Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Agentic Robot: A Brain-Inspired Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models in Embodied Agents

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A three-module loop that verifies each subgoal before moving on makes a vision-language-action policy reach state-of-the-art 79.6% average success on LIBERO, with the largest gains on long-horizon tasks.

desk verdict A plausible verifier-loop result with a serious data-provenance gap that must be fixed before the headline numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23450 v2 pith:U3ER2W4E submitted 2025-05-29 cs.RO

Zhejian Yang , Yongchao Chen , Xueyang Zhou , Jiangyue Yan , Dingjie Song , Yinuo Liu , Yuting Li , Yu Zhang
show 3 more authors
Pan Zhou Hechang Chen Lichao Sun
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords long-horizonmanipulationvision-language-actionmodelssubgoalverificationerrorrecoveryclosed-loopcontrolLIBERObenchmarklargereasoningagenticframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Long-horizon robot manipulation fails today for a predictable reason: errors pile up silently, and neither static planners nor end-to-end visuomotor policies can see their own mistakes. Agentic Robot attacks that problem by adding a verification stage to an existing VLA policy. A large reasoning model decomposes the instruction into 2-5 atomic subgoals, an OpenVLA executor acts on each subgoal, and a fine-tuned vision-language verifier looks at recent camera frames to decide whether the subgoal is done. If it is not done and the arm looks stuck, the system lifts the gripper and retries. On LIBERO this closed loop reaches 79.6% average success, and the paper's core claim is that the coordination protocol—not the executor alone—is what reduces error accumulation and enables recovery. The result matters because it suggests reliable sequential manipulation can be achieved by structurally wrapping existing policies rather than training ever-larger end-to-end models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Standardized Action Procedure (SAP), a coordination protocol that fixes the order and interfaces of perception, planning, execution, and verification in a finite-state machine. The executor runs at 10 Hz while the verifier operates at 0.5 Hz, checking a sliding buffer of $K=2$ image pairs at 20-frame intervals. The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage temporal verifier: a LoRA-fine-tuned Qwen2.5-VL model that produces a binary answer to 'has the robot completed subgoal $t_i$?' from recent third-person and wrist-camera frames, followed by a separate diagnosis module that classifies a 'No' as either Stuck or StillTrying. This verifier is the only new trained component on top of OpenVLA, and it is what closes the loop, enabling mid-execution correction and recovery. The paper's design encodes the loop as a sequence of agentic steps $S_t = (O_t, t_i, a_t, \hat{y}_t)$, where $\hat{y}_t$ is the verification result that gates progression.

What would settle it

Inspect the released verifier training triplets for overlap with the LIBERO-Long evaluation episodes, or re-run the benchmark with a verifier fine-tuned on triplets from held-out tasks; if the gains over OpenVLA vanish, the SAP loop's benefit is not a general property of the protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its own terms, is that a Standardized Action Procedure (SAP) — a fixed protocol governing how a planner, an executor, and a verifier interact — turns a stateless VLA policy into a self-correcting system. The protocol specifies that a planner (GPT-4o) converts a high-level instruction into semantically coherent subgoals drawn from an atomic skill library; an OpenVLA executor maps each subgoal and current RGB observation to a 7-dimensional action; and a LoRA-fine-tuned Qwen2.5-VL verifier inspects a sliding window of third-person and wrist-camera frames every 20 frames and answers whether the subgoal is complete. A 'No' answer triggers a secondary stuck diagnosis and, when stuck, a recovery action such as lifting the gripper before re-executing the subgoal. The paper reports 79.6% average success across four LIBERO suites, with the largest gain on LIBERO-Long (61.6% vs. 53.7% for OpenVLA), and its ablations attribute the biggest drop (26.5 points) to replacing the fine-tuned verifier with a zero-shot VLM. The conclusion drawn is that SAP-driven coordination between specialized components is what delivers the robustness, not any single module.

