Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

HyCodePolicy: Hybrid Language Controllers for Multimodal Monitoring and Decision in Embodied Agents

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A closed loop that treats generated robot code as a falsifiable, evolving hypothesis—executing it, monitoring it with a vision-language model, and repairing it—raises manipulation success and reduces repair iterations.

desk verdict A sensible hybrid feedback architecture and a useful new interface, but the headline results are partly in-sample and the VLM/ψ loop is unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02629 v2 pith:BD24FZVX submitted 2025-08-04 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CL

Yibin Liu , Zhixuan Liang , Zanxin Chen , Tianxing Chen , Mengkang Hu , Wanxi Dong , Congsheng Xu , Zhaoming Han
show 2 more authors
Yusen Qin Yao Mu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CL
keywords HyCodePolicycode-as-policiesvision-languagemodelmonitoringrobotmanipulationgeometricgroundingadaptiveprogramrepairmultimodalfeedbackclosed-loopcontrol
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

The paper tries to show that a generated robot program should be treated as a live hypothesis, tested in simulation and revised through a closed loop rather than shipped after one synthesis pass. It argues that fusing two feedback channels—structured execution logs and vision-language model judgments on checkpoint images—lets the system locate why a manipulation failed and repair the code accordingly. Sympathetically read, this is a demonstration that multimodal monitoring can turn one-shot code-generation policies into self-correcting ones with less human intervention. The reported gains are large: average success improves in both evaluated settings and the number of repair iterations to reach a working policy drops.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the monitor-diagnose-repair cycle, or what the paper calls code-as-monitor: the generated program carries its own observation hooks. Each subgoal is mapped to visible state changes; the execution inserts camera-capture calls only where the scene changes, plus at the beginning and end of the run. After ten stochastic trials, the system picks the single trial whose symbolic trace diverges most, asks a vision-language model whether each subgoal succeeded, and fuses that verdict with execution logs to infer a cause. Repairs are constrained by a symbolic grammar and a subgoal template so the program stays executable. Geometric point and axis operation primitives—stable grasp points, placement points, approach axes—are embedded in the synthesis prompt to make the initial code physically feasible.

What would settle it

Audit the vision-language model's per-subgoal judgments on a held-out set of execution checkpoints with human labels; if diagnostic agreement is at chance on the visually ambiguous tasks where the method shows the largest gains (stacking, placement, handover), then the reported improvements cannot be credited to the perceptual feedback loop.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that adding a perception layer to code-as-policy synthesis converts a one-shot generator into an adaptive controller. After decomposing an instruction into subgoals and synthesizing Python code from geometric primitives, the system executes ten trials, logs symbolic outcomes, and has a vision-language model inspect only checkpoints where the scene visibly changes. A fusion of the two diagnostics attributes the failure to a specific operation, and a repair agent rewrites that portion of the program. In the authors' evaluation this raises average success rates from 47.4% to 63.9% in one benchmark configuration and from 62.1% to 71.3% in their re-engineered modular interface, while the mean number of code-revision iterations needed to exceed 50% success falls from 2.42 to 1.76. The authors also report that the same loop transfers to a larger 50-task suite without per-task tuning, but fails on skills that are absent from the available action API.

