AffordJEV: Affordance Grounding by Confirming Candidate Regions

Task-conditioned manipulation requires grounding instructions to task-relevant functional parts rather than object categories. This setting is scene-dependent and often one-to-many in cluttered scenes: the same object may afford different interactions across tasks, while a single task may correspond to either one functional region or multiple valid functional regions, depending on the scene layout. Existing affordance datasets and benchmarks remain misaligned with this setting, as they typically focus on grasping or object-level affordances, rely on synthetic scenes, or assume a single instruction-region correspondence. We present Affordance2Action (A2A), a benchmark-centered learning framework for scene-level, task-conditioned part affordance grounding. At its core is A2A-Bench, a manipulation-oriented benchmark that covers both single-region and multi-region instruction correspondences in everyday scenes, with the latter highlighting the ambiguity and diversity of affordance grounding in realistic multi-object environments. To construct it at scale, we build A2A-AffordGen, an agent-assisted annotation pipeline that combines language-model filtering, interactive part segmentation, instance-level mask-out refinement, task-reasoning instruction generation, and human verification. A2A-Bench's supervision further supports diverse downstream applications, with real-time affordance grounding and affordance-conditioned manipulation policies as two representative examples. Experiments show that A2A exposes substantial gaps in generic segmentation, VLM-based grounding, and affordance distillation baselines, while improving task-level localization and providing useful spatial priors for downstream manipulation.

2D affordance grounding aims to locate the region of an object that a human can interact with. Existing research focuses on recognizing affordance types seen during training and does not study models' ability to generalize to novel affordances, which is crucial for real-world applications. We propose the task of zero-shot 2D grounding with novel affordance types (NAT) and introduce the NAT benchmarks. We then propose AffordAnything, a training-free method that leverages segmentation cues, motivated by the strong correlation between affordance regions and object subparts. To further improve performance, we develop AffordAnything+, a trainable variant that learns to combine these cues. On the proposed AGD20K-NAT benchmark, our best model AffordAnything+ achieves a substantial improvement of 12.3% (absolute) in [email protected] over the SOTA affordance grounding method, OOAL.

Benchmarks agree that vision-language models reason poorly about low-level manipulation, but an aggregate accuracy score does not say which step fails. We separate two steps that affordance questions conflate: identifying which part of an object to act on, and knowing what action that part requires. Across 19 articulated objects we asked eight models, spanning three developers, what motion a robot should apply. Under an open prompt, push was produced once in 64 evaluations where it was correct, despite being correct for 8 of 19 objects and appearing in the offered label set every time. Inspecting the outputs showed why: models described a different part than the one being scored, e.g. explaining how to pick up a camera rather than press its button. Naming the target part raises action accuracy by 0.32 to 0.63 for every model, from 0.158-0.474 to 0.684-0.947, and push recall from 0-1/8 to 7-8/8. No model beats a constant answer that ignores the image under the open prompt; once the part is named, all eight do. Asked to describe the same part in free prose with no label set, models produce pressing language for 6 to 8 of 8. These results are hard to reconcile with missing action knowledge, and instead point to part grounding as the dominant bottleneck, a pattern that holds across all three model families and does not diminish with capability. Naming the part supplies the grounding variable, so this bounds what a perfect part detector would offer rather than demonstrating a general model of mechanics. Two supporting results agree: on real photographs only three of eight models localize grasp points better than a constant baseline, and on rendered objects none do. We also document two measurement errors of our own, a threshold that let a constant baseline score 0.929 and a labelling rule wrong on 4 of 19 objects, both caught only by testing our numbers against trivial alternatives.