Load-bearing premise

The verifier is fine-tuned on about 500 annotated image-triplet examples, and the paper never says where those examples come from; if they were drawn from the same LIBERO tasks used in the evaluation, the reported success-rate gains could be benchmark memorization rather than a general verification ability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On LIBERO-Long the framework improves over OpenVLA by an average of 12.1 percentage points, with the largest gains on tasks that were hardest for the baseline: Bowl-Drawer +24, Soup-Sauce +21, Mug-Mug +19.
  • Verification frequency is a real dial: fetching the verifier every 20 frames keeps peak success while cutting compute by 48% relative to every 10 frames, and every-50-frame checks cost 6 points on LIBERO-Long.
  • Ablations show each SAP component contributes: removing visual input to the planner costs 4.4 points, removing the recovery routine costs 2.1, removing subgoal decomposition costs 8.1, and replacing the fine-tuned verifier with a zero-shot VLM costs 26.5.
  • Because the recovery policy is deliberately minimal (lift the gripper and retry), the framework establishes a baseline robustness result that explicitly invites richer recovery strategies such as policy rollback and re-grasping.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Since the verifier is the only trained component, the same SAP loop could be dropped onto other VLA backbones (for instance SpatialVLA) and should transfer the reliability gain if the verifier's fine-tuning data are task-agnostic; the paper shows only OpenVLA as executor.
  • The verifier converts subgoal completion into a visual language question, so the same fine-tuning recipe could be applied to real-world sim-to-real by collecting annotated triplets on the physical robot, where distribution shift is the main risk.
  • The 20-frame interval being near-optimal suggests an adaptive verification scheduler that checks more often during high-uncertainty phases of a subtask could retain most of the gain at lower compute; the paper lists adaptive verification as future work.
  • The Moka-Moka failure mode (17% vs. 22% on one subgoal) points to a concrete next step: a planner that tracks prior placements of identical objects, since the current protocol treats each subgoal independently.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Agentic Robot, a modular framework for long-horizon robotic manipulation built around a three-component loop: an LRM planner decomposes an instruction into subgoals; an OpenVLA executor performs each subgoal; and a fine-tuned Qwen2.5-VL verifier periodically inspects a sliding window of third-person and wrist images to decide whether to proceed, retry, or recover. The coordination protocol is called Standardized Action Procedure (SAP). On the LIBERO benchmark the authors report 79.6% average success and substantial gains on LIBERO-Long over baseline VLAs, with ablations attributing most of the long-horizon gain to the fine-tuned verifier and to subgoal decomposition.

