Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

SayComply: Grounding Field Robotic Tasks in Operational Compliance through Retrieval-Based Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SayComply turns operational manuals into retrieved context, lifting compliant task completion to 91.4% on 70 test queries.

desk verdict SayComply is a solid systems paper with a real deployment niche; the headline compliance numbers are plausible but unevaluable until the labeling protocol is disclosed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11323 v1 pith:6IZUVWCS submitted 2024-11-18 cs.RO

Muhammad Fadhil Ginting , Dong-Ki Kim , Sung-Kyun Kim , Bandi Jai Krishna , Mykel J. Kochenderfer , Shayegan Omidshafiei , Ali-akbar Agha-mohammadi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords operationalcomplianceretrieval-augmentedgenerationtaskplanningfieldroboticshierarchicalcontextdatabaseleggedrobotlargelanguagemodelsindustrialinspection
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 establish that a field robot can plan tasks that follow both a user's instruction and a site's operational manuals by retrieving relevant clauses from a hierarchical database rather than fine-tuning. The method, SayComply, organizes manuals into three levels—current and past observations, site-specific instructions, and high-level manuals—and retrieves only the context that fits the language model's context window. The paper reports that this scheme addresses 91.4% of 70 industrial-inspection queries compliantly and completely, versus 70.0% for a top-3 retrieval baseline and 30.0% for environment-only grounding. If true, this means compliance can be added to field robots as a retrieval problem, making it cheap to transfer to new sites and customers with different manuals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-level context hierarchy. Level 1 stores current and historical robot observations, summarized in sentences; Level 2 stores site-specific instructions and expert briefings; Level 3 stores high-level manuals, each referenced by at least one Level 2 instruction. Retrieval proceeds in two modes: for Levels 2 and 3, the query embedding selects the top two Level 2 entries by cosine similarity and then follows their pointers to relevant Level 3 manuals, a tree-based RAG step that narrows the search; for Level 1, the LLM itself selects relevant tabular observation databases because cosine similarity is unreliable on numeric logs. The compliant task planner then uses one prompt for both initial planning and replanning from robot feedback, executes only the first generated task, caches the rest, and is explicitly allowed to answer the user directly when the query violates compliance.

