Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 118 references

Learning Compositional Behaviors from Demonstration and Language

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 BLADE automatically recovers structured action knowledge from language-annotated demonstrations and plans long-horizon manipulation with it.

desk verdict A genuinely useful integration of LLM-generated operators, auto-labeled predicates, and learned policies, but the automatic annotation needs an oracle check before the grounding claim is fully trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21981 v1 pith:UQUIGJEU submitted 2025-05-28 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CLcs.CV

Weiyu Liu , Neil Nie , Ruohan Zhang , Jiayuan Mao , Jiajun Wu This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CLcs.CV
keywords long-horizonmanipulationimitationlearningmodel-basedplanninglanguage-conditionedpolicyPDDLstatepredicatescontactprimitivesreplanning
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

BLADE is a framework for teaching a robot long-horizon manipulation from a modest number of demonstrations that come with short language descriptions. Its claim is that, from these demonstrations alone, a robot can automatically recover a structured library of high-level actions, each with preconditions (what must already be true), effects (what becomes true), and a low-level controlling policy, without hand-labeled states or hand-written symbolic rules. The recovered library feeds a symbolic planner, so the robot can compose known behaviors to satisfy novel goals, recover from external perturbations, respect geometric constraints, and act under partial observability. If the claim holds, the bottleneck of long-horizon learning shifts from expensive manual state annotation to getting the linguistic and contact-level scaffolding right.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a behavior, defined as a PDDL-style tuple $\langle name, args, pre, eff, \pi \rangle$: a symbolic precondition and effect formula paired with a neural policy $\pi$. BLADE generates the symbolic part by asking a large language model to interpret language-annotated demonstrations that have been segmented into contact primitives, and uses the generated body section to re-segment noisy trajectories. The mechanism that carries the automatic-learning claim is automatic predicate annotation: unrolling the proposed behavior sequence labels many observations as positive or negative examples for each predicate, training classifiers $f_\theta(p): O \to \{T,F\}$ without human labels. At execution time, the planner operates on this grounded abstract state, and replanning after each behavior is what turns perturbations and hidden-object situations into solvable subgoals.

What would settle it

Take a trained BLADE domain and swap one effect in a single behavior description, for example make 'turn on faucet' claim is-filled(kettle) while keeping all demonstrations and training labels otherwise identical. If the resulting state classifier for is-filled still reaches high accuracy on held-out real states and plans still succeed, then the automatic recovery does not actually depend on the correctness of the LLM's proposed abstractions; if accuracy or success collapses, the paper's claims are tied to that correctness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

BLADE's central discovery is that a small fixed vocabulary of contact primitives, namely grasp, place, move, push, move-to, open, and close, gives a large language model enough structure to propose PDDL-style behavior descriptions whose preconditions and effects are causally consistent with the demonstrations. Those descriptions are then not just plan templates but also an automatic labeling mechanism: by unrolling the behavior sequence over the recorded observations, the system marks states before an action as satisfying its preconditions and states after it as satisfying its effects, generating training labels for visual state classifiers with no human annotation. With these classifiers grounding the abstract state, a planner chains the learned behaviors, and because planning is rerun after each behavior, the loop absorbs perturbations, geometric constraints, and partial observability. The paper validates this in simulation and on a real robot, reporting that the approach completes novel compositions of behaviors at higher rates than latent-planning and LLM/VLM planning baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the LLM-proposed behavior descriptions are correct enough to be used as training labels, because the automatic predicate annotation converts those descriptions into ground-truth supervision for state classifiers without any independent check against real states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any language goal expressible with the learned predicates becomes reachable without retraining, by composing existing behavior policies through the planner.
  • A perturbation mid-task is converted into a replanning event, so moving an object or failing an execution no longer ends the episode.
  • Visibility and geometric clearance, encoded as ordinary preconditions, let the planner insert search and obstacle-removal steps before the behavior that needs them.
  • The same demonstrations supply training signal for every predicate classifier through label propagation, removing the need for state labels or manually authored transition models.
  • Labeling the whole observation stream, not only segment endpoints, is what the paper's ablation identifies as the source of classifier accuracy and thus of planning success.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If predicate invention were fully automated, BLADE would no longer need its one remaining manual input, the list of predicate names; the appendix's predicate-generation experiment suggests this is close but not yet the paper's central claim.
  • The same automatically generated predicate labels could be reused as in-context examples or fine-tuning data for general-purpose vision-language classifiers, a use the paper only sketches in its appendix.
  • Replacing the most-likely-state planner with a belief-space or observation-based planner would be the natural upgrade for partial observability; BLADE currently gets by with optimistic visibility effects and replanning.
  • Because the contact-primitive segmentation relies on gripper state thresholds, the framework would need finer contact sensing to cover caging or sustained-contact manipulations, a limitation the paper states.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces BLADE, a framework for long-horizon robotic manipulation that combines imitation learning with model-based planning. Given language-annotated demonstrations, BLADE segments trajectories into contact primitives, uses an LLM to propose PDDL-style behavior descriptions with preconditions and effects, and automatically generates observation-level labels to train visual predicate classifiers and diffusion-policy controllers. At test time, a symbolic planner composes these behaviors, with replanning after each execution. The authors evaluate in the CALVIN simulation benchmark on three generalization categories (abstract goals, geometric constraints, partial observability) and in two real-world tabletop domains, reporting substantial improvements over latent-planning and LLM/VLM baselines. The main claims are that BLADE recovers structured action representations automatically, without manual state labels or symbolic definitions, and that these representations support generalization to novel initial states, perturbations, and goals.