Significance. If the results are reproducible, the paper makes a useful engineering contribution: it shows that a relatively small fine-tuned VLM verifier, combined with an off-the-shelf VLA, can improve long-horizon reliability substantially, and it provides a clean modular decomposition with interpretable checkpoints. The main table includes three-seed averages with error bars, and the ablation and verification-frequency analyses directly probe the mechanism. The significance is tempered by the fact that the only newly trained component is trained on an undisclosed dataset; if that dataset is drawn from the test suites, the headline numbers would be benchmark-specific rather than evidence for a general verification capability.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4 and Section 3.1] The provenance of the approximately 500 annotated triplets used for LoRA fine-tuning of Qwen2.5-VL is not reported. This verifier is the only trained component in the system, and Table 3 shows that replacing the fine-tuned verifier with a zero-shot VLM changes LIBERO-Long success from 61.8% to 35.3%, so essentially all of the long-horizon improvement is attributed to this verifier. The manuscript must state whether the triplets are sampled from the LIBERO tasks or suites used in the evaluation, describe the annotation protocol, and provide a clean train/test split (or a held-out benchmark) before the central claim that SAP's verification loop yields generalizable long-horizon improvement can be evaluated. As written, the reported numbers could reflect test-domain leakage rather than a general introspection capability.
  2. [Section 3.3, Table 2] The claim of a 12.1% average improvement over OpenVLA is not supported by the numbers in Table 2. Averaging the ten task success rates gives OpenVLA 51.4% and Agentic Robot 61.8%, an absolute improvement of 10.4 percentage points; the average of the per-task improvements is also 10.4 points. Please recompute and correct the reported aggregate, and add per-task error bars or confidence intervals for the subgoal-level and overall success rates.
  3. [Section 3.5, Table 3] The text says that replacing the fine-tuned verifier with a zero-shot VLM produces a 26.5% degradation and then states that the fine-tuned model improves the zero-shot baseline by +7.8%; both statements cannot describe the same comparison, since 61.8% versus 35.3% is a 26.5-percentage-point difference. The numbers need to be reconciled. In addition, the ablation table should report error bars and significance tests, because several row differences are small relative to the variation seen in Table 1.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Abstract] The abstract reports outperforming OpenVLA by 7.4% on long-horizon tasks, but Table 1 gives 61.6% versus 53.7%, a 7.9-percentage-point difference. Please reconcile all reported performance deltas with the actual tables.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.4] The sentence describing LoRA fine-tuning is repeated twice in the same paragraph; the duplication should be removed.
  2. [Algorithm 1 and Eq. (10)] The diagnosis module pi_diag is invoked to classify Stuck versus StillTrying, but the implementation or prompt is not specified; please provide details or a reference to Appendix G.
  3. [Table 2 and Figure 4] These results are presented without error bars or significance tests; adding standard errors across the three seeds would make the claims about small differences (e.g., the verification-frequency comparisons) much more convincing.
  4. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'averaged over three random seeds with 500 evaluation trials' is ambiguous; please clarify whether 500 trials are used per seed or in total across seeds.
  5. [Appendix D.1] The task name 'Soup-Sause' is a typo and should read 'Soup-Sauce'.
  6. [Appendix D heading] The heading 'Experiments on Task Division' should presumably read 'Task Decomposition'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: central claim rests on external benchmark and ablations; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations and data-provenance reporting concerns.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the SAP coordination loop, built from an external LRM planner (GPT-4o), an external VLA executor (OpenVLA), and a LoRA-fine-tuned VLM verifier (Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct), improves long-horizon success on LIBERO. This claim is evaluated against external baselines on an external benchmark, and the ablations (Table 3) test the contribution of each component empirically. I found no equation-level circularity: the planner, executor, and verifier are defined by distinct equations (Eq. 1, 2, 3) that are not mutually defined, and the reported improvements are empirical differences, not algebraic consequences of the definitions. The two self-citations (Refs. [29] and [37], which share authors with this paper) appear only in related-work survey context ('Recent progress in large reasoning models... providing a foundation for downstream embodied agents [29]' and 'Vision-language models (VLMs) have increasingly been adapted into robotic systems... [37]'). These are general background claims and are not load-bearing for the paper's stated contributions or for the LIBERO results. The paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem or prior author-derived constraint to force its design. The main legitimate concern is data provenance: Section 2.4 states the verifier is fine-tuned with LoRA on 'approximately 500 annotated triplets' but never states where those triplets come from, how labels were produced, or whether the training data overlaps with the evaluated LIBERO suites. If the triplets came from those same suites, the reported gains, especially the large 26.5% drop when the fine-tuned verifier is replaced by a zero-shot VLM (Table 3), could partly reflect benchmark memorization rather than general introspection. However, this is a data-hygiene and correctness risk, not a demonstrated circular reduction: the paper does not state that the training triplets are drawn from the test tasks, so I cannot exhibit the specific equivalence required to call it circular. I also note internal numeric inconsistencies (claimed 12.1% average LIBERO-Long improvement vs. 10.4% computable from Table 2; 'degradation of 26.5%' vs. '+7.8% over zero-shot baseline' in Section 3.5) as reporting concerns, but these are accuracy issues, not circularity. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external evidence, and the self-citations are minor and non-load-bearing, so the circularity score is 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on three trained or prompted models: a closed-source planner (GPT-4o), a fine-tuned VLA executor (OpenVLA), and a fine-tuned verifier (Qwen2.5-VL). All three introduce assumptions about reliability and domain fit. The verifier's training data is the most sensitive assumption because undisclosed overlap with the evaluation tasks would inflate the main success rates.

free parameters (3)
  • Verification frequency F = 20 frames
    The paper tests 10, 20, and 50 frame intervals and selects 20 as optimal in Section 3.4, so this hyperparameter is tuned to the benchmark.
  • Recovery limit Rmax = not specified
    Algorithm 1 uses a recovery limit Rmax that aborts the task after too many failures; the value is never reported, though it directly affects success rates.
  • Subgoal length (semantic units) = 1-2 units, 2-5 subgoals
    The planner prompt is engineered to produce subgoals of 1-2 semantic units and 2-5 atomic steps; this is a hand-chosen design choice determined through 'extensive validation'.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The OpenVLA model, fine-tuned on LIBERO demonstrations, can reliably execute atomic skill templates such as pick, place, open, and turn when given a subgoal instruction.
    The executor is the fine-tuned OpenVLA policy; the framework assumes it can follow the atomic skill library without additional adaptation.
  • domain assumption A Qwen2.5-VL-3B model, fine-tuned with LoRA on ~500 annotated triplets, can accurately classify subgoal completion from a sliding window of RGB images.
    The verifier is the only newly trained component and is responsible for all progression and recovery decisions; no independent accuracy evaluation of the verifier is provided.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o consistently produces semantically correct subgoal decompositions without runtime failures.
    Planner outputs are not evaluated or ablated for correctness; a single bad decomposition would cause task failure regardless of executor and verifier performance.
  • domain assumption The LIBERO benchmark is a representative and reliable measure of long-horizon manipulation ability.
    All claims of state-of-the-art performance rest entirely on LIBERO success rates, with no real-robot validation.
invented entities (1)
  • Standardized Action Procedure (SAP)
    purpose: A coordination protocol that defines the interfaces and control flow between planner, executor, and verifier.
    SAP is the paper's central conceptual contribution, but it has no falsifiable prediction outside the paper; it is a formalization of a plan-execute-verify loop seen in prior cited work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Agentic Robot: A Brain-Inspired Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models in Embodied Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U3ER2W4E

