← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.02056 · v1
Do Embodied VLMs Actually Use Their Scene-Graph Memory?
首次提交 2026-11-02 01:01
版本更新 2026-11-02 01:01
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:43
摘要
Embodied agents that answer questions about their route need a memory of what they saw, and scene graphs are a natural form for it. A vision-language model (VLM) can receive such a graph as text or through a graph encoder, but accuracy alone cannot show whether the graph holds the episode's facts, reaches the model, or is actually relied on. In this diagnostic study, we introduce a graph-swap test for the last of these: each episode is given another episode's graph, and we count how many answers change. On an embodied question-answering benchmark with routes through two to seven rooms, we use it to compare ways of delivering scene-graph memory to a fine-tuned VLM. As text, the memory is used strongly, adding 30 points on route questions. As a graph, it is not, and we trace why: the encoder preserves the information, but standard pooled and late fusion discard it. Giving each node its own input token recovers part of it, a gain of 8.3 points on route questions that the swap test confirms comes from the graph. The test also exposes a shortcut that accuracy hides: when the same facts appear in the text, the model ignores its graph. The test thus offers a cheap check of whether a VLM uses its scene-graph memory, and our analysis points to how that memory should be delivered.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-02 01:01 · 最新观测版本
Do Embodied VLMs Actually Use Their Scene-Graph Memory?
Embodied agents that answer questions about their route need a memory of what they saw, and scene graphs are a natural form for it. A vision-language model (VLM) can receive such a graph as text or through a graph encoder, but accuracy alone cannot show whether the graph holds the episode's facts, reaches the model, or is actually relied on. In this diagnostic study, we introduce a graph-swap test for the last of these: each episode is given another episode's graph, and we count how many answers change. On an embodied question-answering benchmark with routes through two to seven rooms, we use it to compare ways of delivering scene-graph memory to a fine-tuned VLM. As text, the memory is used strongly, adding 30 points on route questions. As a graph, it is not, and we trace why: the encoder preserves the information, but standard pooled and late fusion discard it. Giving each node its own input token recovers part of it, a gain of 8.3 points on route questions that the swap test confirms comes from the graph. The test also exposes a shortcut that accuracy hides: when the same facts appear in the text, the model ignores its graph. The test thus offers a cheap check of whether a VLM uses its scene-graph memory, and our analysis points to how that memory should be delivered.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