RefGuard: Identity-Aware Language-Guided Robot Manipulation via Joint Target-Anchor-Frame Grounding
Authors: Lan Wei, Kangyi Lu, Yongchen Wang, Chenmeng Bi, Qi Chen, Hanlin Niu, Yip Fun Yeung, Dandan Zhang
Organizations: Imperial College London, UK · RACE, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, UK · Oxford Robotics Institute, University of Oxford, UK · Avant Intelligence Ltd, London, UK
Vision-language-action (VLA) models have substantially advanced language-guided robot manipulation, yet reliable execution still hinges on identifying which physical object an instruction refers to. In cluttered scenes containing repeated objects, ambiguous anchors, or frame-dependent spatial terms, a robot can execute a geometrically valid action on a semantically compatible but unintended instance; we call this failure an identity switch. The referent is jointly determined by three coupled latent variables: the target, the anchor, and the reference frame, so committing to any one of them before execution turns residual ambiguity into a silent and irreversible error. We propose RefGuard, an identity-aware grounding framework that delays commitment by maintaining a joint posterior over all three variables. RefGuard builds a frame-conditioned object-centric scene graph from RGB-D observations, separating frame-independent geometry from directional relations, and routes the posterior through a decision policy that executes, clarifies, reobserves, or aborts. On a real UF850 arm, RefGuard records no identity switch on any ambiguity-stress trial and executes correctly on 90.0% of them, whereas fine-tuned VLA and LLM (Large Language Model)-based baselines switch identity in 33-46% of the same trials, while retaining 93.3% success on unambiguous scenes and recovering from post-grounding scene changes in 86.7% of trials. On a 3200-episode procedural suite, it raises correct execution on solvable instructions from 56.6% to 80.5% over the ablation that commits to the anchor and frame before the target, while deferring less often (19.5% vs. 43.4%).
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: In cluttered tabletop manipulation, identity switches arise when ambiguity over the target, anchor, or reference frame is collapsed into hard choices before execution. RefGuard models these variables jointly, preserves their uncertainty, and routes the posterior through a decision module that chooses to execute, clarify, reobserve, or abort, reducing confident wrong-object execution.
Fig. 2: Overview of RefGuard. A language model decomposes the instruction into symbolic primitive queries over target, anchor, and relation, while SAM 3 perception builds a frame-conditioned scene graph from RGB-D observations. A joint hypothesis table scores candidate target–anchor–frame interpretations, and execution is committed only when the target belief is sufficiently concentrated for a safe action; otherwise the system clarifies, reobserves, or aborts. The scene graph is rebuilt after each primitive to support subsequent ones.
Fig. 3: Identity-switch stress suite. S1 tests ordinary unambiguous execution. S2 tests duplicate targets with a unique anchor. S3 contains duplicate targets and duplicate anchors, requiring joint target–anchor reasoning; geometrically near-tied assignments trigger clarify . S4 tests explicit frame-conditioned grounding. S5 tests robustness under execution-time perturbation. S6 is an ambiguous hard negative, where the correct behaviour is to defer rather than execute an arbitrary action.
Method
S1 Clean TS ↑
S2 Dup-T ISR ↓
S3 Dup-T/A ISR ↓
S4 Frame-Cond. ISR ↓
S5 Perturb Recovery ↑
S6 Hard-Neg. CDR ↑
GR00T
25/30 (83.3%)
13/25 (52.0%)
10/25 (40.0%)
7/25 (28.0%)
12/30 (40.0%)
N/A
π0.5
27/30 (90.0%)
11/26 (42.3%)
9/25 (36.0%)
16/27 (59.3%)
14/30 (46.7%)
N/A
LLM-based
27/30 (90.0%)
12/29 (41.4%)
12/27 (44.4%)
17/30 (56.7%)
0/30 (0.0%)
N/A
RefGuard (Ours)
28/30 (93.3%)
0/28 (0.0%)
0/27 (0.0%)
0/26 (0.0%)
26/30 (86.7%)
30/30 (100.0%)
TABLE I: Main real-robot results across six UF850 settings, with 30 trials per method and setting. Each cell gives the count with the percentage in parentheses. S1 reports clean-scene task success (TS, C/N ); S2–S4 report the execution-conditional identity-switch rate ISR=I/(C+I) , whose denominator is the number of executed trials and therefore differs across cells (lower is better); S5 reports post-perturbation recovery; and S6 reports the correct defer rate (CDR; higher safe deferral is better). Best column results are bolded .
