Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

From Templates to Natural Language: Generalization Challenges in Instruction-Tuned LLMs for Spatial Reasoning

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuning on synthetic instructions alone does not transfer to human-authored spatial language, especially for repetitive arrangements.

desk verdict Useful benchmark study of synthetic-to-human transfer in spatial grounding, but the simple-vs-regular 'complexity' claim is confounded by prompt-template differences. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14425 v2 pith:O4RKBOYV submitted 2025-05-20 cs.CL

Chalamalasetti Kranti , Sherzod Hakimov , David Schlangen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords spatialgroundinginstructiontuningsyntheticdatageneralizationgapcodegenerationhuman-authoredinstructionslargelanguagemodelsexecution-basedevaluation
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

This paper studies whether language models that are tuned to turn instructions into code for building block arrangements can generalize from templated synthetic instructions to free-form human instructions. The authors fine-tune several instruction-tuned models on synthetic instruction–code pairs only, then evaluate the generated code by executing it in a virtual 8x8 grid and comparing the resulting board to the target. The central finding is that transfer is strong for simple arrangements but breaks down on repetitive "regular" boards: the best fine-tuned model executes synthetic instructions almost perfectly but drops to about half accuracy on human-authored regular instructions. The paper argues that synthetic-only supervision cannot supply the abstract, relational understanding that human phrasing of repeated structures requires.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing setup is a paired instruction benchmark in which every target board comes with two instruction styles, a template-generated synthetic instruction and a free-form human instruction, plus a ground-truth Python function. The model must emit a function definition or usage call that is executed in a virtual simulator, and success means the simulated 8x8 board matches the target exactly. This design lets the authors vary instruction style and board type, simple non-repetitive versus regular repetitive, while holding the target board fixed. Supporting analyses use embedding similarity between synthetic and human instructions and error categorization of the executed code.

What would settle it

Run the regular-board evaluation with the simple-board prompt template, full function definition plus Function and Usage labels, and watch the 1.00-to-0.54 drop on human-authored instructions. If matching the template shrinks or erases the gap, the claim that human regular instructions are intrinsically harder to ground is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the generalization gap from synthetic to human instructions is controlled by structural complexity rather than by model size alone. Fine-tuning on synthetic data yields near-perfect execution on synthetic instructions for several models, for example 0.98 to 1.00 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B on simple and regular boards, but human-authored instructions drop to 0.68 on simple boards and 0.54 on regular boards. The gap is larger for regular boards, where human instructions express repetition and symmetry implicitly, and it persists under prompt-style variations and few-shot prompting. Error analysis shows that fine-tuning mostly fixes low-level placement errors, leaving element mismatches and referential ambiguity as the residual bottleneck, and embedding similarity between human and synthetic instructions for the same board predicts how much transfer occurs.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on treating simple-versus-regular as a pure difference in structural complexity, even though the two board types are presented with different prompt templates and output formats in the appendix.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Synthetic-only fine-tuning is a reliable route only for non-repetitive spatial instructions; deployments with repetitive patterns will need human or human-like training data.
  • Prompt variations, such as adding a function signature or schematic description, and few-shot examples do not close the regular-board gap, so the limitation is not simple prompt underspecification.
  • The residual errors after fine-tuning are mainly element mismatches rather than board-placement crashes, meaning models can place objects but misassign shape, color, or order.
  • Cross-domain transfer is uneven: the same fine-tuning helps on an object-arrangement task for strong models but gives no boost on a hexagonal-grid drawing task, so gains do not automatically generalize to new spatial formats.
  • Instruction similarity predicts transfer: boards whose human instructions are semantically close to their synthetic templates benefit more from fine-tuning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the simple and regular board conditions use different prompt templates and output formats, part of the regular-board gap could reflect prompt format rather than human instruction complexity, and a template-matched comparison would separate the two.
  • Embedding distance to selected synthetic templates could serve as a cheap predictor of where fine-tuning will fail, allowing targeted paraphrase collection for low-similarity boards.
  • The null transfer on the hexagonal-grid task suggests that grid geometry and coordinate mapping dominate transfer, so testing the same instruction style on the original grid size would isolate instruction style from environment shift.
  • For robotics pipelines, a practical takeaway is to collect human paraphrases only for repetitive and relational structures rather than for all tasks.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether instruction-tuned LLMs fine-tuned only on synthetic instructions generalize to human-authored instructions in a grounded spatial-reasoning task. Using the SARTCo dataset, the authors fine-tune several open-weight models (Qwen2.5-Coder, Qwen3, Llama3) and compare execution success on synthetic versus human-authored instructions, on simple and regular boards. They also evaluate transfer to the HEXAGONS and TidyBot tasks and provide an error analysis and an instruction-similarity analysis. The central claim is that synthetic-only fine-tuning yields strong performance on simple synthetic boards but degrades on human-authored instructions, especially on regular boards that require more abstract or relational understanding.

