CEMIR vs. FISER: a comparative study of reasoning-based and enrichment-based approaches to pragmatic intent recognition

Overview & Synopsis

Intent recognition in human-robot interaction requires agents to resolve ambiguous natural language instructions by inferring the speaker's underlying goals. Research has increasingly focused on two notable paradigms for addressing this task: structured symbolic reasoning and multimodal input enrichment. However, it remains unclear whether enrichment-based methods provide benefit in settings where the ambiguity concerns unstated human intent rather than missing observable scene information. In this paper, we present a comparative and diagnostic study benchmarking FISER - a framework utilizing structured social and embodied reasoning - against CEMIR (Context-Enriched Multimodal Intent Recognition), a method that performs multimodal enrichment by synthesizing narratives and photorealistic images from textual prompts. By evaluating both approaches across four Large Language Models (LLMs), ranging from Qwen2.5-Omni-3B to GPT-5, on the HandMeThat v2 benchmark, we analyze their capability to resolve pragmatic ambiguities. Our statistical analysis, employing multiple-comparison correction, reveals no statistically significant difference in performance between FISER and CEMIR across any model or difficulty level. This pattern holds across all sixteen model-by-difficulty comparisons, as well as in a targeted ablation isolating CEMIR's narrative and visual components. Instead, performance is primarily associated with backbone capability and the inherent difficulty of the ambiguity. These findings suggest a boundary condition for text-derived multimodal enrichment: when the relevant task constraints are already available in the textual instruction, synthetic multimodal augmentation may not provide measurable benefit over structured reasoning on the same text.