Enhancing Speech Instruction Understanding and Disambiguation in Robotics via Speech Prosody

Benedict Quartey; David Sasu; Kweku Andoh Yamoah; Natalie Schluter

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Enhancing Speech Instruction Understanding and Disambiguation in Robotics via Speech Prosody

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Spoken emphasis and pauses, captured as word-level goal/detail labels, let a language model select the correct robot plan for ambiguous instructions 71.96% of the time, versus 50% with transcript-only input.

desk verdict Novel dataset and a plausible prosody-to-plan pipeline, but the evidence for the main claim is undercut by a speaker-overlapping split and a headline metric that flatters a hard problem. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02057 v1 pith:DCPSQGQB submitted 2025-06-01 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG

David Sasu , Kweku Andoh Yamoah , Benedict Quartey , Natalie Schluter This is my paper

classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG

keywords speechprosodyinstructiondisambiguationrobotfollowingintentclassificationhuman-robotinteractionspokenlanguageunderstandinglargemodelsambiguousdataset

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that prosody (stress, pauses, intonation) carries enough information to choose between two interpretations of an ambiguous robot instruction, and that a language model can use that information. It labels each word as a 'goal' referent (the thing or location to act on) or a 'detail' referent (a qualifier), predicts those labels from prosodic features, and feeds them to a large language model that selects among candidate task plans. On a new dataset of 1,540 ambiguous spoken instructions from 22 speakers, the best system reaches 71.96% plan-selection accuracy versus 50% for transcript-only input, with referent-intent detection accuracy up to 95.79%. If the claim holds, robots could start using vocal emphasis instead of discarding it at the speech-to-text step.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the token-level intent label sequence: each word is marked as goal, detail, or neither. The paper constructs word-level feature vectors by concatenating prosodic features aligned to word boundaries with text embeddings, then encodes the sequence with either a BiLSTM or a Transformer using attention, and decodes per-word labels. That label sequence bridges acoustics and planning: it is combined with the transcribed utterance and in-context examples in Composable Referent Descriptor (CRD) syntax, and the resulting prompt makes the large language model choose the matching task plan. The argument works only if the prosodic features carry discriminative information that survives the encoding-and-decoding step; the paper's ablation shows prosodic features alone carry it.

What would settle it

Collect the same 35 instructions from naive speakers who are not told the sentences are ambiguous and simply speak them as commands, then run the trained intent-detection model and the same language-model plan selector on that audio; if accuracy falls to the transcript-only 50% baseline, the prosody signal is an artifact of the recording protocol rather than a property of natural ambiguous speech.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that prosody is a usable signal for resolving structural ambiguity in robot instructions, not just a side channel. For each word in an utterance, a BiLSTM or Transformer encoder-decoder assigns one of three labels: goal (an entity or location to act on), detail (a qualifier fixing a relationship), or not of interest. The paper reports that prosodic features alone outperform raw audio or prosody-plus-raw features for this prediction, with the BiLSTM reaching 95.79% overall intent accuracy. When the predicted label sequence is inserted into a language-model prompt in Composable Referent Descriptor syntax, the best combination, a prosody-trained Transformer with GPT-4o, selects the correct task plan 71.96% of the time, compared with a 50% result for transcript-only input. The paper also contributes the first ambiguous speech dataset for robotics: 35 instructions, each with two distinct interpretations, spoken by 22 participants to yield 1,540 voice samples and about 121 minutes of audio.

Load-bearing premise

The dataset was recorded by speakers who were told to produce both interpretations, so their stress and pauses are likely clearer than in spontaneous natural speech; if real users do not produce these prosodic contrasts reliably, the reported gains may not survive deployment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Robot systems that keep the audio channel instead of collapsing to text can move ambiguous pick-and-place commands from chance-level plan selection to a clear majority.
The 1,540-utterance dataset gives the field a shared benchmark for ambiguous robot instructions, allowing future prosody-aware models to be compared on the same task.
The ablations show prosodic features alone carry the disambiguating signal, so downstream systems do not need raw audio or fused representations to get the benefit.
Adding predicted intent labels to an LLM prompt improves plan selection for all three tested language models, even when the labels come from a simpler BiLSTM, so imperfect prosody understanding already helps.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural next test is to record naive speakers who are not told the sentences are ambiguous; if plan selection still beats the 50% baseline, prosodic cues are a real property of natural commands rather than a product of the recording protocol.
The same goal/detail labeling could be applied to other instruction types, such as navigation, assembly, or referring expressions with visual grounding, where prosody marks which objects are presupposed versus newly introduced.
Because the data was recorded with a single phone model and participants aged 18 to 22, the acoustic features may be partly device- and population-specific; testing on other microphones, room acoustics, and age groups would reveal how much of the gain transfers.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core of this paper is a new idea in a small niche: use token-level prosody features to label goal/detail referents, then feed those labels into an LLM to select among task-plan candidates for ambiguous spoken instructions. The new piece is the dataset: 35 ambiguous instructions, each with two interpretations, recorded by 22 speakers, plus a demonstration that LLM plan selection improves when given prosody-derived labels (71.96% vs 50% text-only). That is a real, if modest, step, and the dataset alone might be worth having.