Significance. If the main claim is established, the paper would be a useful, controlled demonstration that synthetic instruction tuning does not automatically transfer to naturalistic human instructions in grounded tasks. The design has notable strengths: aligned synthetic/human instruction pairs for the same target boards, an executable-code evaluation metric with exact board matching, a human baseline, cross-domain probes on HEXAGONS and TidyBot, and a detailed error taxonomy. These assets make the study potentially valuable for the instruction-following and embodied-language communities. However, the central simple-versus-regular comparison is currently confounded by prompt-template differences, and the main quantitative conclusions lack statistical support. The contribution can be salvaged with additional experiments and analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Table 4; Appendix A.1, Figs. 11–12] The simple-board vs. regular-board comparison is confounded by prompt-template differences. The simple-board prompt (Fig. 11) requires a Function definition plus a Usage call and exposes only the put() API, while the regular-board prompt (Fig. 12) pre-defines a $COMBO_NAME function and asks only for an Output snippet. The paper itself states in Appendix A.1 that the prompt structure differs between the two board types. Therefore the SB/RB accuracy gaps in Table 4 (e.g., Qwen2.5-Coder-32B at 0.68 vs. 0.54 on human-authored instructions) cannot be uniquely attributed to board complexity, repetition, or the need for more abstract relational understanding. Table 2 reinforces the concern: merely changing the prompt style for the same board type (FSG/FSC) moves Qwen2.5-Coder-32B's simple-board accuracy from 0.68 to 0.45 or 0.32, which is the same magnitude as many SB/RB differences. A matched-template control is required, for example evaluating regular-board human instructions under the full Function+Usage prompt, or evaluating simple-board tasks under the regular-board Output-only prompt, before the 'more complex tasks' conclusion can be drawn.
  2. [Tables 1, 2, 4] The main quantitative claims rest on point estimates without confidence intervals or significance tests. Each condition uses only 130 test boards, and the outcome is binary exact-match execution success. For example, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B's regular-board improvement from 0.23 to 0.54 after fine-tuning, or the SB/RB difference of 0.68 vs. 0.54, could be within binomial sampling noise; a bootstrap interval or a McNemar test on paired boards would establish the reliability of these differences. Without this, the statements that 'performance degrades significantly on more complex tasks' and that regular-board gains are 'low' are not statistically grounded.
  3. [§4.1 vs. Appendix A.3] The fine-tuning configuration is reported inconsistently between the main text and the appendix. Section 4.1 lists lora_dropout=0.10 and '20 steps', while Appendix A.3 lists lora_dropout=0.0 and four gradient accumulation steps, and Appendix A.3.1 mentions early stopping with patience 2. Since the paper's central comparisons are between fine-tuned and base models, a single reproducible configuration is essential. Please reconcile these numbers and state exactly which configuration produced Tables 1, 2, and 4.
  4. [§5.2, Table 5] The instruction-similarity analysis is presented as explaining the execution-success gap ('These results suggest that lower semantic and lexical alignment ... limits the generalization ability'), but the reported BLEU and embedding-similarity values are only correlations with execution success, computed over the same boards, and BLEU is near zero for regular boards regardless of model behavior. The causal direction is not established; for instance, both the low BLEU and the low execution success could follow from regular-board instructions being more abstract, without similarity itself being the bottleneck. Please either soften the causal language or add a regression/partial-correlation analysis that controls for the number of shapes and board type.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.2, Fig. 6] Figure 5's caption contains an apparent typo: '41.5% and 1 “Element. Mismatch” 58.5%' should presumably read 'and Element Mismatch 58.5%.'
  2. [Table 7 caption] The caption contains a spelling error: 'all the models performance was detoriated' should be 'deteriorated.'
  3. [Table 10 caption] The word 'nodel' appears in the caption: 'Error Categorization across nodel responses'; it should be 'model responses.'
  4. [§5.2] The model is referred to as 'Llama3-70B' in the qualitative analysis but as 'Llama3.3-70B' everywhere else; please use one consistent name.
  5. [Table 1] The Human-Baseline row places 0.98 and 0.76 in the SB/RB columns, but the 'Before/After' structure of the table makes it look like a model score; please add a footnote or restructure the row so it is clear this is an independent human upper bound, not a before/after fine-tuning value.
  6. [Tables 2 and 3] Tables 2 and 3 use the columns SB/RB for both FSG and FSC, but these prompt styles are introduced as 'regular board prompt styles'; clarify in the text whether the same styles were applied to simple boards and why this is a meaningful comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's transfer claims are measured on held-out human instructions and external benchmarks, not derived from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

