Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 29 references

Object-Driven Narrative in AR: A Scenario-Metaphor Framework with VLM Integration

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A scene-driven AR storytelling framework uses a vision-language model to turn real objects into metaphor anchors, and reports that 70% of users re-see their environment.

desk verdict A genuinely new VLM-to-AR pipeline with a solid design contribution, but the flagship 70% statistic doesn't exist in the data and the evaluation needs major cleanup before the claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13119 v1 pith:YSOF7TM5 submitted 2025-04-17 cs.HC

Yusi Sun , Haoyan Guan , leith Kin Yep Chan , Yong Hong Kuo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords AugmentedRealityStorytellingVisionLanguageModelMetaphorScenesemanticsSpatialnarrativeanchoringSTAMevaluation
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

This paper tries to establish that augmented-reality stories can be generated from the visual environment itself rather than pasted on top of it, provided the environment is read through a three-layer semantic lens and the story is passed through a structured bridge into the AR runtime. The lens splits object meaning into physical, functional, and metaphorical layers, so a wedding ring next to a bottle of pills can carry loss or crisis instead of registering as two labelled objects. The bridge is a JSON file whose fragments carry topic, core object, interaction mode, symbolic meaning, and trigger conditions, which lets a vision-language model's metaphors become anchored, explorable AR content while keeping spatial coherence. In user tests on a single office scene, 70% of participants reported seeing real-world objects differently, spatial fit scored 5.31/7, and exploration motivation scored 5.19/7, which the paper reads as evidence for a new object-driven narrative paradigm.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the scenario-metaphor layer paired with a bidirectional JSON interface. The metaphor layer decomposes each object into physical, functional, and metaphorical meanings so the vision-language model can tell a kitchen knife from a hidden bedroom knife and attach different narrative roles to visually similar objects. The JSON interface then structures the model's output as object, mainstory, and fragments, with each fragment specifying the core object, interaction mode, symbolic meaning, narrative content, and trigger condition; this gives the AR runtime deterministic handles for anchoring prefabs and launching branches while preserving the model's metaphorical language. The STAM evaluation framework—scoring Spatial, Temporal, Adaptive, and Metaphorical dimensions—is the measurement instrument that connects these components to the empirical claims.

What would settle it

Run the same pipeline in a room with more than ten visually similar objects and measure coordinate error and story coherence; the paper itself reports that coordinate errors surge by 118% in dense scenes, so a controlled replication would reveal whether the 5.31/7 spatial fit survives realistic clutter, or whether the JSON bridge only works in sparse, curated settings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the core of the paper is a scene-driven narrative pipeline: a vision-language model takes spatial images or video as input, identifies the objects that carry the strongest metaphorical charge, and generates both a linear main story and branching fragments around them. Each fragment is written into a structured JSON schema and includes the object name, trigger condition, interactive agent, interaction mode, symbolic meaning, and displayed narrative text, allowing the AR runtime to anchor the content to real tracked objects and to support user-triggered story branches. The authors claim this arrangement resolves the tension between VLM creativity and physical plausibility: it reduced 3D coordinate errors by 57% compared with their baseline pipelines and earned a spatial consistency rating of 5.31/7 from 17 participants. The experiments also show the trade-off: metaphor-rich stories were rated more interesting but less understandable, immersion fell to 2.81/7, and dense scenes with more than ten objects raised coordinate errors by 118%, so the paper's claim is for a working paradigm with known limits, not a complete solution.

