Humans converge on shared names for novel, hard-to-describe objects through repeated interaction, a process psycholinguists call lexical entrainment. Leading vision-language models fail at this: recent empirical work documents that they do not shorten references, reuse successful expressions, or maintain stable pact state across turns. We present a framework that addresses the gap by externalizing pact state into three explicit, inspectable sets of referent-object bindings ($Γ, Ξ, Ω$), updated by a dynamic-semantics context-change rule. The symbolic layer sits on top of a lightweight perceptual-alignment pipeline that grounds noisy human referring expressions in crowd-sourced imagery via SIFT homographies and the Universal Quality Index. Evaluated on the Stanford Repeated Reference Game corpus (over 15{,}000 director-matcher utterances on abstract tangram stimuli), the framework places the correct target in its top-5 hypothesis set 83.56% of the time from a single director utterance. Human matcher top-1 accuracy on the same corpus is approximately 77-80%. We also report results on a held-out condition in which obvious tangram-adjacent images are excluded from the retrieved set, which provides a more conservative measurement of the grounding signal. Ablations isolate the contribution of each component: SIFT alignment, UQI, query preprocessing, and image augmentation. The central contribution is the combination: a transparent, auditable symbolic layer that recovers the structure of lexical entrainment turn by turn, paired with a perceptual channel whose behavior can be examined ablation by ablation. We also discuss in detail what the framework does not do. It is not interactive, it does not close the loop with the director, and its retrieval-driven perceptual channel is vulnerable to a class of leakage effects that we quantify and bound rather than wave away.
Nuria Alabau-Bosque, Jorge Vila-Tomás, Paula Daudén-Oliver +3cs.CV
Evaluating the perceptual alignment between Contrastive Vision-Language Models (CVLMs) and humans is typically constrained by traditional benchmarks that overlook fine-grained semantic and cultural nuances. In this work, we propose a novel evaluation framework that leverages the gamified, discrete color space of the board game Hues and Cues. By mapping the board's 480 color cells to the CIE xy chromaticity diagram, we calculate empirical perceptual distances across a carefully curated 100-word vocabulary spanning seven semantic categories. To properly contextualize model performance, we establish an empirical lower bound of expected error-the Human Consistency baseline-calculated via Leave-One-Out (LOO) cross-validation on a dense dataset of color associations collected from 325 human observers through a custom digital interface. We evaluate 162 models across multiple architectural families and pre-training datasets to assess their semantic color grounding. Our results demonstrate that while CVLMs successfully replicate human cognitive biases, such as idealized memory colors for concrete physical referents (e.g., food and plants), they systematically diverge from the human baseline in abstract, subjective, and pop-culture domains. We identify two distinct failure modes in severely misaligned concepts: semantic misclassification and a systematic uncertainty collapse into a default blue coordinate. Furthermore, we reveal that highly curated pre-training datasets are significantly more effective than massive, uncurated corpora in mitigating these severe misalignments. Ultimately, this work highlights that despite their broad categorization capabilities, current CVLMs still fail to capture the nuanced, localized consensus of human color memory, emphasizing the value of gamified tasks in exposing underlying model biases. The data and code are publicly available to test other metrics.
Sound symbolism, the human tendency to map speech sounds to perceptual qualities such as roundness or sharpness, arises primarily from the acoustics of speech rather than spelling. Whether Speech Language Models (SLMs) share this tendency remains open, as prior evaluations rely on text or images rather than real speech. We study it using genuine human speech recordings, comparing model judgments against human data across the auditory, crossmodal, and visual components of the effect. We find that SLMs' auditory judgments align poorly with human perception and miss the acoustic cues, such as spectral tilt, that drive human intuitions, and open-weight models cannot reliably link a heard sound to its corresponding shape. With a visual-only control ruling out shape perception, the weakness localizes to how speech is represented, suggesting that perceptual alignment depends not on stronger vision but on speech representations that capture the cues humans hear.