Load-bearing premise

The whole repair loop rests on the vision-language model being able to tell, from checkpoint images, whether a subgoal actually succeeded and what went wrong—and on the single selected trial representing how the program fails; the paper does not validate either part of that assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, one-shot code generation for robots is a bottleneck: a closed loop with perceptual feedback can recover a large share of initial failures automatically.
  • Vision-language feedback matters most on tasks requiring spatial alignment and perceptual disambiguation; on deterministic tasks, symbolic feedback alone already saturates.
  • Interface design itself contributes: modular APIs with symbolic logging and observation hooks make failures localizable, which shortens the repair loop.
  • The same repair loop can generalize to new tasks without per-task prompt tuning, up to the limits of the action API.
  • Autonomous repair with vision-language monitoring reduces the need for human debugging, since each iteration produces an interpretable code update rather than a black-box retraining step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the vision-language model's diagnosis is never checked against ground truth, the method's gains could partly reflect symbolic-trace repair; an ablation that corrupts visual feedback would separate the two channels.
  • The selection of a single most diagnostic trial is a resource-saving heuristic; analyzing all ten trials could reveal failure modes that the severity score misses, at a higher compute cost.
  • The same dual-feedback loop is in principle portable to other executable-code-plus-vision settings—GUI automation, warehouse sorting, or inspection—where checkpoint images can be captured.
  • Real-robot transfer would need to handle noisy images and physical violations that simulation checkpoints may not expose; that gap is left untested.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces HyCodePolicy, a closed-loop framework for language-conditioned robot manipulation that decomposes an instruction into subgoals, synthesizes Python code grounded in geometric primitives, executes the program in simulation, monitors execution through checkpoint images with a VLM, and fuses symbolic execution logs with VLM perceptual feedback to diagnose and repair failures. The authors also present Bi2Code, a re-engineered interface built on RoboTwin 2.0 with dual-arm API support, structured prompts, symbolic logging, and observation hooks. The main empirical claims are that HyCodePolicy raises average success rates from 47.4% to 63.9% on RoboTwin 1.0 and from 62.1% to 71.3% on Bi2Code, and that it reduces the mean number of repair iterations from 2.42 to 1.76. The paper additionally reports a zero-shot extension to 50 Bi2Code tasks and a set of per-task results in Table 3 and Table 4.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the hybrid symbolic-perceptual feedback loop is a useful step toward self-correcting code-based robot policies, and the Bi2Code interface could be a practical contribution to the community. The paper is transparent about its limitations, including tasks that fail because of missing API skills, and it ships prompt templates and open-source code that aid reproducibility. However, the significance is currently limited by evaluation-design issues: the headline gains come from the same 10-task subset on which the framework was tuned, the adaptive trial-selection function is not defined, the VLM's diagnostic accuracy is never validated, and no statistical uncertainty is reported. These issues affect the central claim and need to be addressed before the results can be taken as strong evidence.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.5, Tables 1 and 3] The headline results are in-sample. The manuscript states that "the framework architecture, feedback logic, and prompting structure were jointly tuned only on the shared subset reported in Tab. 3", and those 10 shared tasks are exactly the tasks aggregated in Table 1. The ASR gains (47.4→63.9 and 62.1→71.3) and the CR-Iter reduction are therefore measured on the same tasks used for development. The 40-task extension in Table 4 provides no CodeAct or Code-as-Policies baseline, and the paper itself notes that several tasks are impossible through the available API; it cannot serve as a held-out comparison. A held-out task split, an external benchmark, or an explicit development-versus-test separation is needed to support the generalization claim.
  2. [Abstract and Table 1] The claimed CR-Iter reduction from 2.42 to 1.76 is not a controlled comparison of the repair mechanism: 2.42 is HyCodePolicy on RoboTwin 1.0 and 1.76 is HyCodePolicy on Bi2Code, and Section 4.4 explicitly warns that the two platforms use different motion-planning backends and are not directly comparable. Furthermore, the Code-as-Policies baseline has CR-Iter 1.00 by construction because it performs no repair. The sample-efficiency claim is therefore supported only by the smaller CodeAct-versus-HyCodePolicy differences (2.46 versus 2.42 on RoboTwin 1.0; 1.89 versus 1.76 on Bi2Code), for which no variance or significance testing is reported.
  3. [Section 3.4.1, Eq. (3.4.1)] The adaptive trial-selection function ψ(FailureSeverity_i, TraceDivergence_i) is never defined or implemented. This is load-bearing because ψ selects the single trial that the VLM inspects; without its concrete form, thresholds, or learned parameters, the method is not reproducible and the claimed efficiency of "selecting a single representative trial" cannot be evaluated. The paper should provide the exact scoring function and an ablation showing its effect on overall performance.
  4. [Sections 3.3.1–3.3.2 and Table 3] The VLM's binary success judgments ŷ_i and causal hypotheses c_i are never validated against ground truth. The entire repair loop depends on these judgments being correct, yet no diagnostic-accuracy study is reported. Table 3 provides internal evidence that VLM feedback can be harmful: Handover Block on Bi2Code drops from 50% under CodeAct to 27% under HyCodePolicy, and Pick Diverse Bottles on RoboTwin drops from 65% to 64%. Without an evaluation of the VLM's diagnostic accuracy, the central mechanism is unverified and these regressions remain unexplained.
  5. [Section 4.1 and Table 1] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for ASR or CR-Iter. Each program is executed only 10 times and 10 candidate programs are generated per task, so the differences between CodeAct and HyCodePolicy (60.4→63.9 and 66.7→71.3) may fall within stochastic variation. Please report per-seed or per-candidate statistics and a significance test, or at least show the variance across runs, to support the claim of significant improvement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4] The header contains "A vg Success Rate" with an errant space, and the "T ask" column header in Table 4 appears truncated; these look like table-generation artifacts that should be fixed.
  2. [Appendix A.2.2] The BASIC_INFO string contains typos: "representated" should be "represented", and "7 dimention" should be "7-dimensional".
  3. [Throughout] Please use consistent naming for "Code as Policies" versus "Code-as-Policies", and for "Unixcoder" versus "UniXCoder" and "Curobo" versus "CuRobo".
  4. [Figure 3] The legend for Figure 3 does not clearly explain how dot size encodes AST similarity; please add an explicit caption or a scale.
  5. [Section 4.1 and Table 1] The CR-Iter metric is not fully defined for the case where success never exceeds 50%; please state the convention used (for example, a capped maximum number of iterations).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline ASR and CR-Iter gains are reported on the same 10-task subset on which the framework was jointly tuned (Sec. 4.5); the held-out 40-task table has no baseline, so the central empirical claim is in-sample.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 and Section 4.5 (Q4), Tables 1 and 3]
    "We evaluate our framework on a shared suite of 10 robotic manipulation tasks supported by both RoboTwin 1.0 [26, 27] and our redesigned Bi2Code interface... Crucially, the framework architecture, feedback logic, and prompting structure were jointly tuned only on the shared subset reported in Tab. 3. No additional task-specific adaptation, hyperparameter change, or manual prompt adjustment was introduced when scaling to the remaining 40 tasks in Tab. 4."