Load-bearing premise

The spatial-coherence claim rests on a single office deployment with 3 key objects, 10 branching items, and 17 participants, so the VLM-plus-JSON pipeline has not been shown to anchor metaphors reliably in dense or varied real environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AR storytelling can shift from hand-authored branching scripts to real-time generation from one scene image, since the pipeline turns VLM output into anchorable fragments in a single pass.
  • Metaphor-grounded narratives increase engagement: 85% of participants scanned more objects than required and motivation scored 5.19/7, so object-driven stories appear to promote exploration.
  • Users re-see their physical environment: 70% reported object reinterpretation, implying that the narrative changes perception of the real room rather than adding decorations to it.
  • Focusing on one or two key metaphorical objects per scene, instead of metaphorizing everything, improves comprehension and cuts user disorientation by 42% in the reported experiments.
  • VLM 3D coordinate inference remains the bottleneck, so practical deployments should keep anchor counts small and supplement the VLM with deterministic localization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same object-as-metaphor bridge could generalize to non-narrative AR content—museum annotations, learning prompts, or therapeutic cues—wherever the symbolism of a physical arrangement carries meaning.
  • The observed story-order effect suggests a two-pass presentation design—a literal grounded story first, then a metaphor-rich retelling—that the paper did not test directly but which could resolve the comprehensibility trade-off.
  • Because metaphor appropriateness and layout understanding varied with user expertise in the study, a personalization layer that adapts metaphor abstraction to the user's narrative familiarity is a plausible next step.
  • A direct cross-cultural test would be to run the Generation Evaluation Phase with participant groups from different cultural backgrounds and compare metaphor appropriateness scores, addressing the paper's own limitation statement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scenario-metaphor framework for AR storytelling that integrates Vision Language Models (VLMs) with a structured JSON bridge to map metaphorical narratives onto AR anchors. The framework decomposes object semantics into physical, functional, and metaphorical layers, and is evaluated in three phases: a STAM capability benchmark for VLM spatial/narrative reasoning (Table 2), a cognitive-alignment user study (n=26; Tables 3-5), and a system integration study in an office scene (n=17; Table 6). The paper claims that 70% of participants reported seeing real-world objects differently when narratives were grounded in environmental symbolism, and that the system achieves spatial fit of 5.31/7, among other results.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the framework addresses a real gap: moving AR storytelling beyond object-label semantics toward relation- and metaphor-aware narrative generation. The proposed JSON intermediary and the three-phase evaluation protocol are potentially reusable contributions, and the user studies target a meaningful question about whether VLM-generated metaphors can enhance spatial engagement. However, the current manuscript reports several headline statistics that cannot be recomputed from the tables or method text, and the key studies lack baselines, variance measures, and full data. The significance of the contribution is therefore conditional on a substantial reporting overhaul.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Section 9 / Table 6] The claim that '70% of participants reported seeing real-world objects differently' is load-bearing for the paper's central conclusion, but it is not traceable to any reported measurement. The only related result is Recognition = 4.80/7 in Table 6, which is a 7-point Likert mean, not a percentage; no survey item, response distribution, or threshold is provided that would yield 70%. This claim must be either backed by the exact item, counts, and threshold, or removed from the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Sections 7 and 9] Several quantitative claims appear without any supporting computation: 'user ratings are 23% higher than baseline,' 'reducing 3D coordinate errors by 57%,' 'reduced user disorientation by 42%,' '78% of non-expert users struggled,' and a '118%' error surge in dense scenes. None of these numbers can be derived from Tables 2, 5, or 6 or from the method text, and Section 6.1 describes no baseline or control condition against which such percentages could be computed. The authors must either provide the precise measurements, definitions, and statistical tests for each claim, or delete the unsupported figures.
  3. [Table 2 / Section 4] Table 2 contains empty cells for CE and DT, yet Section 4.5 discusses these as key limitations; moreover, every column lacks variance, number of trials, and per-condition sample sizes. Without these values, the STAM-based conclusions about VLM capability, including the claimed weakness in coordinate estimation and dynamic tolerance, are not auditable. Please report the actual CE and DT values, along with standard deviations and trial counts, or state explicitly that they were not measurable and explain why.
  4. [Section 5.3 / Table 4] The text states that 'Story 2 outperformed Story 1 across all dimensions except for understanding,' but Table 4 shows that the differences are not statistically significant for most dimensions (e.g., Reasonable 1 vs 2 p=0.1306; Suitable p=0.8658). Additionally, the authors report that nearly all participants selected whichever story they read second as more engaging, which is a severe order confound for the 'Interesting' dimension (p=0.0494 for 1 vs 2). This confound is acknowledged but not controlled, so the claim of strong support for RQ2 is overstated; a within-subject counterbalancing analysis or an explicit regression on presentation order is needed.
  5. [Section 6.1] The system integration study has no baseline or control condition and tests only a single office scene with 3 key objects, 10 branch items, and 17 participants. Consequently, the favorable ratings (e.g., Spatial Fit = 5.31/7, Motivation = 5.19/7) cannot be attributed to the metaphor-grounded object detection or the JSON bridge rather than to generic VLM story generation, novelty effects, or the specific scene. A comparison condition (e.g., stories generated without the metaphorical layer) or a clear statement that the study is a feasibility demonstration rather than an efficacy test is required before the claimed causal contribution is made.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 3.1] The framework is first called 'STEAM' and later 'STAM'; please use a single consistent acronym throughout.
  2. [Section 4] The text contains an unresolved table reference: 'which is shown in Table ??'—this must be fixed.
  3. [Section 2.2 / 2.3] The heading '2.3 System Implementation' appears in the middle of the Related Work section, and the subsequent paragraph returns to interactive narratives; the section ordering appears accidentally misplaced.
  4. [References] References [24] and [25] are duplicates of the same Retargetable AR paper; one should be removed and citations updated.
  5. [Figures] Figure 1 is not cited in the text; please add a citation where the pipeline is first described.
  6. [Table 6] The table reports only mean ratings; standard deviations and per-item participant counts should be added, and the number of participants per survey item should be stated.
  7. [Section 5.2] The phrase 'exceeded user expectations by about 18.9% on average compared to the median value' is undefined; please clarify the baseline and computation method.
  8. [Table 2] The scenario names 'Living Area', 'Work Area', 'Special Environment', and 'Lab (Macro)' are not defined in the text, and the caption does not indicate how many images or trials per scenario were used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the system's user-study claims rest on independent ratings, and no fitted parameter or self-citation is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a load-bearing circular step. The STAM evaluation framework is introduced by the authors, but it is an assessment instrument, not an input from which the system's behavior is derived; using one's own metrics to measure a prototype is not circular. The central claims about user experience come from independent questionnaire ratings (e.g., Spatial Fit 5.31/7, Recognition 4.80/7 in Table 6) and behavioral observations (85% scanning more objects), which are not constructed from the framework's definitions. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then predicted; GPT-4o is used zero-shot, and the JSON bridge is a deterministic format conversion, not a learned or fitted model. There are no self-citations that carry the argument. Several headline statistics in the abstract and discussion (70% of participants, 57% reduction in coordinate errors, 42% reduction in disorientation, 23% higher user ratings) cannot be recomputed from the reported tables, and the Section 6.1 study has no control condition. These are serious auditability and experimental-design limitations, but they are not circularity: the statements are unsupported, not equivalent to the paper's inputs by construction. The only mildly self-referential feature is that the authors define and then apply their own STAM metrics, but this does not make any derived claim reduce to its own premise. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

