Matched via arXiv identifier search
- Stars
- 0
- Last push
- May 17, 2026 (8d ago)
Risk flags
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
- Low confidence match
Swagat Padhan, Lakshya Jain, Bhavya Minesh Shah, Omkar Patil, Thao Nguyen, Nakul Gopalan
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Robots collaborating with humans must convert natural language goals into actionable, physically grounded decisions. For example, executing a command such as "go two meters to the right of the fridge" requires grounding semantic references, spatial relations, and metric constraints within a 3D scene. While recent vision language models (VLMs) demonstrate strong semantic grounding capabilities, they are not explicitly ...
designed to reason about metric constraints in physically defined spaces. In this work, we empirically demonstrate that state-of-the-art VLM-based grounding approaches struggle with complex metric-semantic language queries. To address this limitation, we propose MAPG (Multi-Agent Probabilistic Grounding), an agentic framework that decomposes language queries into structured subcomponents and queries a VLM to ground each component. MAPG then probabilistically composes these grounded outputs to produce metrically consistent, actionable decisions in 3D space. We evaluate MAPG on the HM-EQA benchmark and show consistent performance improvements over strong baselines. Furthermore, we introduce a new benchmark, MAPG-Bench, specifically designed to evaluate metric-semantic goal grounding, addressing a gap in existing language grounding evaluations. We also present a real-world robot demonstration showing that MAPG transfers beyond simulation when a structured scene representation is available.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Robots collaborating with humans must convert natural language goals into actionable, physically grounded decisions.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Agentic tool use, Scientific computing
Methods
Transformer, Agentic systems
Domains
Computer vision, Natural Language Processing, AI Agents
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.