    The headline gains (ASR 47.4%→63.9% on RoboTwin 1.0, 62.1%→71.3% on Bi2Code; CR-Iter 2.42→1.76) are computed on the same 10 shared tasks reported in Tables 1 and 3, and Section 4.5 explicitly states that the framework architecture, feedback logic, and prompting structure were jointly tuned only on this shared subset. Thus the main quantitative claims are in-sample evaluations on the tuning set, not held-out predictions. The 40-task Bi2Code extension is a zero-shot test for HyCodePolicy alone, with no Code-as-Policies or CodeAct baseline rows, so it cannot serve as a controlled held-out check of the relative gains. The central empirical claim therefore reduces, at least partially, to a report on the tuned evaluation set.

full rationale

The paper's derivation itself is not equation-level circular: no metric is defined in terms of the target result, and the VLM repair loop is a genuine mechanism. However, the evaluation design makes the headline numbers in-sample. Section 4.1 restricts the main comparison to 10 shared tasks; Section 4.5 concedes that the framework architecture, feedback logic, and prompting structure were jointly tuned only on that shared subset, which is exactly the subset in Table 3 that generates the per-task results behind Tables 1 and the Abstract. This is the standard fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the reported improvements against Code-as-Policies and CodeAct come from the same distribution on which the method was tuned. The 40-task held-out table provides partial independent content but lacks any baseline comparison, and several 0% tasks are explicitly attributed to missing API actions rather than to the method, so it cannot validate the central relative claim. Additional mechanism-level gaps are noted in the paper without being circular: Eq. (3.4.1) defines trial selection via an unspecified scoring function ψ, and the VLM's binary success judgments and causal hypotheses are never checked against ground truth; Table 3 even shows cases where adding VLM feedback lowers success (e.g., Handover Block on Bi2Code: 50%→27%). These issues compound the in-sample evaluation but are not themselves circularity. Score 6 reflects one central fitted-evaluation circularity with partial independent content in the 40-task zero-shot generalization.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework is an empirical system, so the ledger captures experimental design choices and domain assumptions. The free parameters are mostly hand-set thresholds and an undefined scoring function. The key domain assumptions are the reliability of VLM perception and the transferability of simulation results, both of which are untested. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Observation filter phi = hand-designed
    Operations are tagged as observation-worthy if they cause a visible state change (phi in Section 3.2.2); this rule is a design choice not learned.
  • Trial selection scoring function psi = not specified
    The adaptive monitoring in Section 3.4.1 chooses the most informative trial via psi(FailureSeverity, TraceDivergence), but psi is never defined, so its behavior is a free choice.
  • Number of trials per program = 10
    Section 4.1 sets 10 executions per candidate program; this is a fixed experimental choice.
  • Repair convergence threshold = 50% success
    CR-Iter counts iterations to exceed 50% success (Section 4.1); this threshold is chosen by hand.
  • Max repair iterations = 5
    Figure 2 shows a loop bounded by 'Iterations > 5'; the stopping limit is a fixed choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The simulation environment is a faithful proxy for real-world manipulation
    All conclusions about robustness and sample efficiency are based on RoboTwin/Bi2Code simulation, with no real-robot validation.
  • domain assumption The VLM can reliably assess subgoal completion from RGB-D checkpoint images
    HyCodePolicy's repair loop depends on the VLM's binary success signals and causal hypotheses (Section 3.3.1); the paper provides no quantitative evaluation of VLM diagnostic accuracy.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated repairs conditioned on the fused feedback are correct with reasonable probability
    The iterative repair loop assumes that feeding back the hybrid diagnosis leads to useful code edits (Section 3.4.2); repair quality is not analyzed directly.
  • domain assumption The 10 shared tasks are representative of the 50-task suite
    The main evaluation uses only overlapping tasks to allow fair comparison with RoboTwin 1.0; the full suite shows much lower average performance, so this representativeness is questionable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HyCodePolicy: Hybrid Language Controllers for Multimodal Monitoring and Decision in Embodied Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BD24FZVX