Significance. If the claims hold, BLADE would be a meaningful step toward automatic acquisition of grounded symbolic abstractions for long-horizon manipulation: it replaces manually designed predicate groundings or symbolic action definitions with LLM-generated operators combined with learned visual classifiers. The simulation results on CALVIN show clear gains over HULC, SayCan, Robot-VILA, and Text2Motion, and the ablation against Migimatsu and Bohg shows the value of the proposed label-propagation scheme over prior classifier learning. The paper also provides detailed appendices with algorithm pseudocode (Algorithms 1 and 2), full LLM prompts, and task definitions, which substantially aids reproducibility. However, as detailed below, the automatic predicate-annotation loop is not audited against ground-truth states, and the headline 'without symbolic definitions' claim is stronger than the implementation's requirement of a provided predicate list. The approach is significant if these gaps are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Algorithm 2] The supervision for every predicate classifier is generated from the LLM's own preconditions and effects, with labels assigned before and after behaviors by unrolling the symbolic operators; the same operators are then used by the planner that the classifiers feed. Section 4.1's abstract verification checks only that accumulated symbolic effects satisfy later preconditions, not that the atoms match the observed state before or after each action. If an LLM operator omits a predicate that actually changes, Algorithm 2 propagates the stale label to subsequent time steps (lines 10-24). For example, if place-in-drawer did not delete is-on(block, table), the is-on classifier would receive positive labels on images of a block inside the drawer. Because CALVIN provides simulator ground-truth states, this can be audited directly. I ask the authors to (i) evaluate the learned classifiers against ground-truth predicate values on held-out states, and (ii) report the accuracy of the LLM-proposed operators' preconditions and effects against observed state changes. Without such an audit, the F1 improvement cited in Section 5.2 and the end-to-end success rates in Table 1 are consistent with an internally self-consistent but misgrounded model, and the central claim of recovering grounded representations is not established.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract claims that BLADE recovers structured representations 'without manually labeled states or symbolic definitions,' but Section 3 states that 'BLADE requires humans to additionally provide a list of predicate names in natural language,' and the main simulation and real-world results use expert-provided predicates. Appendix A.2 shows automatic predicate generation only as an additional study (28/30 predicates match), not as part of the main pipeline. Since predicate names are themselves part of the symbolic vocabulary, the headline claim overstates what the main experiments demonstrate. Please either integrate automatic predicate generation into the main evaluation or qualify the claim to 'without manually labeled states' while stating that the predicate vocabulary is provided by the user.
  3. [Section 5.3, Fig. 5] The real-robot evaluation reports counts out of six trials per condition with no variance, confidence intervals, or per-trial detail, and all tasks are author-designed. With n=6, the claim that BLADE 'significantly outperforms' Robot-VILA is not statistically supportable. I recommend either increasing the number of trials, reporting exact binomial confidence intervals, or softening the significance wording. This does not undermine the simulation-based evidence, but the real-world generalization claim in the abstract should be scaled to what the data can support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 2] The pseudocode uses the variable t both as the behavior index and as the time step inside GETTIMEDPREDICATES, which makes the indexing ambiguous; please clarify the notation.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The abstract verification threshold is not specified anywhere in the paper; please report the value used in the experiments and, if possible, a sensitivity analysis over this threshold.
  3. [Section 5.2, Table 2] The text reports F1 improvements of 20.7% overall, 16.3% for object states, and 38.6% for spatial relations, but Table 2 shows only planning success rates; adding a classifier-level table with per-predicate F1 would make the comparison with Migimatsu and Bohg more concrete.
  4. [Table 1] The column headers 'State Classifier' and 'Latent Feasibility' are not explained in the caption; please state what entries such as 'N/A', 'Short', 'Long', 'Learned', and 'GT' mean.
  5. [General] The paper does not state whether code or trained models will be released; please add a statement on code availability to improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Predicate groundings and their F1 evaluation are both derived from the same LLM-generated behavior descriptions, so the 'recovered' representation is a self-consistent bootstrap rather than an independently verified grounding.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2 'Automatic predicate annotation' and Algorithm 2]
    "before applying a behavior a at step ot, we label all predicates in prea true and predicates in effa false. When a finishes at step ot′, we label all predicates in effa. In addition, we will propagate the labels for state predicates to later time steps until they are explicitly altered by another behavior a."

