Owen Rambow | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

Implicit vs. Explicit Prompting Strategies for LVLMs in Referential Communication

Two recent studies \citep{jones2026llms, zeng2026lvlms} reach apparently contradictory conclusions about whether large vision-language models (LVLMs) can coordinate similarly to humans on efficient referring expressions. We control for task differences between the studies while directly comparing their prompting styles. We replicate the finding that models can coordinate efficient referring expressions when \textit{explicitly} prompted to do so, suggesting that other task differences are not responsible for divergent results. However, we also find that the same models fail to infer the need for communicative efficiency from a more \textit{implicit} prompt, highlighting critical differences between how humans and AI systems communicate.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

When Seeing Is Not Enough: Benchmarking Interactive Visual Grounding in LVLMs

Visual grounding is typically evaluated as a one-shot mapping from an informative referring expression to a visual target. This formulation misses a central property of real-world reference: initial referring expressions are often incomplete or ambiguous, requiring participants to establish shared understanding through interaction. We introduce a controlled evaluation framework for interactive visual grounding in large vision-language models (LVLMs), varying how much target information is provided upfront and how much must be acquired through dialogue. Across four human-grounded visual contexts and four interaction protocols, current LVLMs perform significantly below task-level human baselines. Interaction can help when follow-up questions refine or repair an initial target description. Performance is lowest when no initial description is provided and target information must be acquired through questions, indicating that proactive question-driven grounding remains difficult. LVLMs are also poorly calibrated, often reporting confidence that exceeds their empirical accuracy. Follow-up studies confirm these patterns across varied description sources (human versus AI), reasoning efforts, repeated interactions, description providers, and visual contexts. Overall, interactive visual grounding remains challenging, requiring visual matching, information seeking and synthesis.

cs.AI↗