@misc{pith2026250523450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Agentic Robot: A Brain-Inspired Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models in Embodied Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U3ER2W4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23450}
}
read the original abstract

Long-horizon robotic manipulation poses significant challenges for autonomous systems, requiring extended reasoning, precise execution, and robust error recovery across complex sequential tasks. Current approaches, whether based on static planning or end-to-end visuomotor policies, suffer from error accumulation and lack effective verification mechanisms during execution, limiting their reliability in real-world scenarios. We present Agentic Robot, a brain-inspired framework that addresses these limitations through Standardized Action Procedure (SAP)--a novel coordination protocol governing component interactions throughout manipulation tasks. Drawing inspiration from Standardized Operating Procedures (SOPs) in human organizations, SAP establishes structured workflows for planning, execution, and verification phases. Our architecture comprises three specialized components: (1) a large reasoning model that decomposes high-level instructions into semantically coherent subgoals, (2) a vision-language-action executor that generates continuous control commands from real-time visual inputs, and (3) a temporal verifier that enables autonomous progression and error recovery through introspective assessment. This SAP-driven closed-loop design supports dynamic self-verification without external supervision. On the LIBERO benchmark, Agentic Robot achieves state-of-the-art performance with an average success rate of 79.6%, outperforming SpatialVLA by 6.1% and OpenVLA by 7.4% on long-horizon tasks. These results demonstrate that SAP-driven coordination between specialized components enhances both performance and interpretability in sequential manipulation, suggesting significant potential for reliable autonomous systems. Project Github: https://agentic-robot.github.io.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23450 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the Agentic Robot framework governed by Standardized Action Procedure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SAP flow. The LRM planner converts instructions into structured subgoals using a skill library, which are then executed by a VLA executor and verified by a VLM verifier. Each SAP cycle at time t constitutes an agentic step that encapsulates the complete perception￾planning-execution-verification workflow: St = (Ot, ti , at, yˆt), (6) where Ot = {I r t , Iw t } denotes egocentric and third-person views, ti represents… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between OpenVLA and Agentic Robot on the task “Put the cream cheese in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of verification frequency on per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between w/o fine-tuned VLM and Ours (w/ fine-tuned VLM) on the task: “Put both the soup and the sauce in the basket.” Top: Without fine-tuning, the VLM verifier fails to detect subtask completion, causing the robot to repeatedly attempt Subtask 1 (picking up…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between w/o Subgoal Decomposition and Ours (w/ Subgoal Decomposition) on the task: “Put both the soup and the box in the basket.” Top: Without subgoal decomposition, the entire instruction is passed directly to the executor, which attempts to complete the fu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Task domains used in our evaluation. Across four domains, we evaluate our Agentic Robot on the LIBERO benchmark, including LIBERO-Object, LIBERO-Spatial, LIBERO-Goal, and LIBERO-Long. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SpatialCLI: Learning to Reason With Spatial Tools, Then Without Them

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SpatialCLI shows that a VLM can learn to use localization, segmentation, depth, and pose tools and then internalize the tool outputs into direct reasoning, improving both tool-enabled and tool-free spatial task performance.

  2. ABot-AgentOS: A General Robotic Agent OS with Lifelong Multi-modal Memory

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A robotic agent operating system with source-grounded graph memory and split-wise self-evolution improves long-horizon embodied task success and memory QA scores over baseline controllers.

  3. Diagnosing Semantic Handoff Failures in Agent-Orchestrated Vision-Language-Action Skill Composition

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    VLA skills that score 77-100% in isolation stall from chained states in BEHAVIOR-1K; failures trace to next-skill readiness, target grounding, and control execution.