    The classifier supervision is generated from the LLM-proposed preconditions and effects—the very symbolic description whose grounding BLADE claims to recover. Algorithm 1's abstract verification only checks that prior operators' symbolic effects entail the next preconditions; it never checks atoms against observed state. If an effect omits a predicate that really changes (e.g., place_in_drawer omitting is-on(block, table)), Algorithm 2 propagates the stale label and the classifier learns it as ground truth. No audit against CALVIN simulator ground truth or real-world states is reported, so the 'recovered' representation is internally consistent but not independently grounded.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2, Table 2 ablation text]
    "We compare the two classifier learning algorithms, given the same LLM-generated behavior definitions, by evaluating the classifier accuracy on held-out states. BLADE shows a 20.7% improvement in F1 (16.3% improvement for classifying object states and 38.6% improvement for classifying spatial relations) compared to the baseline model."

    The 'held-out states' used for this F1 comparison are labeled by the same automatic predicate annotation (Algorithm 2) that derives all labels from the LLM-generated behavior definitions. Both BLADE and the Migimatsu-and-Bohg baseline are trained and evaluated against labels produced by the same symbolic descriptions, so the reported F1 measures agreement with the LLM operator semantics, not accuracy against physical state. The evaluation target is generated by the same source whose grounding is being measured; end-to-end success in Table 1 is external but does not isolate whether the recovered predicates and operators are correct.

full rationale

The paper's main loop is: LLM proposes behavior operators; Algorithm 2 labels observations using those operators; classifiers are trained on those labels; the planner consumes the classifiers; Table 2 evaluates classifier accuracy on the same self-generated labels. This makes the claimed 'automatic recovery' of grounded state abstractions a bootstrap: the symbolic description determines the perceptual groundings that are then presented as recovered from data. The abstract verification (Algorithm 1) only checks symbolic self-consistency of operator chains, and no direct comparison to CALVIN's simulator ground-truth states is reported for operator correctness or classifier accuracy. The paper is transparent that labels come from behavior descriptions, but the F1 numbers in Table 2 are nevertheless self-referential. The Limitations section also concedes that a given set of predicate names is assumed, which tempers the abstract's 'without symbolic definitions' but is a scope caveat rather than another circular step. The mitigating factor is that end-to-end generalization success (Table 1, real-robot experiments) uses externally defined goal satisfaction functions, so the system as a whole has independent content and is not merely restating its inputs. Because the central representation-evaluation claim reduces by construction to the LLM-generated labels, a score of 6 is appropriate. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the LLM providing correct action descriptions and on the automatic annotation algorithm assuming those descriptions correspond to real state changes. Neither is independently verified in the paper.