Fig. 4: Outcome decomposition over S2–S4 only ( N=90 trials per method; no macro-averaging). Episodes are categorised as correct execution/identity switch/low-level failure/defer ( C/I/F/D ): GR00T 45/30/15/0 , π0.542/36/12/0 , LLM-based 45/41/4/0 , and RefGuard 81/0/3/6 . Percentages in the figure are episode-level outcome fractions.
Method
S2
S3
S4
Cov. ↑
CE ↑
ISR ↓
Hard-A/F
8/1/1/0
4/2/1/3
7/1/1/1
26/30
19/30
4/23
RefGuard
9/0/1/0
8/0/1/1
9/0/0/1
28/30
26/30
0/26
S5: same post-change observation and graph update
Method
Swap-T
Move-A
Insert-D
Recovery ↑
ISR ↓
LLM+Update
8/1/1/0
7/2/1/0
7/2/1/0
22/30
5/27
Hard-A/F+Update
8/0/1/1
7/2/0/1
8/1/1/0
23/30
3/26
TABLE II: Matched real-robot ablation, 10 trials per method and setting (30 per block). Entries are C/I/F/D : correct execution / identity switch / low-level failure / defer. Cov=(C+I+F)/N , CE=C/N , and ISR=I/(C+I) .
Fig. 5: Sequential episode for “Pick the red pepper near the cup, and place it onto the plate.” Two red peppers and two cups are present, so only one joint target-anchor assignment satisfies near . Left to right: initial scene; RefGuard grasps the pepper adjacent to the right-hand cup; the pepper is held as an in-gripper memory node while the scene graph is rebuilt; the PLACE primitive is executed.
Condition
Ep.
Prim.
Prim. Comp. ↑
Seq. Succ. ↑
Wrong- ID ↓
Defer ↓
L=2
10
20
20/20 (100.0%)
10/10 (100.0%)
0/20
0/20
L=4
10
40
38/40 (95.0%)
8/10 (80.0%)
0/40
1/40 (2.5%)
L=6
10
60
56/60 (93.3%)
7/10 (70.0%)
0/60
2/60 (3.3%)
All
30
120
114/120 (95.0%)
25/30 (83.3%)
0/120
3/120 (2.5%)
Held-out categories (2)
18
72
68/72 (94.4%)
15/18 (83.3%)
0/72
1/72 (1.4%)
TABLE III: Sequential composition, held-out-category generalisation, free-form parsing, and post-action checkpoint results. Wrong-ID counts identity-switch executions over all primitives.
Fig. 6: Example scenes from the procedural LIBERO-style suite as clutter increases from 5 to 20 objects. These scenes are procedurally generated and are not the official LIBERO benchmark.