No numeric free parameters or fitted constants appear; the paper presents a system and empirical measurements rather than a parametric model. The main unverified inputs are domain assumptions about VLM capability and the validity of self-reported user metrics.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption VLMs such as GPT-4o can infer meaningful metaphorical associations from static scene images
    The entire pipeline depends on VLM output being metaphorically and spatially useful; only small scenario tests support this.
  • domain assumption Self-reported Likert ratings on narrative qualities are valid proxies for narrative quality and user engagement
    All effectiveness claims (spatial fit, motivation, recognition) come from questionnaire data without objective measures.
  • domain assumption A structured JSON layer fully preserves the spatial and semantic coherence of VLM output in Unity AR Foundation
    The bidirectional JSON mapping is described but not formally specified or released, and the paper notes coordinate errors still occur in dense scenes.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o and GPT4Scene are representative state-of-the-art VLMs for the conclusions about VLM capability
    Only these two models are tested; conclusions about 'VLMs' generally are inferred from them.
invented entities (2)
  • Metaphorical object layer (state-aware object semantics)
    purpose: Decomposes object meaning into physical, functional, and metaphorical layers so the VLM can assign different narrative roles to similar objects
    Introduced and evaluated only within this paper's own scenarios; no external benchmark or dataset validates the layer.
  • STAM evaluation framework
    purpose: A four-dimensional (Spatial, Temporal, Adaptive, Metaphorical) metric set for assessing VLM spatial narrative reasoning
    Created by the authors and used to evaluate their own pipeline; no independent validation or external adoption is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Object-Driven Narrative in AR: A Scenario-Metaphor Framework with VLM Integration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSOF7TM5

@misc{pith2026250413119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Object-Driven Narrative in AR: A Scenario-Metaphor Framework with VLM Integration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSOF7TM5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13119}
}
read the original abstract