The modeling is standard—BiLSTM/Transformer with fused prosodic and text features—and the paper is clearly written. The LLM part is simple in-context prompting, but it works.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The biggest one is the train/test split. The split is by instruction, not by speaker, so the same 22 people appear on both sides. Prosody features are speaker-dependent, and the model could be latching onto per-speaker speaking style rather than a generalizable accent-to-intent mapping. The stress-test note is right; this needs to be checked with a leave-one-speaker-out split or at least a speaker-disjoint evaluation. That is load-bearing for the claim that prosody helps in real HRI.

Second, the 95.79% headline accuracy is mostly about the majority "not of interest" class. The per-class F1 for goal is 79.15. That is a more honest number, and the paper should report macro F1 as the headline.

Third, the text-only baseline is chance (50%) for a binary choice. That is an unfairly weak comparison. A stronger text-only baseline using the LLM with more context or a structured parse might close the gap, and the paper should show that.

Fourth, the data description has an internal inconsistency: 44 samples per participant times 22 participants does not equal 1,540. Given 35 instructions with two interpretations, it should be 70 per participant. That kind of typo makes the whole table suspect; it needs fixing.

Fifth, no code or data link, so the claimed first dataset is not available for inspection.

On balance, the direction is sound and the dataset contribution is genuine, but the current evidence is conditional. This is a borderline accept-with-major-revision at a workshop or conference. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk rejection. I would send it to review with a clear request to fix the split, the metric, the baseline, and the counts, and to release the data.

