Grounded Instruction Understanding with Large Language Models: Toward Trustworthy Human-Robot Interaction
This research paper investigates the use of large language models and vision-language models to interpret unconstrained natural language instructions in human-robot interaction scenarios. The authors evaluate three classification approaches—a traditional neural network, text-only GPT-4, and multimodal GPT-4 Vision—using a newly constructed dataset called SCOUT++. The findings highlight both the potential and limitations of foundation models for grounding language in visual context within safety-critical robotics settings.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
AI researchers and robotics developers studying grounded language understanding and vision-language models for autonomous systems.
What the document contains
The paper investigates instruction-response classification for human-robot dialogue using neural networks and GPT-4 models. It details the construction of the SCOUT++ multimodal dataset and compares text-only versus multimodal classification approaches.
The document does not provide legislative regulations, enforcement mechanisms, or formal safety standards for commercial robot deployment.
- Large language models can serve as a representational bridge connecting natural language instructions to robot actions.
- Extending the SCOUT corpus into SCOUT++ provides over 11,000 time-aligned visual frames paired with language commands.
- Text-only GPT-4 achieved higher raw instruction classification accuracy than traditional neural networks, though with lower precision across diverse labels.
- The multimodal variant of GPT-4 Vision underperformed in raw classification accuracy and exhibited challenges with hallucinations and vague outputs.
- Informational asymmetries between human commanders and automated vision models complicate direct performance comparisons in robotic tasks.
· Abstract · Introduction · Background: The SCOUT Corpus · Related Work · Approach · Results · Discussion · Future Work · Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
screening score · 2026-10-23