Qin, Hangyu, Xiao, Junbin, Yao, Angela · Nov 5, 2026
arXiv: ReferClaw: Disambiguating User Intent for Egocentric Assistance
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Hangyu Qin, Junbin Xiao and Angela Yao introduce ReferClaw, an framework for egocentric streaming QA: instead of guessing which object a short question refers to, an assistant asks for clarification before answering. The authors note that a question such as “Where did I leave it?” may fit several objects in a person’s video and dialogue history; a plausible answer can therefore miss what the user meant. ReferClaw uses three cooperating agents to identify possible meanings, ask a clarifying question and answer using the resolved intent and visual evidence. Its bounded, cost-aware policy weighs expected information gain against user effort, while limiting clarification turns and question complexity. The authors say the system learns from interaction through intent-specific skill updates and process-reward-guided policy optimization with agent-level credit assignment. On augmented egocentric QA , they report improved answer accuracy and joint answer-and-grounding performance over existing baselines, as well as transfer across datasets. These results support their case for clarification as a practical way to resolve user intent in streaming assistance. The abstract does not provide scores or describe the benchmarks in detail, so the size and scope of the reported gains cannot be assessed from this evidence alone.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 5, 2026 (2026-11-05).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-08T23:38:03.425Z. First observed: 2026-11-06T05:03:28.021Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-08T23:33:27.645Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The evidence is the paper's abstract; it does not provide scores or detailed benchmark descriptions, limiting assessment of the reported gains. The abstract describes a policy that balances information gain against user effort but gives no measure of the effort required.
Open question
What user effort does ReferClaw’s bounded, cost-aware policy require?
Source-stated
The authors propose ReferClaw, which asks clarifying questions to resolve user intent before answering egocentric streaming questions.
the assistant asks clarifying questions to resolve user intent before answering
Source-stated
ReferClaw uses three cooperating agents to identify candidate interpretations, request clarification and generate answers grounded in resolved intent and visual evidence.
Three cooperating agents identify candidate interpretations, request clarification, and generate answers grounded in the resolved intent and visual evidence.
Source-stated
Its bounded, cost-aware policy balances expected information gain against user effort and limits clarification turns and question complexity.
A bounded, cost-aware policy balances expected information gain against user effort while limiting clarification turns and question complexity.
Source-stated
The authors report improved answer accuracy and joint answer-and-grounding performance over existing baselines on augmented egocentric QA benchmarks, alongside zero-shot transfer across datasets.
Evaluations on augmented egocentric QA benchmarks demonstrate improved answer accuracy and joint answer-and-grounding performance over existing baselines, alongside zero-shot transfer across datasets.
Source-stated
The authors argue that their findings support interactive clarification as a practical approach to resolving online user intent in egocentric streaming assistance.
These findings support interactive clarification as a practical approach to resolving online user intent in egocentric streaming assistance.
Source and contributor context
Qin, Hangyu, Xiao, Junbin, Yao, Angela · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Agentic AI
AI systems that plan and carry out a series of steps toward a goal, often by using other software, rather than giving one answer.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Zero-shot
Doing a task without worked examples (zero-shot) or with only a few examples given in the prompt (few-shot).
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 5304facc-cad5-4c1f-85e1-a74d8c54e431.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-08T23:38:03.425Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 30e4f46f87106ed17f851e9402b59b08849cad6fbae8a0e4c13ec4a6c82b8268. Source text hash: a071bd3a22e33c9ccf9f9bcad1294b28ae3e2c9f71c051678767dc022b1c13d0.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-08T23:38:03.425Z
arXiv: ReferClaw: Disambiguating User Intent for Egocentric Assistance
Hangyu Qin, Junbin Xiao and Angela Yao introduce ReferClaw, an framework for egocentric streaming QA: instead of guessing which object a short question refers to, an assistant asks for clarification before answering. The authors note that a question such as “Where did I leave it?” may fit several objects in a person’s video and dialogue history; a plausible answer can therefore miss what the user meant. ReferClaw uses three cooperating agents to identify possible meanings, ask a clarifying question and answer using the resolved intent and visual evidence. Its bounded, cost-aware policy weighs expected information gain against user effort, while limiting clarification turns and question complexity. The authors say the system learns from interaction through intent-specific skill updates and process-reward-guided policy optimization with agent-level credit assignment. On augmented egocentric QA , they report improved answer accuracy and joint answer-and-grounding performance over existing baselines, as well as transfer across datasets. These results support their case for clarification as a practical way to resolve user intent in streaming assistance. The abstract does not provide scores or describe the benchmarks in detail, so the size and scope of the reported gains cannot be assessed from this evidence alone.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 5, 2026 (2026-11-05).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-08T23:38:03.425Z. First observed: 2026-11-06T05:03:28.021Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-08T23:33:27.645Z.