What would settle it

Ask a panel of human inspectors who did not see SayComply's outputs to independently label the 70 generated plans as compliant and complete, then compare their rates with the reported 91.4%; if the independent rate falls to the level of the Top-3 RAG baseline, the claim that the hierarchical retrieval is what provides grounding is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SayComply's central claim is that operational compliance can be encoded as a retrieval problem: a hierarchical vector database of environment, operation, and embodiment manuals, queried by a tree-based retrieval-augmented generation procedure, supplies the context an LLM planner needs to generate task sequences that satisfy both the user query and the compliance database. The paper formalizes compliant task planning as maximizing a weighted sum of query-completion probability and compliance probability, with a large weight on compliance, and decomposes it into context retrieval followed by context-grounded planning. In simulation, SayComply achieves 91.4% Comply and Comply & Complete rates and 92.9% context retrieval accuracy, compared with 72.9% and 70.0% for the Top-3 RAG baseline and 32.9% and 30.0% for environment-only grounding. Hardware runs on a legged robot with 15 office-maintenance queries demonstrate the same pipeline operating in the field.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's Section V-B defines 'Comply' and 'Comply and Complete' but does not state whether a human expert or the LLM produced those compliance labels, and if the same kind of LLM judged the plans it generated, the reported rates could partly reflect self-confirmation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported rates hold, deploying a robot at a new site requires only writing or updating site manuals in the database, not fine-tuning a model per site.
  • Correct context retrieval becomes the main lever for compliance: the paper reports that retrieval accuracy correlates strongly with Comply & Complete, so improving retrieval of tabular and manual contexts should improve compliant completion.
  • Because only the retrieved context enters the language model's prompt, the planner can run with a small context window, which the paper argues suits on-edge deployment and sites without reliable internet.
  • The planner can reject or respond to non-compliant user queries rather than attempting them, a capability included in the prompt design and evaluated through non-compliant queries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to make the database self-updating: when a robot's inspection finds a new hazard or a site expert issues a new instruction, the new text could be ingested as a Level 2 entry and automatically become part of retrieval.
  • The role-based planner the authors list as future work could be implemented directly on this hierarchy, since queries would be screened against the same Level 2 and Level 3 context before task generation.
  • The identification of tabular Level 1 data as the main failure point suggests a concrete extension: replacing cosine-similarity or LLM selection with a table-aware retriever, then testing whether the 92.9% retrieval accuracy moves toward 100%.
  • The same three-level database design could transfer to other compliance-driven domains such as construction safety, laboratory protocols, or disaster-response playbooks, where manuals are similarly written for humans and not robots.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SayComply, a retrieval-augmented language model system for robotic task planning that retrieves relevant context from a hierarchical database of operational manuals, environment documents, and robot embodiment instructions, then uses GPT-4 to generate task plans. The authors claim that SayComply achieves a 91.4% Comply & Complete rate on 70 user queries in simulation, outperforming Top-3 RAG (70.0%) and Env-Grounding (30.0%), and they demonstrate the system on a Boston Dynamics Spot robot with 15 queries. The main technical contributions are the hierarchical context database and a tree-structured retrieval mechanism that feeds a prompt-based compliant task planner.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, SayComply offers a practical, fine-tuning-free way to ground LLM-based planners in proprietary operational knowledge, which is an important and timely problem for field robotics. The paper's strengths include a clear system architecture, a thoughtful separation of context levels, and a hardware deployment on a legged robot. The primary weakness is that the evaluation protocol for the headline metrics is under-specified, so the claimed advantage over standard RAG cannot yet be interpreted as convincing evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V-B, Table I] The definitions of 'Comply', 'Comply & Complete', and 'Context Retrieval' do not specify who assigns the labels, what rubric is used, or how disagreements are resolved. For example, 'plans that comply with the context database D' requires a judgment about whether the plan adheres to the manuals; the paper should state whether this was done by human experts, by the authors, or by an automated LLM judge. If the same GPT-4 model that generates the plans also evaluates them, the 91.4% figure could partly reflect self-consistency rather than genuine compliance. This is load-bearing because these numbers are the only quantitative evidence for the method's advantage.
  2. [Section V-B, Table I] The 'Context Retrieval' metric is not operationalized. 'Enough information to comply with D and complete the query' is left undefined, and no threshold or annotation procedure is given. Since the text itself notes that Top-3 RAG can complete tasks despite incomplete retrieval, the relationship between retrieval accuracy and task success is not straightforward; the paper should specify how retrieval sufficiency was determined and by whom.
  3. [Section V-B, Table I] The results are reported as point estimates over 70 queries with no confidence intervals, error bars, or significance tests. This makes it hard to assess whether the gap between 91.4% and 70.0% is meaningful given the sample size. The authors should report binomial confidence intervals or repeat the experiments across multiple seeds and query sets and report variance.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section V-B] The sentence 'we observe the reason the Comply & Complete, and Comply rates are lower to the context retrieval is due to the LLM misinterpreting the context correctly' contains an error: 'misinterpreting the context correctly' should read 'misinterpreting the retrieved context' or 'incorrectly interpreting the context.'
  2. [Section V-B, Fig. 4] The labels 'Comply & Complete Rate' and 'Context Retrieval Accuracy' are ambiguous; please clarify what is plotted and how the rates are computed for each query category.
  3. [Section IV-B] The retrieval method described as 'tree-organized' is actually a two-step retrieve-then-expand procedure (top-2 level-2 retrieval, then one level-3 manual pointed to by those entries); the connection to RAPTOR [39] should be explained more carefully, since RAPTOR refers to recursive abstractive summarization of text chunks.
  4. [Section II] The heading 'Retrieval-augmented language model for robot planning' should be made plural or reworded for grammatical consistency.
  5. [Section V-C] The hardware experiment reports 15 queries but no quantitative results; please state explicitly that this is a qualitative demonstration and provide a video or supplementary material if available.
  6. [General] The paper does not state whether code, the 70-query set, or the context database will be released; including a reproducibility statement or a link to the project website with these resources would aid verification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical system comparison; missing evaluation-rubric details are a reproducibility concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

