistemic/aleatoric and lexical/syntactic categorizations with HRI examples

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Do as I can, not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,

A. Brohan, Y . Chebotar, C. Finn, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, D. Hoet al., “Do as I can, not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” inConference on Robot Learning (CoRL). PMLR, 2023, pp. 287– 318

work page 2023
[2]

Robots that ask for help: Uncertainty alignment for large language model planners,

A. Z. Ren, A. Dixit, A. Bodrova, S. Singh, S. Tu, N. Brownet al., “Robots that ask for help: Uncertainty alignment for large language model planners,”Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2023

work page 2023
[3]

What is the role of the next generation of cognitive robotics?

S. Shimoda, L. Jamone, D. Ognibene, T. Nagai, A. Sciutti, A. Costa- Garcia, Y . Oseki, and T. Taniguchi, “What is the role of the next generation of cognitive robotics?”Advanced Robotics, vol. 36, no. 1-2, pp. 3–16, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

Affor- danceLLM: Grounding affordance from vision language models,

S. Qian, W. Chen, M. Bai, X. Zhou, Z. Tu, and L. E. Li, “Affor- danceLLM: Grounding affordance from vision language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 7587–7597

work page 2024
[5]

Advancing household robotics: Deep interactive reinforcement learning for efficient training and enhanced performance,

A. Soni, S. Alla, S. Dodda, and H. V olikatla, “Advancing household robotics: Deep interactive reinforcement learning for efficient training and enhanced performance,”Journal of Electrical Systems, vol. 20, no. 3s, pp. 1349–1355, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Embodied agent interface: Bench- marking LLMs for embodied decision making,

M. Li, S. Zhao, Q. Wang, K. Wang, Y . Zhou, S. Srivastava, C. Gokmen, T. Lee, E. L. Li, R. Zhanget al., “Embodied agent interface: Bench- marking LLMs for embodied decision making,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 100 428–100 534, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Robot learning in the era of foundation models: a survey,

X. Xiao, J. Liu, Z. Wang, Y . Zhou, Y . Qi, S. Jiang, B. He, and Q. Cheng, “Robot learning in the era of foundation models: a survey,” Neurocomputing., vol. 638, no. C, Jul. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2025.129963

work page doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.129963 2025
[8]

Task cognition and planning for service robots,

Y . Cui, Y . Zhang, C.-H. Zhang, and S. X. Yang, “Task cognition and planning for service robots,”Intelligence & Robotics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 119–142, 2025

work page 2025
[9]

Fine-Grained task planning for service robots based on object ontology knowledge via large language mod- els,

X. Li, G. Tian, and Y . Cui, “Fine-Grained task planning for service robots based on object ontology knowledge via large language mod- els,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 6872– 6879, 2024

work page 2024
[10]

The role of predictive uncertainty and diversity in em- bodied AI and robot learning,

R. Senanayake, “The role of predictive uncertainty and diversity in em- bodied AI and robot learning,” inMetacognitive Artificial Intelligence, P. Shakarian and H. Wei, Eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 9 2025

work page 2025
[11]

Robotic task ambiguity resolution via natural language interaction,

E. Chisari, J. O. V on Hartz, F. Despinoy, and A. Valada, “Robotic task ambiguity resolution via natural language interaction,” in2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2025, pp. 14 821–14 827

work page 2025
[12]

Perspective-corrected spatial referring expression generation for human-robot interaction,

M. Liu, C. Xiao, and C. Chen, “Perspective-corrected spatial referring expression generation for human-robot interaction,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 7654– 7666, 2022

work page 2022
[13]

Ambiguity analysis in learning from demonstration applications for mobile robots,

C. F. Morales and F. De la Rosa, “Ambiguity analysis in learning from demonstration applications for mobile robots,” in2013 16th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR). IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–6

work page 2013
[14]

Extended abstract: Resolving ambiguities in LLM-enabled human-robot collaboration,

U. B. Karli and T. Fitzgerald, “Extended abstract: Resolving ambiguities in LLM-enabled human-robot collaboration,” in2nd Workshop on Language and Robot Learning: Language as Grounding, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum? id=LtwuJx83Rc

work page 2023
[15]

A vision-language-guided robotic action plan- ning approach for ambiguity mitigation in human-robot collaborative manufacturing,

J. Fan and P. Zheng, “A vision-language-guided robotic action plan- ning approach for ambiguity mitigation in human-robot collaborative manufacturing,”Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 74, pp. 1009– 1018, 2024

work page 2024
[16]