This paper makes no formal derivation that reduces to its inputs. The central claim, stated in Section 1 as "fine-tuning solely on synthetic data is insufficient for robust transfer to instructions that require more abstract or relational understanding," is supported by measured execution-success gaps on held-out human-authored instructions, e.g., Table 4 shows Qwen2.5-Coder-32B falling from 1.00 on synthetic regular-board instructions to 0.54 on human-authored ones. The evaluation is not circular: models are fine-tuned only on synthetic instruction-code pairs, while human-authored test instructions and the external HEXAGONS and TidyBot datasets are independent of the training distribution, and outputs are verified by executing generated code in a simulator against gold boards. No parameter is fitted to the human-authored evaluation set, and no result is imported from a self-citation to force the conclusion. The self-citations to SARTCo (Kranti et al., 2024b) and clembench (Chalamalasetti et al., 2023) are data and framework provenance, not load-bearing arguments; the paper also reports an independent human baseline and external benchmark results. The simple-vs-regular prompt-template difference visible in Figures 11 and 12 is a possible confound for the simple/regular contrast, and the paper itself notes in Section 5.1 that some differences "may be due to differences in the expected output structure." But a confound is not circularity: the core synthetic-to-human gap on regular boards is measured with the same regular-board template in both conditions, and the paper additionally reports abort rates, error categorizations, instruction-similarity analyses, and prompt-variation experiments. None of these steps assert that an output is predicted from the same data that defined it. The paper is an empirical generalization study with a plausible internal-validity caveat but no circular derivation chain.

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

The central claim rests on the SARTCo benchmark, its board labels, the execution-based metric, and the prompt formats used for fine-tuning and evaluation. There are no derived equations or fitted constants; the main free parameters are the validation-tuned fine-tuning hyperparameters. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • learning_rate = 1e-4
    Selected via ablation study over 1e-4 and 2e-4 in Appendix A.3.1; affects all reported fine-tuned results.
  • epochs = 3
    Selected via ablation with early stopping patience 2 in Appendix A.3.1; all fine-tuned models use this.
  • lora_dropout = 0.10 in Section 4.1, 0.0 in Appendix A.3
    Reported inconsistently across the paper; dropout affects regularization and all fine-tuned model outputs.
  • training_sample_size = 1072 simple plus 1168 regular boards
    Ablations show generalization to human instructions appears only with at least 1000 examples in Appendix A.3.1; the chosen sample size is a free decision.
  • batch_size = 8
    Ablation over batch sizes 2, 4, and 8 in Appendix A.3.1; chosen value affects optimization and final checkpoints.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SARTCo simple-versus-regular board labels are a valid proxy for task complexity in spatial instruction following (Section 3).
    The main comparison rests on these labels; they were not independently validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Execution success in the virtual simulator, defined as exact match of the generated board to the target, is a faithful measure of instruction-following quality (Section 4.2).
    This is the primary metric; partial credit and alternative correct solutions are ignored.
  • domain assumption The human-authored instructions in the held-out set are representative of natural human instructions and were not seen during synthetic-only fine-tuning (Sections 3 and 4.1).
    If the test instructions are unrepresentative or leaked, the generalization gap would be an artifact.
  • ad hoc to paper Differences in model performance between simple and regular boards can be attributed to board complexity rather than to the different prompt templates used for each setting (Appendix A.1, Figures 11 and 12).
    Simple and regular boards use different response formats and API hints, a confound the paper does not control in the main comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Templates to Natural Language: Generalization Challenges in Instruction-Tuned LLMs for Spatial Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4RKBOYV