SayComply's central contribution is a retrieval and planning system evaluated against two baselines in simulation and on hardware. There is no fitted equation or parameter whose value is reused as a prediction: Table I reports direct measured percentages of user queries, and the compared methods are implemented independently of the evaluation labels. The self-citations ([23], [42], [43]) support only peripheral hardware and prior navigation components, not the claim that hierarchical retrieval improves compliance; none of these citations is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as justification for the core method. The paper does not state who assigned the Comply, Comply&Complete, or Context Retrieval labels (Section V-B), which is a real reproducibility gap and a potential self-confirmation risk if the same GPT-4 pipeline judged its own outputs, but the text provides no evidence that this occurred, and an unspecified judge is not an exhibited reduction of the claimed result to its inputs. Under the hard rule requiring a specific quotation and reduction, no circular step can be exhibited; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or formal objects are introduced. The ledger captures the hand-set weighting and retrieval hyperparameters that appear in the formulation, and the four domain assumptions about document summarization, similarity-based retrieval, LLM compliance checking, and metric validity. These assumptions, not equations, are the load-bearing elements of the empirical claim.

free parameters (2)
  • beta (compliance weight) = beta much greater than 1 (not instantiated)
    Eq. 5 defines task planning as maximizing completion probability plus beta times compliance probability; the value is chosen by hand and never used in the actual LLM planner, so the formal objective is not operationalized.
  • Level 2 retrieval count k = 2
    Section IV-B retrieves the top 2 most similar level 2 context sources; no ablation or sensitivity analysis is provided, and this choice drives downstream level 3 selection.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Written manuals and verbal instructions can be summarized and embedded into a three-level hierarchy without losing the compliance-critical content.
    Section IV-A classifies all context sources into levels and categories and stores summaries and embeddings; if summarization drops a safety rule, every downstream plan is silently non-compliant.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between a user query and level 2/3 entries is a valid proxy for operational relevance.
    Section IV-B retrieves the top 2 level 2 contexts by cosine similarity and follows their pointers to level 3 manuals; no mechanism ties semantic similarity to rule applicability.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 can be prompted to check user queries against retrieved contexts and to output only compliant task sequences.
    Section IV-C places all compliance reasoning inside the LLM prompt; there is no rule-based verifier or formal compliance check.
  • domain assumption There exists a reliable, externally valid procedure to label plans as compliant and complete.
    Section V-B defines the metrics but does not specify the judge, inter-rater procedure, or reference answers, so the validity of reported percentages rests on an unstated measurement assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SayComply: Grounding Field Robotic Tasks in Operational Compliance through Retrieval-Based Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6IZUVWCS

@misc{pith2026241111323,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SayComply: Grounding Field Robotic Tasks in Operational Compliance through Retrieval-Based Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6IZUVWCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11323}
}
read the original abstract

This paper addresses the problem of task planning for robots that must comply with operational manuals in real-world settings. Task planning under these constraints is essential for enabling autonomous robot operation in domains that require adherence to domain-specific knowledge. Current methods for generating robot goals and plans rely on common sense knowledge encoded in large language models. However, these models lack grounding of robot plans to domain-specific knowledge and are not easily transferable between multiple sites or customers with different compliance needs. In this work, we present SayComply, which enables grounding robotic task planning with operational compliance using retrieval-based language models. We design a hierarchical database of operational, environment, and robot embodiment manuals and procedures to enable efficient retrieval of the relevant context under the limited context length of the LLMs. We then design a task planner using a tree-based retrieval augmented generation (RAG) technique to generate robot tasks that follow user instructions while simultaneously complying with the domain knowledge in the database. We demonstrate the benefits of our approach through simulations and hardware experiments in real-world scenarios that require precise context retrieval across various types of context, outperforming the standard RAG method. Our approach bridges the gap in deploying robots that consistently adhere to operational protocols, offering a scalable and edge-deployable solution for ensuring compliance across varied and complex real-world environments. Project website: saycomply.github.io.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11323 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Autonomous robots operating in industrial settings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SayComply system architecture. Prior to robot deployment, we build a hierarchical context database from various written manuals and instructions. Next, given a user query, relevant context source is retrieved using a tree-based RAG and LLM method. Finally, the compliant task planner generates robot tasks based on the retrieved context. Tasks are executed by the robot through behavior manager and the robot observatio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation results. The left panel shows the user query and robot answers while executing the plans. The middle and right panels show the robot task execution inspecting the fire extinguishers. User queries that require retrieval of: Env contexts Context level 2 Context level 1, 2, 3 Context level 1&2 Non-compliant user queries that can’t be fulfilled Comply & Complete Rate Context Retrieval Accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The compliance & completion rate, and context [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experiment results on hardware. The left panel illustrates an expert user first providing site orientation to the robot. The right panel shows the subsequent robot task execution given the user queries. the context retrieval is due to the LLM misinterpreting the contex…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    3 Ways Mobile Robots Improve Industrial Inspections,