free parameters (1)
  • Abstract verification threshold = not specified
    Algorithm 1 uses a ratio error_counter/counter compared to a threshold to decide when to regenerate behavior descriptions; the threshold is not reported, but is a hand-set constant that could affect the quality of generated operators.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each behavior corresponds to a single contact primitive sequence and a single language label.
    Stated in Section 4.1: 'We assume that each behavior has a single corresponding contact primitive sequence'. Used to re-segment demonstrations according to the LLM-predicted body.
  • ad hoc to paper The LLM-generated behavior descriptions (preconditions and effects) are correct for the domain.
    Section 4.2 automatic predicate annotation labels preconditions and effects as true/false based on these descriptions. The abstract verification only checks symbolic consistency on demonstrations, not against real world states.
  • ad hoc to paper Predicate effects persist until explicitly altered by another behavior.
    Algorithm 2 propagates predicate labels forward in time until another behavior changes them. This assumes deterministic, persistent effects, which may not hold under perturbations.
  • domain assumption Contact-based temporal segmentation from gripper state correctly identifies behavior boundaries.
    Section 4.1 and Appendix A.3 use gripper width and object segmentation to segment demonstrations into primitives. The paper notes this fails for caging grasps.
  • domain assumption In simulation, ground-truth segmentation masks and contact states are available for training.
    Appendix A.6 and A.7 state that point clouds are segmented using ground-truth masks from PyBullet and primitive arguments come from contact state. This supervision may not be available in real world.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Compositional Behaviors from Demonstration and Language." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQUIGJEU

@misc{pith2026250521981,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Compositional Behaviors from Demonstration and Language},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQUIGJEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21981}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce Behavior from Language and Demonstration (BLADE), a framework for long-horizon robotic manipulation by integrating imitation learning and model-based planning. BLADE leverages language-annotated demonstrations, extracts abstract action knowledge from large language models (LLMs), and constructs a library of structured, high-level action representations. These representations include preconditions and effects grounded in visual perception for each high-level action, along with corresponding controllers implemented as neural network-based policies. BLADE can recover such structured representations automatically, without manually labeled states or symbolic definitions. BLADE shows significant capabilities in generalizing to novel situations, including novel initial states, external state perturbations, and novel goals. We validate the effectiveness of our approach both in simulation and on real robots with a diverse set of objects with articulated parts, partial observability, and geometric constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21981 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. BLADE, a robot manipulation framework combining imitation learning and model-based planning. (a) BLADE takes language-annotated demonstrations as training data. (b) It generalizes to unseen initial conditions, state perturbations, and geometric constraints. (c) In the depicted scenarios, BLADE recovers from perturbations such as moving the kettle out of the sink, and resolves geometric constraints including a blocke… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of BLADE. (a) BLADE receives language-annotated human demonstrations, (b) segments demonstrations into contact primitives, and learns a structured behavior representation. (c) It generalizes to novel conditions by leveraging bi-level planning and execution to achieve goal states. 3 Problem Formulation We consider the problem of learning a language-conditioned goal-reaching manipulation policy. Formally, the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Behavior Descriptions Learning. (a) A demonstration is provided along with corresponding language annotations. (b) The demonstration is segmented into a sequence of contact primitives. (c) A large language model interprets the annotation and contact sequence, generating a symbolic behavior definition. (d) The system automatically generates data to learn classifiers for state predicates. 4.1 Behavior Description Lear… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Generalization Tasks in CALVIN. Examples from the three generalization tasks in the CALVIN simulation environment. Successfully completing these tasks require planning for and executing 3-7 actions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Domains and Results in Real World. Make Tea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Real World Planning and Execution. We show the execution traces from BLADE and Robot-VILA for two generalization tasks: (a) partial observability and (b) geometric constraints. correct plans to complete the tasks. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. Chi, S. Feng, Y . Du, Z. Xu, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. InRSS, 2023. 1, 5, 18, 19

    2023

  2. [2]

    C. R. Garrett, T. Lozano-P ´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling. PDDLStream: Integrating Symbolic Planners and Blackbox Samplers via Optimistic Adaptive Planning. InICAPS, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  3. [3]

    D. Xu, A. Mandlekar, R. Mart ´ın-Mart´ın, Y . Zhu, S. Savarese, and L. Fei-Fei. Deep affordance foresight: Planning through what can be done in the future. InICRA, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    H. Shi, H. Xu, Z. Huang, Y . Li, and J. Wu. RoboCraft: Learning to see, simulate, and shape elasto-plastic objects in 3d with graph networks.IJRR, 43(4):533–549, 2024. 1

    2024

  5. [5]

    Lynch, M

    C. Lynch, M. Khansari, T. Xiao, V . Kumar, J. Tompson, S. Levine, and P. Sermanet. Learning latent plans from play. InCoRL, 2020. 1