@misc{pith2026250802629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HyCodePolicy: Hybrid Language Controllers for Multimodal Monitoring and Decision in Embodied Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BD24FZVX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02629}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have enabled richer perceptual grounding for code policy generation in embodied agents. However, most existing systems lack effective mechanisms to adaptively monitor policy execution and repair codes during task completion. In this work, we introduce HyCodePolicy, a hybrid language-based control framework that systematically integrates code synthesis, geometric grounding, perceptual monitoring, and iterative repair into a closed-loop programming cycle for embodied agents. Technically, given a natural language instruction, our system first decomposes it into subgoals and generates an initial executable program grounded in object-centric geometric primitives. The program is then executed in simulation, while a vision-language model (VLM) observes selected checkpoints to detect and localize execution failures and infer failure reasons. By fusing structured execution traces capturing program-level events with VLM-based perceptual feedback, HyCodePolicy infers failure causes and repairs programs. This hybrid dual feedback mechanism enables self-correcting program synthesis with minimal human supervision. Our results demonstrate that HyCodePolicy significantly improves the robustness and sample efficiency of robot manipulation policies, offering a scalable strategy for integrating multimodal reasoning into autonomous decision-making pipelines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.02629 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview figure of HyCodePolicy, a closed-loop framework for language-conditioned manipulation with hy￾brid program synthesis, monitoring, and repair. planning. From this broad perspective, we focus on language-grounded manipulation, where robots lever￾age LLMs to interpret high-level natural language in￾structions, reason about complex tasks, and execute 1 arXiv:2508.02629v2 [cs.RO] 6 Aug 2025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HyCodePolicy: Expert Code Generation Pipeline. The pipeline integrates language-conditioned program synthesis with multimodal monitoring and iterative repair, enabling adaptive and self-correcting robotic behaviors. It combines high-level task grounding, simulated execution with feedback-driven diagnostics, and a closed-loop repair cycle to refine robot policies over time. putil: Interaction site for functional use.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of AST similarity and node counts comparing robotic manipulation code gen￾erated by RoboTwin 1.0 and Bi2Code with human￾written code. Dot size indicates structural similarity; color denotes source group. operations that are likely to induce visually observ￾able changes—such as object displacement, alignment￾sensitive placements, or grasp transitions—are tagged for post-execution image capture. This avoi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of Task Success Rates. The fig￾ure shows the distribution of success rates across all tasks for RoboTwin 1.0 and Bi2Code under different feedback configurations. ‘HyCodePolicy‘ in Bi2Code results in com￾pact distributions centered above 80%, with stronger …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Skill success rates, where each skill’s success rate is calculated as the average success rate of tasks that utilize the skill. Policy in Bi2Code, where success rates become more concentrated above 80% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. From Passive Observer to Active Critic: Reinforcement Learning Elicits Process Reasoning for Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Outcome-based GRPO plus initial/current-state image anchors turns a 7B video MLLM into a progress critic that halves MAE versus specialized baselines and reaches 67% on RoboFail zero-shot.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Do as i can and not as i say: Ground- ing language in robotic affordances

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yev- gen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Daniel Ho, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Rosario Jauregui Ruano, Kyle Jeffrey, Sally Jes- month, Nikhil Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalash- nikov, YuhengKuang...

