Vision language models are unreliable at trivial spatial cognition

Vision language models (VLMs) are designed to extract relevant visuospatial information from images. Some research suggests that VLMs can exhibit humanlike scene understanding, while other investigations reveal difficulties in their ability to process relational information. To achieve widespread applicability, VLMs must perform reliably, yielding comparable competence across a wide variety of related tasks. We sought to test how reliable these architectures are at engaging in trivial spatial cognition, e.g., recognizing whether one object is left of another in an uncluttered scene. We developed a benchmark dataset -- TableTest -- whose images depict 3D scenes of objects arranged on a table, and used it to evaluate state-of-the-art VLMs. Results show that performance could be degraded by minor variations of prompts that use logically equivalent descriptions. These analyses suggest limitations in how VLMs may reason about spatial relations in real-world applications. They also reveal novel opportunities for bolstering image caption corpora for more efficient training and testing.

The Perceived Danger (PD) Scale: Development and Validation

There are currently no psychometrically valid tools to measure the perceived danger of robots. To fill this gap, we provided a definition of perceived danger and developed and validated a 12-item bifactor scale through four studies. An exploratory factor analysis revealed four subdimensions of perceived danger: affective states, physical vulnerability, ominousness, and cognitive readiness. A confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the bifactor model. We then compared the perceived danger scale to the Godspeed perceived safety scale and found that the perceived danger scale is a better predictor of empirical data. We also validated the scale in an in-person setting and found that the perceived danger scale is sensitive to robot speed manipulations, consistent with previous empirical findings. Results across experiments suggest that the perceived danger scale is reliable, valid, and an adequate predictor of both perceived safety and perceived danger in human-robot interaction contexts.