Most adaptive AR storytelling systems define environmental semantics using simple object labels and spatial coordinates, limiting narratives to rigid, pre-defined logic. This oversimplification overlooks the contextual significance of object relationships-for example, a wedding ring on a nightstand might suggest marital conflict, yet is treated as just "two objects" in space. To address this, we explored integrating Vision Language Models (VLMs) into AR pipelines. However, several challenges emerged: First, stories generated with simple prompt guidance lacked narrative depth and spatial usage. Second, spatial semantics were underutilized, failing to support meaningful storytelling. Third, pre-generated scripts struggled to align with AR Foundation's object naming and coordinate systems. We propose a scene-driven AR storytelling framework that reimagines environments as active narrative agents, built on three innovations: 1. State-aware object semantics: We decompose object meaning into physical, functional, and metaphorical layers, allowing VLMs to distinguish subtle narrative cues between similar objects. 2. Structured narrative interface: A bidirectional JSON layer maps VLM-generated metaphors to AR anchors, maintaining spatial and semantic coherence. 3. STAM evaluation framework: A three-part experimental design evaluates narrative quality, highlighting both strengths and limitations of VLM-AR integration. Our findings show that the system can generate stories from the environment itself, not just place them on top of it. In user studies, 70% of participants reported seeing real-world objects differently when narratives were grounded in environmental symbolism. By merging VLMs' generative creativity with AR's spatial precision, this framework introduces a novel object-driven storytelling paradigm, transforming passive spaces into active narrative landscapes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13119 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall structure of our proposed pipeline. By discovering unique objects in the environment and their metaphors, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The example Scenario of System Integration Vali [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The communication flow between AR application [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The example data structure of mainstory. It adds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Billinghurst, H

    M. Billinghurst, H. Kato, and I. Poupyrev. 2001. The MagicBook - moving seam- lessly between reality and virtuality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 21, 3 (2001), 6–8. doi:10.1109/38.920621

    work page doi:10.1109/38.920621 2001

  2. [2]

    Justine Cassell and Kimiko Ryokai. 2001. Making space for voice: Technologies to support children’s fantasy and storytelling. Personal and ubiquitous computing 5 (2001), 169–190. doi:10.1007/PL00000018

    work page doi:10.1007/pl00000018 2001

  3. [3]

    Mengyu Chen, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, and Misha Sra. 2021. SceneAR: Scene- based Micro Narratives for Sharing and Remixing in Augmented Reality. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) . 294–303. doi:10.1109/ISMAR52148.2021.00045

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Yifei Cheng, Yukang Yan, Xin Yi, Yuanchun Shi, and David Lindlbauer. 2021. SemanticAdapt: Optimization-based Adaptation of Mixed Reality Layouts Lever- aging Virtual-Physical Semantic Connections. In The 34th Annual ACM Sym- posium on User Interface Software and Technology (Virtual Event, USA) (UIST ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,...

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    John Joon Young Chung, Wooseok Kim, Kang Min Yoo, Hwaran Lee, Eytan Adar, and Minsuk Chang. 2022. TaleBrush: Sketching Stories with Generative Pretrained Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 209, 19 ...

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Zhi-Chao Dong, Wenming Wu, Zenghao Xu, Qi Sun, Guanjie Yuan, Ligang Liu, and Xiao-Ming Fu. 2021. Tailored Reality: Perception-aware Scene Restructuring for Adaptive VR Navigation. ACM Trans. Graph. 40, 5, Article 193 (Oct. 2021), 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3470847

    work page doi:10.1145/3470847 2021

  7. [7]

    Magy Seif El-Nasr. 2007. Interaction, narrative, and drama: Creating an adaptive interactive narrative using performance arts theories. Interaction Studies 8, 2 (2007), 209–240. doi:10.1075/is.8.2.03eln

    work page doi:10.1075/is.8.2.03eln 2007

  8. [8]

    Raphaël Grasset, Andreas Dünser, and Mark Billinghurst. 2008. Edutainment with a mixed reality book: a visually augmented illustrative childrens’ book. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Advances in Computer Enter- tainment Technology (Yokohama, Japan) (ACE ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 292–295. doi:10.1...

    work page arXiv 2008

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Kuntong Han, Keyang Tang, and Meng Wang. 2025. Stage Wizard: Enhancing Tangible Storytelling with Multimodal LLMs. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York...