@misc{pith2026250514425,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Templates to Natural Language: Generalization Challenges in Instruction-Tuned LLMs for Spatial Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4RKBOYV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14425}
}
abstract

Instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on a variety of tasks; however, generalizing from synthetic to human-authored instructions in grounded environments remains a challenge for them. In this work, we study generalization challenges in spatial grounding tasks where models interpret and translate instructions for building object arrangements on a $2.5$D grid. We fine-tune LLMs using only synthetic instructions and evaluate their performance on a benchmark dataset containing both synthetic and human-written instructions. Our results reveal that while models generalize well on simple tasks, their performance degrades significantly on more complex tasks. We present a detailed error analysis of the gaps in instruction generalization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14425 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fine-tuned LLMs trained on synthetic instruc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A simple board example showing how code (left) maps to a target structure (right), with both syn￾thetic and human-authored instructions describing the same configuration. Models are expected to generate both the function definition and its usage based on the given instruction. on a 2.5D 1 grid. Each instance in the dataset in￾cludes a triplet: a code representation, a target board, and a natural language instruction… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Execution analysis of different models on an instruction-to-code generation task. Given a natural language [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Error distribution on RB (regular) boards for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example task from Tidybot with human￾authored instruction and corresponding target code. Model HEXAGONS TIDYBOT Before After Before After Qwen2.5-Coder-7B 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 Llama3.1-8B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.039 Qwen3-8B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Qwen2.5-Coder-32B 0.10 0.11 0.82…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Different styles of prompt variations used for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Web interface used for human reconstruction of spatial configurations. Instructions appear on the left, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prompt template used for the spatial grounding task for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Prompt template used for the spatial grounding task for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yonatan Bisk, Ari Holtzman, Jesse Thomason, Jacob Andreas, Yoshua Bengio, Joyce Chai, Mirella Lapata, Angeliki Lazaridou, Jonathan May, Aleksandr Nisnevich, Nicolas Pinto, and Joseph P. Turian. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2020.EMNLP-MAIN.703 Experience grounds language . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language ...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.703 2020

  2. [2]

    Yonatan Bisk, Deniz Yuret, and Daniel Marcu. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N16-1089 Natural language communication with robots . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 751--761, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/n16-1089 2016

  3. [3]

    Michael Brenner. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415145 Situation-aware interpretation, planning and execution of user commands by autonomous robots . In IEEE RO-MAN 2007, 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot & Human Interactive Communication, August 26-29, 2007, Jeju Island, South Korea, Proceedings , pages 540--545. IEEE

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Kranti Chalamalasetti, Jana G \"o tze, Sherzod Hakimov, Brielen Madureira, Philipp Sadler, and David Schlangen. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.689 clembench: Using game play to evaluate chat-optimized language models as conversational agents . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pag...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.689 2023

  5. [5]

    Akshay Chaturvedi, Kate Thompson, and Nicholas Asher. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.374 Nebula: A discourse aware M inecraft builder . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 6431--6443, Miami, Florida, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.374 2024

  6. [6]

    Bao - Anh Dang - Vu, Oliver Porges, and M \' a ximo A. Roa. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27146-0\_14 Interpreting manipulation actions: From language to execution . In Robot 2015: Second Iberian Robotics Conference - Advances in Robotics, Lisbon, Portugal, 19-21 November 2015, Volume 1, volume 417 of Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computin...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27146-0 2015

  7. [8]

    Andrew Goldberg, Kavish Kondap, Tianshuang Qiu, Zehan Ma, Letian Fu, Justin Kerr, Huang Huang, Kaiyuan Chen, Kuan Fang, and Ken Goldberg. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2409.17126 Blox-net: Generative design-for-robot-assembly using VLM supervision, physics simulation, and a robot with reset . CoRR, abs/2409.17126