Recommendation: send to peer review, conditional on revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a speech-instruction disambiguation pipeline for robots. It extracts word-level prosodic features (pitch, energy, duration) from spoken instructions, combines them with text embeddings, and feeds them into BiLSTM or Transformer encoder–decoder models that label each token as goal, detail, or background. These predicted intent labels are then used in a prompt to GPT-4o, o1-mini, or o3-mini to select one of two possible task plans for an ambiguous instruction. The authors also present a newly recorded dataset of ambiguous speech instructions for robotics. Their best reported result is 95.79% referent-intent detection accuracy with the BiLSTM model and 71.96% plan-selection accuracy with the Prosody-Transformer plus GPT-4o, compared to a 50% text-only ASR baseline.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the work addresses a genuinely important gap: standard ASR-based pipelines discard prosodic information that is essential for resolving ambiguous instructions. The central idea of performing token-level goal/detail labeling using prosody and then injecting those labels into an LLM via in-context learning is intuitive, and the authors construct a new dataset for a task (ambiguous spoken instructions in robotics) that has received little direct attention. The paper also includes reasonable ablated comparisons (prosody vs. raw audio vs. both). However, several load-bearing issues—most notably a speaker-overlap train/test split and a data-count inconsistency—currently prevent the results from supporting the strong claims made in the abstract. The significance would be high if these issues are resolved, because the dataset and the prosody-to-LLM interface would be useful to the community.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.1] The dataset statistics are internally inconsistent. The text states that 22 participants each provided 44 samples, which would give 22 × 44 = 968 samples, but the paper claims 1,540 voice samples. If each of the 35 instructions was recorded in two interpretations by all 22 participants, the count should be 35 × 2 × 22 = 1,540, implying 70 samples per participant. The reported 44 is therefore incompatible with the stated totals. Please correct the per-participant count and state the exact number of utterances per participant per instruction.
[Section 4.1, Table 1] The train/test split is by instruction, not by speaker. Because all 22 speakers recorded all 35 instructions, every speaker appears in both the training and test sets. Prosodic features such as pitch and energy are highly speaker-dependent, so the high referent-detection accuracy (95.79% for BiLSTM in Table 1) and plan-selection accuracy (71.96% in Table 2) may reflect the model learning speaker-specific prosodic signatures rather than a generalizable prosody-to-intent mapping. This threat is central to the paper's claim that prosody improves robot disambiguation for unseen speakers. Please add a speaker-disjoint split (e.g., leave-one-speaker-out or a held-out speaker group) and report the corresponding referent-detection and plan-selection accuracies, or otherwise demonstrate that the result is not driven by speaker identity.
[Section 5.1, Table 1] The headline '95.79% accuracy' is dominated by the majority 'not of interest' class. In the same row, the F1 scores are only 79.15 for Goal and 83.24 for Detail, reflecting substantially lower per-class performance. Reporting overall accuracy is misleading for this heavily imbalanced token-level task. Please report macro-averaged F1, per-class precision/recall/F1, and the class distribution of the test set, and avoid headline accuracy claims without these context numbers.
[Section 5.2, Table 2] The baseline for plan selection, LLM+ASR, achieves exactly 50%, which is chance for a two-choice task. This is surprising because the transcribed instruction text alone should provide some information (e.g., the words 'coke can' and 'counter' appear in both interpretations, but some lexical cues might still help). More importantly, the table reports point estimates without confidence intervals or significance tests. With 220 test samples, the difference between 50% and 71.96% may be statistically significant, but the paper should provide confidence intervals, a bootstrap analysis, or at least standard deviations across multiple runs. Additionally, an upper-bound experiment using ground-truth intent labels instead of predicted ones would clarify how much error is introduced by the prosody model versus the LLM selection stage.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.1] There is a typo: 'seperate' should be 'separate.' Also, the sentence 'Each participant provided 44 samples recordings' is grammatically awkward and should be rephrased.
[Section 4.1] The paper says the dataset is the 'first ambiguous speech dataset for robotics.' This strong novelty claim should be verified against prior work on prosody in human-robot interaction; if there are any prior datasets of ambiguous spoken instructions, they should be cited and discussed.
[Section 3.4] The Composable Referent Descriptor (CRD) syntax is adopted from reference [15], but the paper does not explain what this syntax looks like. A brief example or a short description would make the LLM-prompting component more understandable to readers who are not familiar with the prior work.
[Section 5.1] The claim that 'prosodic signals exhibit superior discriminative power' over raw audio is based on the overall accuracy in Table 1, but, as noted in the major comments, the per-class F1 scores are more informative. Please base such conclusions on the per-class metrics.
[Section 6] The limitation section mentions the small dataset size and age range, but it does not acknowledge the potential issue of instructed/acted prosody. Since participants were explicitly told to produce both interpretations, their prosodic contrasts may be exaggerated compared to spontaneous ambiguous speech; this limitation should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core claims are evaluated against external ground truth and an external LLM oracle; the only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The central quantitative claims (95.79% referent-intent detection, 71.96% plan-selection accuracy) come from models trained and evaluated on a purpose-built dataset with ground-truth token-level intent labels and task-plan labels, and the LLM plan-selection head is an external oracle (GPT-4o, o1-mini, o3-mini) that was not fit to the authors' data. There is no fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction: the prosody classifier is trained on referent labels, and the LLM consumes those predictions to select from given plans; the plan-selection accuracy is a genuine downstream evaluation. The only self-citation is [15] (co-authored by B. Quartey) for the CRD prompt syntax and as inspiration for the ambiguous-instruction dataset; this is an implementation/representation choice, not the load-bearing justification for the prosody-improves-disambiguation claim, so it does not constitute circularity. The skeptic's speaker-overlap concern (all 22 participants appear in both train and test) is a legitimate generalization and validity risk, but it is not a circularity: it concerns whether the learned prosody mapping transfers to unseen speakers, not whether the outputs are equivalent to the inputs by construction. No circular step is exhibited, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several untested domain assumptions about prosody and feature extraction, plus the tuned hyperparameters and the unspecified LLM prompt. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)