    2020

  6. [6]

    Brohan, Y

    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. InCoRL,

  7. [7]

    Srivastava, E

    S. Srivastava, E. Fang, L. Riano, R. Chitnis, S. Russell, and P. Abbeel. Combined Task and Motion Planning through an Extensible Planner-Independent Interface Layer. InICRA, 2014. 2

    2014

  8. [8]

    N. T. Dantam, Z. K. Kingston, S. Chaudhuri, and L. E. Kavraki. Incremental task and motion planning: A constraint-based approach. InRSS, 2016

    2016

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    Toussaint

    M. Toussaint. Logic-Geometric Programming: An optimization-based approach to combined task and motion planning. InIJCAI, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Curtis, X

    A. Curtis, X. Fang, L. P. Kaelbling, T. Lozano-P´erez, and C. R. Garrett. Long-horizon manipu- lation of unknown objects via task and motion planning with estimated affordances. InICRA, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Driess, O

    D. Driess, O. Oguz, J.-S. Ha, and M. Toussaint. Deep visual heuristics: Learning feasibility of mixed-integer programs for manipulation planning. InICRA, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Z. Yang, C. R. Garrett, T. Lozano-P ´erez, L. Kaelbling, and D. Fox. Sequence-based plan feasibility prediction for efficient task and motion planning. InRSS, 2023. 2

    2023

  5. [13]

    Finn and S

    C. Finn and S. Levine. Deep visual foresight for planning robot motion. InICRA, 2017. 2

    2017

  6. [14]

    Nair and C

    S. Nair and C. Finn. Hierarchical foresight: Self-supervised learning of long-horizon tasks via visual subgoal generation. InICLR, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    H. Shi, H. Xu, S. Clarke, Y . Li, and J. Wu. Robocook: Long-horizon elasto-plastic object manipulation with diverse tools. InCoRL, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Simeonov, Y

    A. Simeonov, Y . Du, B. Kim, F. Hogan, J. Tenenbaum, P. Agrawal, and A. Rodriguez. A long horizon planning framework for manipulating rigid pointcloud objects. InCoRL, 2021. 9

    2021

  9. [17]

    X. Lin, C. Qi, Y . Zhang, Z. Huang, K. Fragkiadaki, Y . Li, C. Gan, and D. Held. Planning with spatial and temporal abstraction from point clouds for deformable object manipulation. In CoRL, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Y . Du, M. Yang, P. Florence, F. Xia, A. Wahid, B. Ichter, P. Sermanet, T. Yu, P. Abbeel, J. B. Tenenbaum, et al. Video language planning.arXiv:2310.10625, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. Luo, C. Xu, X. Geng, G. Feng, K. Fang, L. Tan, S. Schaal, and S. Levine. Multi-stage cable routing through hierarchical imitation learning.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024. 2

    2024

  12. [20]

    L. X. Shi, Z. Hu, T. Z. Zhao, A. Sharma, K. Pertsch, J. Luo, S. Levine, and C. Finn. Yell at your robot: Improving on-the-fly from language corrections.arXiv:2403.12910, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. Pirk, K. Hausman, A. Toshev, and M. Khansari. Modeling long-horizon tasks as sequential interaction landscapes. InCoRL, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    C. Wang, L. Fan, J. Sun, R. Zhang, L. Fei-Fei, D. Xu, Y . Zhu, and A. Anandkumar. Mimicplay: Long-horizon imitation learning by watching human play. InCoRL, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Lynch and P

    C. Lynch and P. Sermanet. Language conditioned imitation learning over unstructured data. In RSS, 2021. 2

    2021

  16. [24]

    O. Mees, J. Borja-Diaz, and W. Burgard. Grounding language with visual affordances over unstructured data. InICRA, 2023. 21

    2023

  17. [25]

    Mandlekar, C

    A. Mandlekar, C. Garrett, D. Xu, and D. Fox. Human-in-the-loop task and motion planning for imitation learning. InCoRL, 2023. 2

    2023

  18. [26]

    Zhang, Y

    Z. Zhang, Y . Li, O. Bastani, A. Gupta, D. Jayaraman, Y . J. Ma, and L. Weihs. Universal Visual Decomposer: Long-horizon manipulation made easy. InICRA, 2024. 2

