Grounding language in the physical world requires AI systems to interpret references that emerge dynamically during conversation. While current vision-language models (VLMs) excel at static image tasks, they struggle to resolve ambiguous expressions in spontaneous, multi-turn dialogue. We address this gap by introducing MM-Conv—speak, point, look—a benchmark for referential communication in dynamic 3D environments, built from 6.7 hours of egocentric VR interaction with synchronized speech, motion, gaze, and 3D scene geometry. The benchmark includes over 4,200 manually verified referring expressions spanning full, partitive, and pronominal types, enabling systematic evaluation of multimodal reference resolution.

User enjoyment is central to developing conversational AI systems that can recover from failures and maintain interest over time. However, existing approaches often struggle to detect subtle cues that reflect user experience. Large Language Models (LLMs) with reasoning capabilities have outperformed standard models on various other tasks, suggesting potential benefits for enjoyment detection. This study investigates whether models with reasoning capabilities outperform standard models when assessing enjoyment in a human-robot dialogue corpus at both turn and interaction levels. Results indicate that reasoning capabilities have complex, model-dependent effects rather than universal benefits. While performance was nearly identical at the interaction level (0.44 vs 0.43), reasoning models substantially outperformed at the turn level (0.42 vs 0.36). Notably, LLMs correlated better with users’ self-reported enjoyment metrics than human annotators, despite achieving lower accuracy against human consensus ratings. Analysis revealed distinctive error patterns: non-reasoning models showed bias toward positive ratings at the turn level, while both model types exhibited central tendency bias at the interaction level. These findings suggest that reasoning should be applied selectively based on model architecture and assessment context, with assessment granularity significantly influencing relative effectiveness.