    Boston Dynamics, “3 Ways Mobile Robots Improve Industrial Inspections,” https://bostondynamics.com/blog/ 3-ways-mobile-robots-improve-industrial-inspections/, 2024, accessed: 2024-09-13

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Anymal in the field: Solving industrial inspection of an offshore hvdc platform with a quadrupedal robot,

    C. Gehring, P. Fankhauser, L. Isler, R. Diethelm, S. Bachmann, M. Potz, L. Gerstenberg, and M. Hutter, “Anymal in the field: Solving industrial inspection of an offshore hvdc platform with a quadrupedal robot,” in Field and Service Robotics , 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Nebula: Quest for robotic autonomy in challenging environments; team costar at the darpa subterranean challenge,

    A. Agha, K. Otsu, B. Morrell, D. D. Fan, R. Thakker, A. Santamaria- Navarro, S.-K. Kim, A. Bouman, X. Lei, J. Edlund et al. , “Nebula: Quest for robotic autonomy in challenging environments; team costar at the darpa subterranean challenge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11470, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Application of robotics in onshore oil and gas industry—a review part i,

    A. Shukla and H. Karki, “Application of robotics in onshore oil and gas industry—a review part i,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 75, pp. 490–507, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    In defense of rag in the era of long- context language models,

    T. Yu, A. Xu, and R. Akkiraju, “In defense of rag in the era of long- context language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01666 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

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

    A. Brohan, Y . Chebotar, C. Finn, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, D. Ho, J. Ibarz, A. Irpan, E. Jang, R. Julian et al., “Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models,

    C. H. Song, J. Wu, C. Washington, B. M. Sadler, W.-L. Chao, and Y . Su, “Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models,” inInternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Llm+ p: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency,

    B. Liu, Y . Jiang, X. Zhang, Q. Liu, S. Zhang, J. Biswas, and P. Stone, “Llm+ p: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11477 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al. , “Language models are few-shot learners,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    OpenAI, J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation,

    J. Li, R. Selvaraju, A. Gotmare, S. Joty, C. Xiong, and S. C. H. Hoi, “Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable robot task planning,

    K. Rana, J. Haviland, S. Garg, J. Abou-Chakra, I. Reid, and N. Suen- derhauf, “Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable robot task planning,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    NVIDIA isaac sim,

    “NVIDIA isaac sim,” https://developer.nvidia.com/isaac/sim, accessed: 2024-09-15

    2024

  8. [16]

    Translating natural language to planning goals with large-language models,

    Y . Xie, C. Yu, T. Zhu, J. Bai, Z. Gong, and H. Soh, “Translating natural language to planning goals with large-language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05128, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Btgenbot: Behavior tree generation for robotic tasks with lightweight llms,

    R. A. Izzo, G. Bardaro, and M. Matteucci, “Btgenbot: Behavior tree generation for robotic tasks with lightweight llms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12761, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Open-vocabulary queryable scene represen- tations for real world planning,

    B. Chen, F. Xia, B. Ichter, K. Rao, K. Gopalakrishnan, M. S. Ryoo, A. Stone, and D. Kappler, “Open-vocabulary queryable scene represen- tations for real world planning,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.09874 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Navigation with large language models: Semantic guesswork as a heuristic for planning,

    D. Shah, M. R. Equi, B. Osi ´nski, F. Xia, B. Ichter, and S. Levine, “Navigation with large language models: Semantic guesswork as a heuristic for planning,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) , 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Esc: Exploration with soft commonsense constraints for zero-shot object navigation,

    K. Zhou, K. Zheng, C. Pryor, Y . Shen, H. Jin, L. Getoor, and X. E. Wang, “Esc: Exploration with soft commonsense constraints for zero-shot object navigation,” in International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Vlfm: Vision- language frontier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation,

    N. Yokoyama, S. Ha, D. Batra, J. Wang, and B. Bucher, “Vlfm: Vision- language frontier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Tell me where to go: A composable framework for context-aware embodied robot navigation,

    H. Biggie, A. N. Mopidevi, D. Woods, and C. R. Heckman, “Tell me where to go: A composable framework for context-aware embodied robot navigation,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) , 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Seek: Semantic reasoning for object goal navigation in real world inspection tasks,

    M. F. Ginting, S.-K. Kim, D. D. Fan, M. Palieri, M. J. Kochen- derfer, and A.-a. Agha-Mohammadi, “Seek: Semantic reasoning for object goal navigation in real world inspection tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09822, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans,