LLM-based ambiguity detec- tion in natural language instructions for collaborative surgical robots,

A. Davila, J. Colan, and Y . Hasegawa, “LLM-based ambiguity detec- tion in natural language instructions for collaborative surgical robots,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.11525, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Talk- to-Resolve: Combining scene understanding and spatial dialogue to resolve granular task ambiguity for a collocated robot,

P. Pramanick, C. Sarkar, S. Banerjee, and B. Bhowmick, “Talk- to-Resolve: Combining scene understanding and spatial dialogue to resolve granular task ambiguity for a collocated robot,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 155, p. 104183, 2022

work page 2022
[18]

Multimodal uncer- tainty reduction for intention recognition in human-robot interaction,

S. Trick, D. Koert, J. Peters, and C. A. Rothkopf, “Multimodal uncer- tainty reduction for intention recognition in human-robot interaction,” in2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 7009–7016

work page 2019
[19]

Active uncertainty reduction for human- robot interaction: An implicit dual control approach,

H. Hu and J. F. Fisac, “Active uncertainty reduction for human- robot interaction: An implicit dual control approach,” inAlgorithmic Foundations of Robotics XV, S. M. LaValle, J. M. O’Kane, M. Otte, D. Sadigh, and P. Tokekar, Eds. Cham: Springer, 2023, pp. 385–401

work page 2023
[20]

When humans aren’t optimal: Robots that collaborate with risk- aware humans,

M. Kwon, E. Biyik, A. Talati, K. Bhasin, D. P. Losey, and D. Sadigh, “When humans aren’t optimal: Robots that collaborate with risk- aware humans,” inProceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2020, pp. 43–52

work page 2020
[21]

Are you sure? - Multi-modal human decision uncertainty detection in human- robot interaction,

L. Scherf, L. A. Gasche, E. Chemangui, and D. Koert, “Are you sure? - Multi-modal human decision uncertainty detection in human- robot interaction,” inProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2024, pp. 621–629

work page 2024
[22]

A collaborative behavior-based approach for handling ambiguity, uncertainty, and vagueness in robot natural language interfaces,

F. Wang, S. Jusoh, and S. X. Yang, “A collaborative behavior-based approach for handling ambiguity, uncertainty, and vagueness in robot natural language interfaces,”Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 939–951, 2006

work page 2006
[23]

Ambiguity and vagueness: An overview,

C. Kennedy, “Ambiguity and vagueness: An overview,” inSemantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, C. Maien- born, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner, Eds. Berlin: De Gruyter Berlin, 2011, vol. 1, pp. 507–535

work page 2011
[24]

Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness,

D. Tuggy, “Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness,”Cognitive Linguis- tics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 273–290, 1993

work page 1993
[25]

K. P. Murphy,Probabilistic Machine Learning: An introduction. MIT Press, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://probml.github.io/book1

work page 2022
[26]

A review of uncertainty quan- tification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges,

M. Abdar, F. Pourpanah, S. Hussain, D. Rezazadegan, L. Liu, M. Ghavamzadeh, P. Fieguth, X. Cao, A. Khosravi, U. R. Acharya, V . Makarenkov, and S. Nahavandi, “A review of uncertainty quan- tification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges,” Information Fusion, vol. 76, p. 243–297, 2021

work page 2021
[27]

Vagueness and linguistics,

R. van Rooij, “Vagueness and linguistics,” inVagueness: A Guide, G. Ronzitti, Ed. Springer Netherlands, 2011, pp. 123–170

work page 2011
[28]

Manning and H

C. Manning and H. Schutze,Foundations of statistical natural lan- guage processing. MIT press, 1999

work page 1999
[29]

Learning visually grounded human-robot dialog in a hybrid neural architecture,

X. Sun, C. Weber, M. Kerzel, T. Weber, M. Li, and S. Wermter, “Learning visually grounded human-robot dialog in a hybrid neural architecture,” inInternational Conference on Artificial Neural Net- works (ICANN), E. Pimenidis, P. Angelov, C. Jayne, A. Papaleonidas, and M. Aydin, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022, pp. 258–269

work page 2022
[30]

Details make a difference: Object state-sensitive neurorobotic task planning,

X. Sun, X. Zhao, J. H. Lee, W. Lu, M. Kerzel, and S. Wermter, “Details make a difference: Object state-sensitive neurorobotic task planning,” inInternational Conference on Artificial Neural Networks (ICANN), M. Wand, K. Malinovsk ´a, J. Schmidhuber, and I. V . Tetko, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 261–275

work page 2024