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Robo- script: Code generation for free-form manipulation tasks across real and simulation

    Junting Chen, Yao Mu, Qiaojun Yu, Tianming Wei, Silang Wu, Zhecheng Yuan, Zhixuan Liang, Chao Yang, Kaipeng Zhang, Wenqi Shao, et al. Robo- script: Code generation for free-form manipulation tasks across real and simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14623, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Robotwin 2.0: A scal- able data generator and benchmark with strong do- main randomization for robust bimanual robotic ma- nipulation

    Tianxing Chen, Zanxin Chen, Baijun Chen, Zijian Cai, Yibin Liu, Qiwei Liang, Zixuan Li, Xianliang Lin, Yi- heng Ge, Zhenyu Gu, et al. Robotwin 2.0: A scal- able data generator and benchmark with strong do- main randomization for robust bimanual robotic ma- nipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18088, 2025. 6

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Benchmarking generalizable bimanual manipulation: Robotwin dual-arm collaboration challenge at cvpr 2025 meis workshop.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23351,

    Tianxing Chen, Kaixuan Wang, Zhaohui Yang, Yuhao Zhang, Zanxin Chen, Baijun Chen, Wanxi Dong, Ziyuan Liu, Dong Chen, Tianshuo Yang, et al. Benchmarking generalizable bimanual manipulation: Robotwin dual-arm collaboration challenge at cvpr 2025 meis workshop.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23351,

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Teaching large language models to self- debug

    Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Teaching large language models to self- debug. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05128, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Code-as-symbolic-planner: Foundation model- based robot planning via symbolic code generation

    Yongchao Chen, Yilun Hao, Yang Zhang, and Chuchu Fan. Code-as-symbolic-planner: Foundation model- based robot planning via symbolic code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01700, 2025. 3

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    A sur- 9 vey of robotic language grounding: Tradeoffs be- tween symbols and embeddings

    Vanya Cohen, Jason Xinyu Liu, Raymond Mooney, Stefanie Tellex, and David Watkins. A sur- 9 vey of robotic language grounding: Tradeoffs be- tween symbols and embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13245, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Codebert: A pre-trained model for programming and natural languages.arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08155, 2020

    Zhangyin Feng, Daya Guo, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Xiaocheng Feng, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Bing Qin, Ting Liu, Daxin Jiang, et al. Codebert: A pre-trained model for programming and natural languages.arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08155, 2020. 6

    arXiv 2002

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Unixcoder: Unified cross-modal pre-training for code representation

    Daya Guo, Shuai Lu, Nan Duan, Yanlin Wang, Ming Zhou, and Jian Yin. Unixcoder: Unified cross-modal pre-training for code representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03850, 2022. 6

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hiagent: Hierarchical working memory management for solving long-horizon agent tasks with large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09559, 2024

    Mengkang Hu, Tianxing Chen, Qiguang Chen, Yao Mu, Wenqi Shao, and Ping Luo. Hiagent: Hierarchical working memory management for solving long-horizon agent tasks with large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09559, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Text2world: Benchmark- ing large language models for symbolic world model generation, 2025

    Mengkang Hu, Tianxing Chen, Yude Zou, Yuheng Lei, Qiguang Chen, Ming Li, Yao Mu, Hongyuan Zhang, Wenqi Shao, and Ping Luo. Text2world: Benchmark- ing large language models for symbolic world model generation, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Rekep: Spatio-temporal rea- soning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Yunzhu Li, Ruohan Zhang, and Li Fei-Fei. Rekep: Spatio-temporal rea- soning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01652, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Feedback friction: Llms struggle to fully incorporate external feedback

    Dongwei Jiang, Alvin Zhang, Andrew Wang, Nicholas Andrews, and Daniel Khashabi. Feedback friction: Llms struggle to fully incorporate external feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.11930, 2025. 2, 3

    2025

  6. [14]