  4. Learning Robust Execution in Robotic Manipulation with Agentic Reinforcement Learning

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A learned high-level agentic policy that selects retry/repair/reset modes on top of frozen VLA policies improves LIBERO success rates by up to 13.7% (standard) and 39.2% (disturbance) over baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, et al. Qwen2. 5-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choromanski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances

    Anthony Brohan, Yevgen Chebotar, Chelsea Finn, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Daniel Ho, Julian Ibarz, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Ryan Julian, et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. In Conference on robot learning, pages 287–318. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Scar: Refining skill chaining for long-horizon robotic manipulation via dual regularization

    Zixuan Chen, Ze Ji, Jing Huo, and Yang Gao. Scar: Refining skill chaining for long-horizon robotic manipulation via dual regularization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:111679– 111714, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion

    Cheng Chi, Zhenjia Xu, Siyuan Feng, Eric Cousineau, Yilun Du, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, and Shuran Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model

    Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8469–8488. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Reflective planning: Vision-language models for multi-stage long-horizon robotic manipulation

    Yunhai Feng, Jiaming Han, Zhuoran Yang, Xiangyu Yue, Sergey Levine, and Jianlan Luo. Reflective planning: Vision-language models for multi-stage long-horizon robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16707, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework

    Sirui Hong, Xiawu Zheng, Jonathan Chen, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, et al. Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00352, 3(4):6, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models

    Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, et al. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 540–562. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Vima: General robot manipulation with multimodal prompts

    Yunfan Jiang, Agrim Gupta, Zichen Zhang, Guanzhi Wang, Yongqiang Dou, Yanjun Chen, Li Fei-Fei, Anima Anandkumar, Yuke Zhu, and Linxi Fan. Vima: General robot manipulation with multimodal prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03094, 2(3):6, 2022

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    An atomic skill library construction method for data-efficient embodied manipulation

    Dongjiang Li, Bo Peng, Chang Li, Ning Qiao, Qi Zheng, Lei Sun, Yusen Qin, Bangguo Li, Yifeng Luan, Bo Wu, et al. An atomic skill library construction method for data-efficient embodied manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15068, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9493–9500. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning

    Bo Liu, Yifeng Zhu, Chongkai Gao, Yihao Feng, Qiang Liu, Yuke Zhu, and Peter Stone. Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44776–44791, 2023. 12

    2023

  10. [18]

    Robomamba: Efficient vision-language-action model for robotic reasoning and manipulation

    Jiaming Liu, Mengzhen Liu, Zhenyu Wang, Pengju An, Xiaoqi Li, Kaichen Zhou, Senqiao Yang, Renrui Zhang, Yandong Guo, and Shanghang Zhang. Robomamba: Efficient vision-language-action model for robotic reasoning and manipulation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Gson: A group-based social navigation framework with large multimodal model

    Shangyi Luo, Ji Zhu, Peng Sun, Yuhong Deng, Cunjun Yu, Anxing Xiao, and Xueqian Wang. Gson: A group-based social navigation framework with large multimodal model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18084, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mm-eureka: Exploring visual aha moment with rule-based large-scale reinforcement learning

    Fanqing Meng, Lingxiao Du, Zongkai Liu, Zhixiang Zhou, Quanfeng Lu, Daocheng Fu, Botian Shi, Wenhai Wang, Junjun He, Kaipeng Zhang, et al. Mm-eureka: Exploring visual aha moment with rule-based large-scale reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07365, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Data-efficient hierarchical reinforce- ment learning

    Ofir Nachum, Shixiang Shane Gu, Honglak Lee, and Sergey Levine. Data-efficient hierarchical reinforce- ment learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models: Open x-embodiment collaboration 0

    Abby O’Neill, Abdul Rehman, Abhiram Maddukuri, Abhishek Gupta, Abhishek Padalkar, Abraham Lee, Acorn Pooley, Agrim Gupta, Ajay Mandlekar, Ajinkya Jain, et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models: Open x-embodiment collaboration 0. In 2024 IEEE Internat...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Spatialvla: Exploring spatial representations for visual-language-action model

    Delin Qu, Haoming Song, Qizhi Chen, Yuanqi Yao, Xinyi Ye, Yan Ding, Zhigang Wang, JiaYuan Gu, Bin Zhao, Dong Wang, et al. Spatialvla: Exploring spatial representations for visual-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15830, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Vlm-r1: A stable and generalizable r1-style large vision-language model

    Haozhan Shen, Peng Liu, Jingcheng Li, Chunxin Fang, Yibo Ma, Jiajia Liao, Qiaoli Shen, Zilun Zhang, Kangjia Zhao, Qianqian Zhang, et al. Vlm-r1: A stable and generalizable r1-style large vision-language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07615, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Vlm-social-nav: Socially aware robot navigation through scoring using vision-language models