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.17126 2024

  8. [9]

    Anders Green, Kerstin Severinson Eklundh, Britta Wrede, and Shuyin Li. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2006.282256 Integrating miscommunication analysis in natural language interface design for a service robot . In 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2006, October 9-15, 2006, Beijing, China , pages 4678--4683. IEEE

    arXiv 2006

Show all 41 references
  1. [10]

    Jun Hatori, Yuta Kikuchi, Sosuke Kobayashi, Kuniyuki Takahashi, Yuta Tsuboi, Yuya Unno, Wilson Ko, and Jethro Tan. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2018.8460699 Interactively picking real-world objects with unconstrained spoken language instructions . In 2018 IEEE Internatio...

    2018

  2. [11]

    Petra Hendriks, Charlotte Koster, and John CJ Hoeks. 2014. Referential choice across the lifespan: Why children and elderly adults produce ambiguous pronouns. Language, cognition and neuroscience, 29(4):391--407

    2014

  3. [12]

    Zichao Hu, Junyi Jessy Li, Arjun Guha, and Joydeep Biswas. 2024. Robo-instruct: Simulator-augmented instruction alignment for finetuning code llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20179

    2024

  4. [14]

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei - Fei. 2023 b . https://proceedings.mlr.press/v229/huang23b.html Voxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models . In Conference on Robot Learning, CoRL 2023, 6-9 November...

    2023

  5. [15]

    Helge H \" u ttenrauch, Kerstin Severinson Eklundh, Anders Green, and Elin Anna Topp. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2006.282535 Investigating spatial relationships in human-robot interaction . In 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IR...

    2006

  6. [16]

    Brian Ichter, Anthony Brohan, Yevgen Chebotar, Chelsea Finn, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Daniel Ho, Julian Ibarz, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Sergey Levine, Yao Lu, Carolina Parada, Kanishka Rao, Pierre Sermanet, Alexander Toshev, Vincent Vanho...

    2022

  7. [17]

    Chenxi Jiang, Chuhao Zhou, and Jianfei Yang. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2505.10872 Rei-bench: Can embodied agents understand vague human instructions in task planning? CoRR, abs/2505.10872

    2025 doi arXiv

  8. [18]

    Omkar Joglekar, Shir Kozlovsky, Tal Lancewicki, Vladimir Tchuiev, Zohar Feldman, and Dotan Di Castro. 2024. Towards natural language-driven industrial assembly using foundation models. In ICLR 2024 Workshop on Large Language Model (LLM) Agents

    2024

  9. [19]

    Chalamalasetti Kranti, Sherzod Hakimov, and David Schlangen. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.652 Retrieval-augmented code generation for situated action generation: A case study on M inecraft . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguisti...

    2024 doi

  10. [20]

    Chalamalasetti Kranti, Sherzod Hakimov, and David Schlangen. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2409.11041 Towards no-code programming of cobots: Experiments with code synthesis by large code models for conversational programming . CoRR, abs/2409.11041

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [21]

    Royi Lachmy, Valentina Pyatkin, Avshalom Manevich, and Reut Tsarfaty. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00522 Draw me a flower: Processing and grounding abstraction in natural language . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:1341--1356

    2022 doi

  12. [22]

    Zhuoyan Li, Hangxiao Zhu, Zhuoran Lu, and Ming Yin. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.EMNLP-MAIN.647 Synthetic data generation with large language models for text classification: Potential and limitations . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat...

    2023 doi

  13. [24]

    Jonghan Lim, Sujani Patel, Alex Evans, John Pimley, Yifei Li, and Ilya Kovalenko. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/CASE59546.2024.10711843 Enhancing human-robot collaborative assembly in manufacturing systems using large language models . In 20th IEEE International Conference on ...