Learning rate = Transformer: 2.22e-4; BiLSTM: 4.2e-3
Tuned via Optuna grid search on the validation set; directly affects model performance.
Hidden dimension = Transformer: 448; BiLSTM: 512
Tuned on validation set.
Number of layers = Transformer: 3; BiLSTM: 1
Tuned on validation set.
Dropout rate = Transformer: 0.25; BiLSTM: 0.45
Tuned on validation set.
Attention layers = Transformer: 8; BiLSTM: 1
Tuned on validation set.
Weight decay = Transformer: 2.25e-6; BiLSTM: 5.44e-5
Tuned on validation set.
Number of in-context examples in LLM prompt
Not reported; likely affects LLM plan selection performance.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Prosody carries sufficient disambiguating information for the 35 instruction types.
The entire method rests on the premise that stress and pause patterns signal which referents are goals vs details.
domain assumption Forced alignment correctly identifies word boundaries.
Per-word prosodic features depend on accurate temporal alignment, but the alignment tool is not named.
domain assumption Disvoice acoustic features capture the relevant prosodic cues.
The paper does not validate that these features preserve the cues humans use.
domain assumption LLMs can map the provided intents and in-context examples to the correct plan.
The LLM is treated as a reliable planner given the intents; no analysis of failure cases is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Speech Instruction Understanding and Disambiguation in Robotics via Speech Prosody." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DCPSQGQB

@misc{pith2026250602057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Speech Instruction Understanding and Disambiguation in Robotics via Speech Prosody},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DCPSQGQB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02057}
}

read the original abstract

Enabling robots to accurately interpret and execute spoken language instructions is essential for effective human-robot collaboration. Traditional methods rely on speech recognition to transcribe speech into text, often discarding crucial prosodic cues needed for disambiguating intent. We propose a novel approach that directly leverages speech prosody to infer and resolve instruction intent. Predicted intents are integrated into large language models via in-context learning to disambiguate and select appropriate task plans. Additionally, we present the first ambiguous speech dataset for robotics, designed to advance research in speech disambiguation. Our method achieves 95.79% accuracy in detecting referent intents within an utterance and determines the intended task plan of ambiguous instructions with 71.96% accuracy, demonstrating its potential to significantly improve human-robot communication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02057 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Illustration of two distinct interpretations of the instruction “Place the coke can beside the pringles on the counter.” Left (green): The robot picks up the coke can and places it next to the pringles on the counter. Right (pink): The robot locates the coke can already beside the pringles and relocates it onto the counter. Each plan is represented by a pointcloud of the scene and the robot’s motion path, while the… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overview of our architectures for word-level intent classification. (a) BiLSTM-based Model: Prosodic features are fused with text embeddings and fed into a BiLSTM encoder. An attention layer refines the fused representations before a decoder predicts intent labels for each token. (b) Transformer-based Model: Prosodic and textual inputs are combined and passed through a Transformer encoder with multi-head self-attent… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

Place the coke can beside the pringles on the counter

Introduction Understanding and executing natural language instructions is a fundamental goal in human-robot interaction. To accurately follow instructions, robots must grasp several key elements such as the speaker’s intent, relevant referents, and execution constraints. However, instructions conveyed through text alone often fail to capture the wide vari...

work page
[2]

We introduce an encoder- decoder model that exploits prosodic features for token-level intent classification, capturing long-range dependencies within spoken instructions

Prosody-Aware Architecture. We introduce an encoder- decoder model that exploits prosodic features for token-level intent classification, capturing long-range dependencies within spoken instructions

work page
[3]

LLM Integration. We demonstrate how prosody-driven intent predictions can be used with large language models, to select appropriate task plans from multiple candidates, bridging the gap between ambiguous human instructions and precise robot execution. arXiv:2506.02057v1 [cs.RO] 1 Jun 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[4]

We highlight speech instruction disambiguation as a key research area in robotics and curate a novel dataset of 1,540 ambiguous utterances, to advance future work

Ambiguous Speech Dataset. We highlight speech instruction disambiguation as a key research area in robotics and curate a novel dataset of 1,540 ambiguous utterances, to advance future work

work page
[5]

Place the cup on the table

Related works Recent works have demonstrated the effectiveness of incorporat- ing prosody into speech understanding tasks such as intent classi- fication [6, 7, 8, 9]. For instance, Wei et al. [9] proposed a neural prosody encoder that leverages prosodic information for end-to- end dialogue act classification, using a learnable gating mech- anism to asses...

work page
[6]

Speech instruction understanding and disambiguation We introduce Bidirectional Long Short Term memory (BiLSTM)

work page
[7]

Prosody modeling for automatic speech recognition and understanding,

E. Shriberg and A. Stolcke, “Prosody modeling for automatic speech recognition and understanding,” in Mathematical Founda- tions of Speech and Language Processing. Springer, 2004, pp. 105–114

work page 2004
[8]

Data To evaluate our approach, we collected a novel accented speech dataset of 35 ambiguous instructions , inspired by [15]