Method
CE@5
CE@10
CE@15
CE@20
Total solvable CE ↑
Hard-A/F
375/600
354/600
323/600
306/600
1358/2400 (56.6%)
RefGuard
524/600
495/600
470/600
442/600
1931/2400 (80.5%)
TABLE IV: Procedural LIBERO-style evaluation over 2,400 solvable and 800 hard-negative episodes. CE is correct execution; solvable deferral is lower-better, whereas safe deferral on hard negatives is higher-better.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Notation
Shape/Value
Description
Nc
2
number of RGB camera views
X
224×224×3
resized RGB observation size
Rraw
640×480
raw camera resolution
fcam
30 Hz
camera frame rate
s
R7
robot state: 6 joint angles and gripper position
a
R7
action: 6 joint commands and gripper command
Appendix
TABLE V: Inference hyperparameters and notation used during π0.5 real-robot deployment.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have shown strong capabilities in robotic manipulation, yet existing benchmarks typically assume that task-relevant information is explicitly specified in the instruction. In practice, however, humans frequently refer to objects, quantities, and relations implicitly, requiring robots to recover the intended target from linguistic and perceptual context. We study this capability as Implicit Referential Grounding (IRG) and introduce RoboIRG-Bench, a manipulation benchmark designed to systematically evaluate it. Built upon RoboMME, RoboIRG-Bench contains 40 variants derived from 11 tasks and covers four challenges, including direct, reasoning-mediated, spatial, and contextual referential grounding. As IRG often requires retaining and retrieving previously established context, we evaluate representative VLAs spanning different memory mechanisms. Our evaluation reveals a noticeable referential robustness gap. Models that perform well under explicit instructions can degrade sharply when the same task-relevant information must be recovered from context. Reasoning-mediated and spatial references are particularly challenging, while models using external VLMs show greater robustness but still exhibit significant failures. Moreover, replacing the external VLM with a stronger model does not eliminate these gaps. We further validate these findings on a Franka Research 3 robot arm, where the gap persists under real-world manipulation and manifests as both incorrect referent grounding and downstream execution failures. These results establish IRG as a distinct and underexplored capability for reliable robotic instruction following and highlight the need for VLAs that can robustly integrate language, perception, reasoning, and action.
Aernaer Akelijiang, Jiannan Li, Zhineng Chen +2
Singapore Management University · Fudan University
While Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models enable flexible action generation, their generalization across diverse environmental elements, including manipulated objects, destinations, and backgrounds, is limited by the lack of diversity in robotic training data. Trained end-to-end on such data, VLAs tend to exploit visual shortcuts, associating actions with task-irrelevant visual features rather than the intended task semantics. These shortcuts block recomposition of elements already seen by the policy, that is, compositional generalization. Existing approaches mitigate such entanglement through task-relevant perception or targeted data diversification, but offer no explicit mechanism for unseen recomposition and require backbone-specific modifications with retraining. We observe that under such recomposition, VLAs often fail at global grounding while retaining local manipulation skills that recover near the correct target in familiar configurations. Therefore, we propose Referential Guidance (ReGuide), a training-free wrapper that, given object poses from a grounding module, combines semantic and geometric rebinding to guide the end-effector into demonstration-supported configurations of the instructed referent, where the frozen policy can resume execution. Experiments in simulation across multiple VLA backbones as well as on a real robot show that ReGuide improves success rates under compositional shifts by up to 56.8 and 75.0 percentage points, respectively, while preserving standard-task performance.
Yanyan Zhang, Disheng Liu, Xinpeng Li +8
Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH, USA
Vision language action (VLA) models enable generalist robotic agents but often exhibit language ignorance, relying on visual shortcuts and remaining insensitive to instruction changes. We present Prospective Grounding and Alignment VLA (ProGAL-VLA), which constructs a 3D entity-centric graph (GSM), uses a slow planner to produce symbolic sub-goals, and aligns them with grounded entities via a Grounding Alignment Contrastive (GAC) loss. All actions are conditioned on a verified goal embedding gt, whose attention entropy provides an intrinsic ambiguity signal. On LIBERO-Plus, ProGAL-VLA increases robustness under robot perturbations from 30.3 to 71.5 percent, reduces language ignorance by 3x-4x, and improves entity retrieval from 0.41 to 0.71 Recall@1. On the Custom Ambiguity Benchmark, it reaches AUROC 0.81 (vs. 0.52), AUPR 0.79, and raises clarification on ambiguous inputs from 0.09 to 0.81 without harming unambiguous success. The verification bottleneck increases mutual information of language-actions, the GAC loss imposes an entity-level InfoNCE bound, and attention entropy yields calibrated selective prediction, indicating that explicit verified grounding is an effective path toward instruction-sensitive, ambiguity-aware agents.