    K. Lin, C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, M. Pavone, and J. Bohg, “Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1345–1365, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

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

    W. Huang, C. Wang, R. Zhang, Y . Li, J. Wu, and L. Fei-Fei, “V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Explore until confident: Efficient exploration for embodied question answering,

    A. Z. Ren, J. Clark, A. Dixit, M. Itkina, A. Majumdar, and D. Sadigh, “Explore until confident: Efficient exploration for embodied question answering,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15941 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Real-time anomaly detection and reactive planning with large language models,

    R. Sinha, A. Elhafsi, C. Agia, M. Foutter, E. Schmerling, and M. Pavone, “Real-time anomaly detection and reactive planning with large language models,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Mobility vla: Multimodal instruction navigation with long-context vlms and topological graphs,

    H.-T. L. Chiang, Z. Xu, Z. Fu, M. G. Jacob, T. Zhang, T.-W. E. Lee, W. Yu, C. Schenck, D. Rendleman, D. Shah et al. , “Mobility vla: Multimodal instruction navigation with long-context vlms and topological graphs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07775 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Grounding embodied question-answering with state summaries from existing robot modules,

    S. Bustamante Gomez, M. W. Knauer, T. Jeremias, S. Schneyer, B. Weber, and F. Stulp, “Grounding embodied question-answering with state summaries from existing robot modules,” in RSS (Robotics: Science and Systems) conference 2024, Generative Modeling meets HRI Workshop, July 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K ¨uttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rockt ¨aschel, S. Riedel, and D. Kiela, “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens,

    S. Borgeaud et al. , “Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,

    Y . Gao, Y . Xiong, X. Gao, K. Jia, J. Pan, Y . Bi, Y . Dai, J. Sun, and H. Wang, “Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    In-context retrieval-augmented language models,

    O. Ram, Y . Levine, I. Dalmedigos, D. Muhlgay, A. Shashua, K. Leyton-Brown, and Y . Shoham, “In-context retrieval-augmented language models,” Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 11, pp. 1316–1331, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    P-RAG: Progressive retrieval augmented generation for planning on embodied everyday task,

    W. Xu, M. Wang, W. Zhou, and H. Li, “P-RAG: Progressive retrieval augmented generation for planning on embodied everyday task,” in ACM Multimedia 2024 , 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Rap: Retrieval-augmented planning with contextual memory for multimodal llm agents,

    T. Kagaya, T. J. Yuan, Y . Lou, J. Karlekar, S. Pranata, A. Kinose, K. Oguri, F. Wick, and Y . You, “Rap: Retrieval-augmented planning with contextual memory for multimodal llm agents,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03610, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Retrieval-augmented embodied agents,

    Y . Zhu, Z. Ou, X. Mou, and J. Tang, “Retrieval-augmented embodied agents,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Rag-driver: Generalisable driving explanations with retrieval-augmented in-context learning in multi-modal large language model,

    J. Yuan, S. Sun, D. Omeiza, B. Zhao, P. Newman, L. Kunze, and M. Gadd, “Rag-driver: Generalisable driving explanations with retrieval-augmented in-context learning in multi-modal large language model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10828 , 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners,

    A. Zhao, D. Huang, Q. Xu, M. Lin, Y .-J. Liu, and G. Huang, “Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Raptor: Recursive abstractive processing for tree-organized retrieval,

    P. Sarthi, S. Abdullah, A. Tuli, S. Khanna, A. Goldie, and C. D. Manning, “Raptor: Recursive abstractive processing for tree-organized retrieval,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.18059 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Spot Instructions for Use. Safety and Operations Manual,

    Boston Dynamics, “Spot Instructions for Use. Safety and Operations Manual,” 2024, accessed: 2024-09-15

    2024

  33. [41]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Semantic belief behavior graph: Enabling autonomous robot inspec- tion in unknown environments,

    M. F. Ginting, D. D. Fan, S.-K. Kim, M. J. Kochenderfer, and A. Agha, “Semantic belief behavior graph: Enabling autonomous robot inspec- tion in unknown environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17191 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Autonomous Spot:long-range autonomous exploration of extreme environments with legged locomotion,

    A. Bouman, M. Ginting, N. Alatur, M. Palieri, D. Fan, T. Touma, T. Pailevanian, S. Kim, K. Otsu, J. Burdick, and A. Agha-mohammadi, “Autonomous Spot:long-range autonomous exploration of extreme environments with legged locomotion,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.