Experimental setup 4.1. Data To evaluate our approach, we collected a novel accented speech dataset of 35 ambiguous instructions , inspired by [15]. Each instruction in this dataset can be interpreted in two distinct ways, resulting in two seperate sets of intent referents per instruction. Notably, the goal and detail referents vary between interpretation...

work page

Show all 32 references

[9]

Results 5.1. Referent detection task performance Our experimental results indicate that utilizingprosodic features alone consistently yields the highest performance in goal and detail referent detection tasks. These findings suggest that while raw acoustic features are informa...
[10]

Our future efforts will focus expanding the dataset size and participant diversity to enhance model robustness and applicability across varied speaker populations

Limitations and conclusion Our work is limited by a relatively small dataset (1540 samples) and the narrow age range (18–22) of participants, potentially restricting the generalizability of our findings. Our future efforts will focus expanding the dataset size and participant ...
[11]

Mobile robot: automatic speech recognition application for automation and stem education,

D. T. Tran, D. H. Truong, H. S. Le, and J.-H. Huh, “Mobile robot: automatic speech recognition application for automation and stem education,” Soft Comput. , vol. 27, no. 15, p. 10789–10805, Feb. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-07824-7

2023 doi
[12]

V oice control interface for surgical robot assistants,

A. Davila, J. Colan, and Y . Hasegawa, “V oice control interface for surgical robot assistants,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.10225

2024 arXiv
[13]

Speech recognition system for robotic control and movement,

B. N. Rout, A. Das, and S. R. Sankar, “Speech recognition system for robotic control and movement,” International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, vol. 4, pp. 221–225, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 60663713

2015
[14]

McLoughlin and N

I. McLoughlin and N. Indurkhya, AI, Human–Robot Interaction, and Natural Language Processing, ser. Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 2023, p. 436–454

2023
[15]

A review of natural-language-instructed robot execution systems,

R. Liu, Y . Guo, R. Jin, and X. Zhang, “A review of natural-language-instructed robot execution systems,” AI, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 948–989, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //www.mdpi.com/2673-2688/5/3/48

2024
[16]

On the use of prosody in automatic dialogue understanding,

E. Nöth, A. Batliner, V . Warnke, J. Haas, M. Boros, J. Buckow, R. Huber, F. Gallwitz, M. Nutt, and H. Niemann, “On the use of prosody in automatic dialogue understanding,” Speech Communi- cation, vol. 36, no. 1-2, pp. 45–62, 2002

2002
[17]

Lang2ltl-2: Grounding spatiotemporal navigation commands us- ing large language and vision-language models,

J. X. Liu, A. Shah, G. Konidaris, S. Tellex, and D. Paulius, “Lang2ltl-2: Grounding spatiotemporal navigation commands us- ing large language and vision-language models,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2325–2332

2024
[18]

and Transformer-based [ 19] encoder-decoder models designed to identify referent intents by leveraging prosody. Both architectures are optimized to capture long-range dependencies in prosodic features extracted from speech, enabling the disam- biguation of goal and detail inte...
[19]

Improving end-to-end slu performance with prosodic attention and distillation,

S. Rajaa, “Improving end-to-end slu performance with prosodic attention and distillation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08067, 2023

2023 arXiv
[20]

A neural prosody encoder for end-to-end dialogue act classification,

K. Wei, D. Knox, M. Radfar, T. Tran, M. Müller, G. P. Strimel, N. Susanj, A. Mouchtaris, and M. Omologo, “A neural prosody encoder for end-to-end dialogue act classification,” in ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)...

2022
[21]

Walk the talk: Connecting language, knowledge, and action in route instructions,

M. MacMahon, B. Stankiewicz, and B. Kuipers, “Walk the talk: Connecting language, knowledge, and action in route instructions,” Def, vol. 2, no. 6, p. 4, 2006

2006
[22]

Understanding natural language commands for robotic navigation and mobile manipulation,

S. Tellex, T. Kollar, S. Dickerson, M. Walter, A. Banerjee, S. Teller, and N. Roy, “Understanding natural language commands for robotic navigation and mobile manipulation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 25, no. 1, 2011, pp. 1507–1514

2011
[23]

Toward understanding natural language directions,

T. Kollar, S. Tellex, D. Roy, and N. Roy, “Toward understanding natural language directions,” in 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2010, pp. 259–266

2010
[24]

Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks,

M. Shridhar, J. Thomason, D. Gordon, Y . Bisk, W. Han, R. Mot- taghi, L. Zettlemoyer, and D. Fox, “Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks,” in Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. ...