    2024

  14. [25]

    Fangyu Liu, Guy Emerson, and Nigel Collier. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1162/TACL\_A\_00566 Visual spatial reasoning . Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 11:635--651

    2023 doi

  15. [26]

    Annabella Macaluso, Nicholas Cote, and Sachin Chitta. 2024. Toward automated programming for robotic assembly using chatgpt. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 17687--17693. IEEE

    2024

  16. [27]

    Marvin Minsky. 1980. K-lines: A theory of memory. Cognitive science, 4(2):117--133

    1980

  17. [28]

    Mihai Nadas, Laura Diosan, and Andreea Tomescu. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2503.14023 Synthetic data generation using large language models: Advances in text and code . CoRR, abs/2503.14023

    2025 doi

  18. [29]

    Anjali Narayan-Chen, Prashant Jayannavar, and Julia Hockenmaier. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1537 Collaborative dialogue in M inecraft . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5405--5415, Florence, Italy. Ass...

    2019 doi

  19. [30]

    Linus Nwankwo, Bjoern Ellensohn, Ozan \"O zdenizci, and Elmar Rueckert. 2025. Reli: A language-agnostic approach to human-robot interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01862

    2025

  20. [31]

    Rohan Paul, Jacob Arkin, Derya Aksaray, Nicholas Roy, and Thomas M. Howard. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364918777627 Efficient grounding of abstract spatial concepts for natural language interaction with robot platforms . Int. J. Robotics Res., 37(10)

    2018 doi

  21. [32]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/D19-1410 Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on ...

    2019 doi

  22. [33]

    Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, Brian Ichter, Michael Equi, Liyiming Ke, Karl Pertsch, Quan Vuong, James Tanner, Anna Walling, Haohuan Wang, Niccolo Fusai, Adrian Li - Bell, Danny Driess, Lachy Groom, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2502.19417 Hi robot...

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [34]

    Mohit Shridhar and David Hsu. 2018. https://doi.org/10.15607/RSS.2018.XIV.028 Interactive visual grounding of referring expressions for human-robot interaction . In Robotics: Science and Systems XIV, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, June 26-30, 2018

    2018 doi

  24. [35]

    Ishika Singh, Valts Blukis, Arsalan Mousavian, Ankit Goyal, Danfei Xu, Jonathan Tremblay, Dieter Fox, Jesse Thomason, and Animesh Garg. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10161317 Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models . In IEEE ...

    2023

  25. [36]

    Stefanie Tellex, Nakul Gopalan, Hadas Kress - Gazit, and Cynthia Matuszek. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-CONTROL-101119-071628 Robots that use language . Annu. Rev. Control. Robotics Auton. Syst., 3:25--55

    2020 doi

  26. [37]

    Karthik Valmeekam, Sarath Sreedharan, Matthew Marquez, Alberto Olmo Hernandez, and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2302.06706 On the planning abilities of large language models (A critical investigation with a proposed benchmark) . CoRR, abs/2302.06706

    2023 doi arXiv

  27. [38]

    Sai Vemprala, Rogerio Bonatti, Arthur Bucker, and Ashish Kapoor. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3387941 Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities . IEEE Access , 12:55682--55696

    2024

  28. [39]

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2024 a . https://openreview.net/forum?id=ehfRiF0R3a Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models . Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2024

    2024

  29. [40]

    Lirui Wang, Yiyang Ling, Zhecheng Yuan, Mohit Shridhar, Chen Bao, Yuzhe Qin, Bailin Wang, Huazhe Xu, and Xiaolong Wang. 2024 b . https://openreview.net/forum?id=OI3RoHoWAN Gensim: Generating robotic simulation tasks via large language models . In The Twelfth International Conf...

    2024

  30. [41]

    Funkhouser

    Jimmy Wu, Rika Antonova, Adam Kan, Marion Lepert, Andy Zeng, Shuran Song, Jeannette Bohg, Szymon Rusinkiewicz, and Thomas A. Funkhouser. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS55552.2023.10341577 Tidybot: Personalized robot assistance with large language models . In IROS , pages 3546--3553

    2023

  31. [42]

    Mengdi Xu, Peide Huang, Wenhao Yu, Shiqi Liu, Xilun Zhang, Yaru Niu, Tingnan Zhang, Fei Xia, Jie Tan, and Ding Zhao. 2023. Creative robot tool use with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13065

    2023 arXiv

  32. [43]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  33. [44]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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