    2025

  2. [10]

    Lei Han, Tian Zheng, Yinheng Zhu, Lan Xu, and Lu Fang. 2020. Live semantic 3d perception for immersive augmented reality. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 26, 5 (2020), 2012–2022. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.2973477

    2020

  3. [11]

    Yining Hong, Haoyu Zhen, Peihao Chen, Shuhong Zheng, Yilun Du, Zhenfang Chen, and Chuang Gan. 2023. 3D-LLM: Injecting the 3D World into Large Language Models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Le...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Yining Lang, Wei Liang, and Lap-Fai Yu. 2019. Virtual Agent Positioning Driven by Scene Semantics in Mixed Reality. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . 767–775. doi:10.1109/VR.2019.8798018

    2019

  5. [13]

    Changyang Li, Wanwan Li, Haikun Huang, and Lap-Fai Yu. 2022. Interactive augmented reality storytelling guided by scene semantics. ACM Trans. Graph. 41, 4, Article 91 (July 2022), 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3528223.3530061

    2022

  6. [14]

    Wanwan Li, Changyang Li, Minyoung Kim, Haikun Huang, and Lap-Fai Yu. 2023. Location-Aware Adaptation of Augmented Reality Narratives. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machine...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Ziming Li, Huadong Zhang, Chao Peng, and Roshan Peiris. 2025. Exploring Large Language Model-Driven Agents for Environment-Aware Spatial Interactions and Conversations in Virtual Reality Role-Play Scenarios. In 2025 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) ....

    2025

  8. [16]

    Wei Liang, Xinzhe Yu, Rawan Alghofaili, Yining Lang, and Lap-Fai Yu. 2021. Scene-Aware Behavior Synthesis for Virtual Pets in Mixed Reality. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Ma...

    2021

  9. [17]

    David Lindlbauer, Anna Maria Feit, and Otmar Hilliges. 2019. Context-Aware Online Adaptation of Mixed Reality Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (New Orleans, LA, USA) (UIST ’19). Association for Computing Mach...

    2019

  10. [18]

    TeongJoo Ong and John J. Leggett. 2004. A genetic algorithm approach to interactive narrative generation. InProceedings of the Fifteenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (Santa Cruz, CA, USA) (HYPERTEXT ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 18...

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    OpenAI 2024. GPT-4O. https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/

    2024

  12. [20]

    Zhangyang Qi, Zhixiong Zhang, Ye Fang, Jiaqi Wang, and Hengshuang Zhao

  13. [21]

    Xun Qian, Fengming He, Xiyun Hu, Tianyi Wang, Ananya Ipsita, and Karthik Ramani. 2022. ScalAR: Authoring Semantically Adaptive Augmented Reality Experiences in Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Mark Owen Riedl and Vadim Bulitko. 2012. Interactive Narrative: An Intelligent Systems Approach. AI Magazine 34, 1 (Dec. 2012), 67. doi:10.1609/aimag.v34i1. 2449

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    Dariusz Rumiński and Krzysztof Walczak. 2013. Creation of Interactive AR Content on Mobile Devices. In Business Information Systems Workshops, Witold Abramowicz (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 258–269

    2013

  16. [24]

    Tomu Tahara, Takashi Seno, Gaku Narita, and Tomoya Ishikawa. 2020. Re- targetable AR: Context-aware augmented reality in indoor scenes based on 3D scene graph. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Aug- mented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct) . IEEE, 249–255. doi:10...

    2020

  17. [25]

    Tomu Tahara, Takashi Seno, Gaku Narita, and Tomoya Ishikawa. 2020. Retar- getable AR: Context-aware Augmented Reality in Indoor Scenes based on 3D Scene Graph. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). 249–255. doi:10.1109/ISM...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Pengcheng Wang, Jonathan Rowe, Wookhee Min, Bradford Mott, and James Lester. 2017. Interactive narrative personalization with deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Melbourne, Australia) (IJCAI’17). AA...

    2017

  19. [27]

    Pengcheng Wang, Jonathan Rowe, Wookhee Min, Bradford Mott, and James Lester. 2018. High-fidelity simulated players for interactive narrative planning. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Stockholm, Sweden) (IJCAI’18). AAAI Pres...

    2018

  20. [28]

    Wenshan Wu, Shaoguang Mao, Yadong Zhang, Yan Xia, Li Dong, Lei Cui, and Furu Wei. 2024. Visualization-of-thought elicits spatial reasoning in large language models. arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv–2404. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.03622

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [2025]

    arXiv:2501.01428 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01428

    GPT4Scene: Understand 3D Scenes from Videos with Vision-Language Models. arXiv:2501.01428 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01428

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.