Limits
The evidence is the paper's abstract; it does not provide scores or detailed benchmark descriptions, limiting assessment of the reported gains. The abstract describes a policy that balances information gain against user effort but gives no measure of the effort required.
Open question
What user effort does ReferClaw’s bounded, cost-aware policy require?
Source-stated
The authors propose ReferClaw, which asks clarifying questions to resolve user intent before answering egocentric streaming questions.
the assistant asks clarifying questions to resolve user intent before answering
Source-stated
ReferClaw uses three cooperating agents to identify candidate interpretations, request clarification and generate answers grounded in resolved intent and visual evidence.
Three cooperating agents identify candidate interpretations, request clarification, and generate answers grounded in the resolved intent and visual evidence.
Source-stated
Its bounded, cost-aware policy balances expected information gain against user effort and limits clarification turns and question complexity.
A bounded, cost-aware policy balances expected information gain against user effort while limiting clarification turns and question complexity.
Source-stated
The authors report improved answer accuracy and joint answer-and-grounding performance over existing baselines on augmented egocentric QA benchmarks, alongside zero-shot transfer across datasets.
Evaluations on augmented egocentric QA benchmarks demonstrate improved answer accuracy and joint answer-and-grounding performance over existing baselines, alongside zero-shot transfer across datasets.
Source-stated
The authors argue that their findings support interactive clarification as a practical approach to resolving online user intent in egocentric streaming assistance.
These findings support interactive clarification as a practical approach to resolving online user intent in egocentric streaming assistance.
Source and contributor context
Qin, Hangyu, Xiao, Junbin, Yao, Angela · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Agentic AI
AI systems that plan and carry out a series of steps toward a goal, often by using other software, rather than giving one answer.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Zero-shot
Doing a task without worked examples (zero-shot) or with only a few examples given in the prompt (few-shot).
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 5304facc-cad5-4c1f-85e1-a74d8c54e431.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-08T23:38:03.425Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 30e4f46f87106ed17f851e9402b59b08849cad6fbae8a0e4c13ec4a6c82b8268. Source text hash: a071bd3a22e33c9ccf9f9bcad1294b28ae3e2c9f71c051678767dc022b1c13d0.
passed · 2026-11-08T23:38:03.425Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 5304facc-cad5-4c1f-85e1-a74d8c54e431
attribution — pass: The paper and its claims are attributed to the listed authors, Hangyu Qin, Junbin Xiao and Angela Yao, and the results are framed as what the authors report or argue rather than as established fact.
Authors:Hangyu Qin, Junbin Xiao, Angela Yao
summary — pass: The reading leads with the development and uses the source's own example to explain the core problem of an ambiguous question with several possible objects. Technical terms are kept exactly; term-library tooltips should cover 'egocentric', 'zero-shot transfer' and 'process-reward-guided policy optimization'. The question about user effort follows from a real gap in the abstract and is not leading.
For example, "Where did I leave it?" may refer to several previously handled objects.
date — pass: The originalPublished value, 2026-11-05, matches the arXiv v1 submission date. It is not the later feed date of 2026-11-06.
[Submitted on 5 Nov 2026]
support — pass: Each claim matches the abstract verbatim. The point that a plausible answer may miss user intent follows the source's 'intention-misaligned answers' framing. The limitations correctly note that the abstract gives no scores, no benchmark detail and no measure of user effort. The reading adds no unsupported benefits or forecasts.
Existing VideoQA systems typically commit to a single interpretation, risking plausible but intention-misaligned answers.
media — pass: The selected media is the verified, direct arXiv abstract page for this paper, which is the original source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
AI systems that plan and carry out a series of steps toward a goal, often by using other software, rather than giving one answer.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceDoing a task without worked examples (zero-shot) or with only a few examples given in the prompt (few-shot).
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceAI systems that plan and carry out a series of steps toward a goal, often by using other software, rather than giving one answer.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceDoing a task without worked examples (zero-shot) or with only a few examples given in the prompt (few-shot).
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition reference