    Daeun Song, Jing Liang, Amirreza Payandeh, Amir Hossain Raj, Xuesu Xiao, and Dinesh Manocha. Vlm-social-nav: Socially aware robot navigation through scoring using vision-language models. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Between mdps and semi-mdps: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning

    Richard S Sutton, Doina Precup, and Satinder Singh. Between mdps and semi-mdps: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning. Artificial intelligence, 112(1-2):181–211, 1999

    1999

  19. [27]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy

    Octo Model Team, Dibya Ghosh, Homer Walke, Karl Pertsch, Kevin Black, Oier Mees, Sudeep Dasari, Joey Hejna, Tobias Kreiman, Charles Xu, et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A survey on post-training of large language models

    Guiyao Tie, Zeli Zhao, Dingjie Song, Fuyang Wei, Rong Zhou, Yurou Dai, Wen Yin, Zhejian Yang, Jiangyue Yan, Yao Su, et al. A survey on post-training of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06072, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Omnijarvis: Unified vision-language-action tokenization enables open-world instruction following agents

    Zihao Wang, Shaofei Cai, Zhancun Mu, Haowei Lin, Ceyao Zhang, Xuejie Liu, Qing Li, Anji Liu, Xiaojian Shawn Ma, and Yitao Liang. Omnijarvis: Unified vision-language-action tokenization enables open-world instruction following agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing S...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Dpmpc-planner: A real-time uav trajectory planning framework for complex static environments with dynamic obstacles

    Zhefan Xu, Di Deng, Yiping Dong, and Kenji Shimada. Dpmpc-planner: A real-time uav trajectory planning framework for complex static environments with dynamic obstacles. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 250–256. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Robomm: All-in-one multimodal large model for robotic manipulation

    Feng Yan, Fanfan Liu, Liming Zheng, Yufeng Zhong, Yiyang Huang, Zechao Guan, Chengjian Feng, and Lin Ma. Robomm: All-in-one multimodal large model for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07215, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Deer-vla: Dynamic inference of multimodal large language models for efficient robot execution

    Yang Yue, Yulin Wang, Bingyi Kang, Yizeng Han, Shenzhi Wang, Shiji Song, Jiashi Feng, and Gao Huang. Deer-vla: Dynamic inference of multimodal large language models for efficient robot execution. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:56619–56643, 2024. 13

    2024

  27. [35]

    Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning

    Michał Zawalski, William Chen, Karl Pertsch, Oier Mees, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08693, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Navid: Video-based vlm plans the next step for vision-and-language navigation

    Jiazhao Zhang, Kunyu Wang, Rongtao Xu, Gengze Zhou, Yicong Hong, Xiaomeng Fang, Qi Wu, Zhizheng Zhang, and He Wang. Navid: Video-based vlm plans the next step for vision-and-language navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15852, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Unifying modern ai with robotics: Survey on mdps with diffusion and foundation models

    Zhaofan Zhang, Rufeng Chen, Zhejian Yang, Sihong Xie, Hechang Chen, and Hui Xiong. Unifying modern ai with robotics: Survey on mdps with diffusion and foundation models. TechRxiv, April 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Tracevla: Visual trace prompting enhances spatial-temporal awareness for generalist robotic policies

    Ruijie Zheng, Yongyuan Liang, Shuaiyi Huang, Jianfeng Gao, Hal Daumé III, Andrey Kolobov, Furong Huang, and Jianwei Yang. Tracevla: Visual trace prompting enhances spatial-temporal awareness for generalist robotic policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10345, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Chatvla: Unified multimodal understanding and robot control with vision-language-action model

    Zhongyi Zhou, Yichen Zhu, Minjie Zhu, Junjie Wen, Ning Liu, Zhiyuan Xu, Weibin Meng, Ran Cheng, Yaxin Peng, Chaomin Shen, et al. Chatvla: Unified multimodal understanding and robot control with vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14420, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hierarchical planning for long-horizon manipulation with geometric and symbolic scene graphs

    Yifeng Zhu, Jonathan Tremblay, Stan Birchfield, and Yuke Zhu. Hierarchical planning for long-horizon manipulation with geometric and symbolic scene graphs. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 6541–6548. Ieee, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Agentic Robot: A Brain-Inspired Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models in Embodied Agents

    Brianna Zitkovich, Tianhe Yu, Sichun Xu, Peng Xu, Ted Xiao, Fei Xia, Jialin Wu, Paul Wohlhart, Stefan Welker, Ayzaan Wahid, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 2165–2183. PMLR, 2023. 14 Ap...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.