During spontaneous conversations, speakers collaborate on novel referring expressions, which they can then re-use in subsequent conversations. Understanding such referring expressions is an important ability for an embodied agent, so that it can carry out tasks in the real world. This requires integrating and understanding language, vision, and conversational interaction. We study the capabilities of seven state-of-the-art Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) as overhearers to a corpus of spontaneous conversations between pairs of human discourse participants engaged in a collaborative object-matching task. We find that such a task remains challenging for current LVLMs and they all fail to show a consistent performance improvement as they overhear more conversations from the same discourse participants repeating the same task for multiple rounds. We release our corpus and code for reproducibility and to facilitate future research.

Active participation in a conversation is key to building common ground, since understanding is jointly tailored by producers and recipients. Overhearers are deprived of the privilege of performing grounding acts and can only conjecture about intended meanings. Still, data generation and annotation, modelling, training and evaluation of NLP dialogue models place reliance on the overhearing paradigm. How much of the underlying grounding processes are thereby forfeited? As we show, there is evidence pointing to the impossibility of properly modelling human meta-communicative acts with data-driven learning models. In this paper, we discuss this issue and provide a preliminary analysis on the variability of human decisions for requesting clarification. Most importantly, we wish to bring this topic back to the community's table, encouraging discussion on the consequences of having models designed to only "listen in".

Clarification requests are a mechanism to help solve communication problems, e.g. due to ambiguity or underspecification, in instruction-following interactions. Despite their importance, even skilful models struggle with producing or interpreting such repair acts. In this work, we test three hypotheses concerning the effects of action taking as an auxiliary task in modelling iCR policies. Contrary to initial expectations, we conclude that its contribution to learning an iCR policy is limited, but some information can still be extracted from prediction uncertainty. We present further evidence that even well-motivated, Transformer-based models fail to learn good policies for when to ask Instruction CRs (iCRs), while the task of determining what to ask about can be more successfully modelled. Considering the implications of these findings, we further discuss the shortcomings of the data-driven paradigm for learning meta-communication acts.