    Vima: Generalrobotmanipulationwithmultimodalprompts

    Yunfan Jiang, Agrim Gupta, Zichen Zhang, Guanzhi Wang, Yongqiang Dou, Yanjun Chen, Li Fei-Fei, An- ima Anandkumar, Yuke Zhu, and Linxi Fan. Vima: Generalrobotmanipulationwithmultimodalprompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03094, 2(3):6, 2022. 2, 3

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Safety aware task plan- ning via large language models in robotics

    Azal Ahmad Khan, Michael Andrev, Muhammad Ali Murtaza, Sergio Aguilera, Rui Zhang, Jie Ding, Seth Hutchinson, and Ali Anwar. Safety aware task plan- ning via large language models in robotics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15707, 2025. 3

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Embodied agent interface: Benchmarking llms for embodied decision making

    ManlingLi, ShiyuZhao, QinengWang, KangruiWang, Yu Zhou, Sanjana Srivastava, Cem Gokmen, Tony Lee, Li Erran Li, Ruohan Zhang, et al. Embodied agent interface: Benchmarking llms for embodied decision making. In NeurIPS 2024, 2024. 2

    2024

  9. [17]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for em- bodied control

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, BrianIchter, PeteFlorence, andAndyZeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for em- bodied control. In arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07753,

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mean-ap guided reinforced active learning for object detection

    Zhixuan Liang, Xingyu Zeng, Rui Zhao, and Ping Luo. Mean-ap guided reinforced active learning for object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08387, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Skilldiffuser: Interpretable hierarchical planning via skill abstrac- tions in diffusion-based task execution

    Zhixuan Liang, Yao Mu, Hengbo Ma, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Mingyu Ding, and Ping Luo. Skilldiffuser: Interpretable hierarchical planning via skill abstrac- tions in diffusion-based task execution. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, ...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Dexdiffuser: Interaction-aware diffusion planning for adaptive dexterous manipula- tion

    Zhixuan Liang, Yao Mu, Yixiao Wang, Tianxing Chen, Wenqi Shao, Wei Zhan, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Ping Luo, and Mingyu Ding. Dexdiffuser: Interaction-aware diffusion planning for adaptive dexterous manipula- tion. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition Conf...

    2025

  13. [21]

    Llm+ p: Empowering large language models with optimal planningproficiency

    Bo Liu, Yuqian Jiang, Xiaohan Zhang, Qiang Liu, Shiqi Zhang, Joydeep Biswas, and Peter Stone. Llm+ p: Empowering large language models with optimal planningproficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11477,

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lang2ltl: Translating natural language com- mands to temporal specification with large language models

    Jason Xinyu Liu, Ziyi Yang, Benjamin Schornstein, Sam Liang, Ifrah Idrees, Stefanie Tellex, and Ankit Shah. Lang2ltl: Translating natural language com- mands to temporal specification with large language models. In Workshop on Language and Robotics at CoRL 2022, 2022. 3

    2022

  15. [23]

    Self- refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, LuyuGao, SarahWiegreffe, UriAlon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. Self- refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 46534–46594, 2023. 3

    2023

  16. [24]

    Embodiedgpt: Vision- language pre-training via embodied chain of thought

    Yao Mu, Qinglong Zhang, Mengkang Hu, Wenhai Wang, Mingyu Ding, Jun Jin, Bin Wang, Jifeng Dai, Yu Qiao, and Ping Luo. Embodiedgpt: Vision- language pre-training via embodied chain of thought. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:25081–25094, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  17. [25]

    Robocodex: Multimodal code generation for robotic behavior syn- thesis

    Yao Mu, Junting Chen, Qinglong Zhang, Shoufa Chen, Qiaojun Yu, Chongjian Ge, Runjian Chen, Zhixuan Liang, Mengkang Hu, Chaofan Tao, et al. Robocodex: Multimodal code generation for robotic behavior syn- thesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16117, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins (early version).arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02920, 2024

    Yao Mu, Tianxing Chen, Shijia Peng, Zanxin Chen, Zeyu Gao, Yude Zou, Lunkai Lin, Zhiqiang Xie, and Ping Luo. Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins (early version).arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02920, 2024. 2, 6

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins

    Yao Mu, Tianxing Chen, Zanxin Chen, Shijia Peng, Zhiqian Lan, Zeyu Gao, Zhixuan Liang, Qiaojun Yu, Yude Zou, Mingkun Xu, Lunkai Lin, Zhiqiang Xie, Mingyu Ding, and Ping Luo. Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins. InPro- ceedings of the Computer Visio...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Metadiffuser: Diffusion model as conditional planner for offline meta-rl