2020
[25]

Lanmp: A language- conditioned mobile manipulation benchmark for autonomous robots,

A. Jaafar, S. S. Raman, Y . Wei, S. Juliani, A. Wernerfelt, B. Quartey, I. Idrees, J. X. Liu, and S. Tellex, “Lanmp: A language- conditioned mobile manipulation benchmark for autonomous robots,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05313, 2024

2024 arXiv
[26]

Verifiably following complex robot instructions with foundation models,

B. Quartey, E. Rosen, S. Tellex, and G. Konidaris, “Verifiably following complex robot instructions with foundation models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11498, 2024

2024 arXiv
[27]

Boot- strapping object-level planning with large language models,

D. Paulius, A. Agostini, B. Quartey, and G. Konidaris, “Boot- strapping object-level planning with large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12262, 2024

2024 arXiv
[28]

Bidirectional long short- term memory networks for relation classification,

S. Zhang, D. Zheng, X. Hu, and M. Yang, “Bidirectional long short- term memory networks for relation classification,” in Proceedings of the 29th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, H. Zhao, Ed., Shanghai, China, Oct. 2015, pp. 73–78. [Online]. Ava...

2015
[29]

Attention is all you need,

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. u. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, I. Guyon, U. V . Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garne...

2017
[30]

Why attention? analyzing and remedying bilstm deficiency in modeling cross-context for ner,

P.-H. Li, T.-J. Fu, and W.-Y . Ma, “Why attention? analyzing and remedying bilstm deficiency in modeling cross-context for ner,” ArXiv, vol. abs/1910.02586, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:203838097

1910 arXiv
[31]

Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” CoRR, vol. abs/1412.6980, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6628106

2014 arXiv
[32]

Beyond scaling laws: Understanding transformer performance with associative memory,

X. Niu, B. Bai, L. Deng, and W. Han, “Beyond scaling laws: Understanding transformer performance with associative memory,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08707, 2024

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Place the coke can beside the pringles on the counter

Introduction Understanding and executing natural language instructions is a fundamental goal in human-robot interaction. To accurately follow instructions, robots must grasp several key elements such as the speaker’s intent, relevant referents, and execution constraints. However, instructions conveyed through text alone often fail to capture the wide vari...

work page

[2] [2]

We introduce an encoder- decoder model that exploits prosodic features for token-level intent classification, capturing long-range dependencies within spoken instructions

Prosody-Aware Architecture. We introduce an encoder- decoder model that exploits prosodic features for token-level intent classification, capturing long-range dependencies within spoken instructions

work page

[3] [3]

LLM Integration. We demonstrate how prosody-driven intent predictions can be used with large language models, to select appropriate task plans from multiple candidates, bridging the gap between ambiguous human instructions and precise robot execution. arXiv:2506.02057v1 [cs.RO] 1 Jun 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

We highlight speech instruction disambiguation as a key research area in robotics and curate a novel dataset of 1,540 ambiguous utterances, to advance future work

Ambiguous Speech Dataset. We highlight speech instruction disambiguation as a key research area in robotics and curate a novel dataset of 1,540 ambiguous utterances, to advance future work

work page

[5] [5]

Place the cup on the table

Related works Recent works have demonstrated the effectiveness of incorporat- ing prosody into speech understanding tasks such as intent classi- fication [6, 7, 8, 9]. For instance, Wei et al. [9] proposed a neural prosody encoder that leverages prosodic information for end-to- end dialogue act classification, using a learnable gating mech- anism to asses...

work page

[6] [6]

Speech instruction understanding and disambiguation We introduce Bidirectional Long Short Term memory (BiLSTM)

work page

[7] [7]

Prosody modeling for automatic speech recognition and understanding,

E. Shriberg and A. Stolcke, “Prosody modeling for automatic speech recognition and understanding,” in Mathematical Founda- tions of Speech and Language Processing. Springer, 2004, pp. 105–114

work page 2004

[8] [8]

Data To evaluate our approach, we collected a novel accented speech dataset of 35 ambiguous instructions , inspired by [15]

Experimental setup 4.1. Data To evaluate our approach, we collected a novel accented speech dataset of 35 ambiguous instructions , inspired by [15]. Each instruction in this dataset can be interpreted in two distinct ways, resulting in two seperate sets of intent referents per instruction. Notably, the goal and detail referents vary between interpretation...

work page