    Fei Ni, Jianye Hao, Yao Mu, Yifu Yuan, Yan Zheng, Bin Wang, and Zhixuan Liang. Metadiffuser: Diffusion model as conditional planner for offline meta-rl. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 26087–26105. PMLR, 2023. 2

    2023

  21. [29]

    Codebleu: a method for 10 automatic evaluation of code synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10297, 2020

    Shuo Ren, Daya Guo, Shuai Lu, Long Zhou, Shujie Liu, Duyu Tang, Neel Sundaresan, Ming Zhou, Am- brosio Blanco, and Shuai Ma. Codebleu: a method for 10 automatic evaluation of code synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10297, 2020. 6

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large lan- guage models

    Ishika Singh, Valts Blukis, Arsalan Mousavian, Ankit Goyal, Danfei Xu, Jonathan Tremblay, Dieter Fox, Jesse Thomason, and Animesh Garg. Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large lan- guage models. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automati...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Intervenor: Prompt the coding ability of large language models with the interactive chain of repair

    Hanbin Wang, Zhenghao Liu, Shuo Wang, Ganqu Cui, Ning Ding, Zhiyuan Liu, and Ge Yu. Intervenor: Prompt the coding ability of large language models with the interactive chain of repair. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, 2024. 3

    2024

  24. [32]

    Executable code actions elicit better llm agents

    Xingyao Wang, Yangyi Chen, Lifan Yuan, Yizhe Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Hao Peng, and Heng Ji. Executable code actions elicit better llm agents. InForty-first In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. 3

    2024

  25. [33]

    Code similarity detection using ast and textual information

    Wu Wen, Xiaobo Xue, Ya Li, Peng Gu, and Jianfeng Xu. Code similarity detection using ast and textual information. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 15(10):2683, 2019. 6

    2019

  26. [34]

    place_shoe

    Ziyi Yang, Shreyas S Raman, Ankit Shah, and Ste- fanie Tellex. Plug in the safety chip: Enforcing con- straints for llm-driven robot agents. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 14435–14442. IEEE, 2024. 3 11 A. Appendix This appendix p...

    2024

  27. [35]

    right") 10 11 # Grasp the shoe 12 self.move(self.grasp_actor(actor=self. shoe, arm_tag=arm_tag, pre_grasp_dis =0.1, grasp_dis=0)) 13 self.save_camera_images(task_name=

    < 0 else "right") 10 11 # Grasp the shoe 12 self.move(self.grasp_actor(actor=self. shoe, arm_tag=arm_tag, pre_grasp_dis =0.1, grasp_dis=0)) 13 self.save_camera_images(task_name=" place_shoe", step_name=" step2_shoe_grasped", generate_num_id= "generate_num_0") 14 15 # Lift the ...

  28. [36]

    Identify ONLY the main logical steps in this task implementation that cause SIGNIFICANT SCENE CHANGES

  29. [37]

    {task_name}

    After each such logical step in the code, insert a camera observation function with this format: self.save_camera_images(task_name="{task_name}", step_name="stepX_descriptive_name", generate_num_id="generate_num_{generate_num_id}")

  30. [38]

    Provide a numbered list of all the steps you’ve identified in the task

  31. [39]

    ADD AN OBSERVATION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TASK to capture the initial scene state

  32. [40]

    gripper_closed

    ADD AN OBSERVATION AT THE END OF THE TASK to capture the final scene state Here’s the current code: python {task_code} IMPORTANT CONSTRAINTS: - ADD FEWER THAN 10 OBSERVATION POINTS in total - ONLY add observations after operations that cause VISIBLE SCENE CHANGES - Do NOT add ...

  33. [41]

    Whether each step was executed successfully

  34. [42]

    If any step failed, identify which one and explain why

  35. [43]

    Whether the overall task was successfully completed

  36. [44]

    The code is unsuccessful, \n# Last Error Message: \n{last_error}\n\n

    If the task failed, provide detailed reasoning. You will see execution images for the following steps: {’, ’.join(step_names)} A.3.3. Iterative Correction with Multimodal Observa- tion Feedback When the initially generated code is unsuccessful, this prompt demonstrates how mul...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.