    2024

  19. [27]

    Y . Zhu, P. Stone, and Y . Zhu. Bottom-up skill discovery from unsegmented demonstrations for long-horizon robot manipulation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(2):4126–4133,

  20. [28]

    Y . Zhu, J. Tremblay, S. Birchfield, and Y . Zhu. Hierarchical planning for long-horizon manipu- lation with geometric and symbolic scene graphs. InICRA, 2020. 2

    2020

  21. [29]

    Huang, S

    D.-A. Huang, S. Nair, D. Xu, Y . Zhu, A. Garg, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, and J. C. Niebles. Neural task graphs: Generalizing to unseen tasks from a single video demonstration. InCVPR, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Huang, D

    D.-A. Huang, D. Xu, Y . Zhu, A. Garg, S. Savarese, F.-F. Li, and J. C. Niebles. Continuous relaxation of symbolic planner for one-shot imitation learning. InIROS, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Huang, N

    Y . Huang, N. C. Taylor, A. Conkey, W. Liu, and T. Hermans. Latent space planning for multi-object manipulation with environment-aware relational classifiers.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024. 2

    2024

  24. [32]

    Konidaris, L

    G. Konidaris, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-Perez. From skills to symbols: Learning symbolic representations for abstract high-level planning.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 61: 215–289, 2018. 2

    2018

  25. [33]

    Silver, R

    T. Silver, R. Chitnis, N. Kumar, W. McClinton, T. Lozano-P ´erez, L. Kaelbling, and J. B. Tenenbaum. Predicate invention for bilevel planning. InAAAI, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Ahmetoglu, E

    A. Ahmetoglu, E. Oztop, and E. Ugur. Symbolic manipulation planning with discovered object and relational predicates.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01123, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    N. Shah, J. Nagpal, P. Verma, and S. Srivastava. From reals to logic and back: Inventing symbolic vocabularies, actions and models for planning from raw data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11871, 2024. 10

    2024

  28. [36]

    M. Han, Y . Zhu, S.-C. Zhu, Y . N. Wu, and Y . Zhu. Interpret: Interactive predicate learning from language feedback for generalizable task planning. InRSS, 2024. 2

    2024

  29. [37]

    Huang, P

    W. Huang, P. Abbeel, D. Pathak, and I. Mordatch. Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. InICML, 2022. 2

    2022

  30. [38]

    Silver, V

    T. Silver, V . Hariprasad, R. S. Shuttleworth, N. Kumar, T. Lozano-P´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling. Pddl planning with pretrained large language models. InNeurIPS 2022 foundation models for decision making workshop, 2022. 2

    2022

  31. [39]

    Valmeekam, M

    K. Valmeekam, M. Marquez, S. Sreedharan, and S. Kambhampati. On the planning abilities of large language models-a critical investigation. InNeurIPS, 2023. 2

    2023

  32. [40]

    Kambhampati, K

    S. Kambhampati, K. Valmeekam, L. Guan, K. Stechly, M. Verma, S. Bhambri, L. Saldyt, and A. Murthy. Llms can’t plan, but can help planning in llm-modulo frameworks.arXiv:2402.01817,

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Y . Chen, J. Arkin, Y . Zhang, N. Roy, and C. Fan. AutoTAMP: Autoregressive task and motion planning with llms as translators and checkers. InICRA, 2024. 2

    2024

  34. [42]

    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:2304.11477, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

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

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Mavrogiannis, C

    A. Mavrogiannis, C. Mavrogiannis, and Y . Aloimonos. Cook2ltl: Translating cooking recipes to ltl formulae using large language models. InICRA, 2024. 2

    2024

  37. [45]

    Silver, S

    T. Silver, S. Dan, K. Srinivas, J. B. Tenenbaum, L. Kaelbling, and M. Katz. Generalized planning in PDDL domains with pretrained large language models. InAAAI, 2024. 2

    2024

  38. [46]

    X. Zhu, Y . Chen, H. Tian, C. Tao, W. Su, C. Yang, G. Huang, B. Li, L. Lu, X. Wang, et al. Ghost in the Minecraft: Generally capable agents for open-world enviroments via large language models with text-based knowledge and memory.arXiv:2305.17144, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Nottingham, P

    K. Nottingham, P. Ammanabrolu, A. Suhr, Y . Choi, H. Hajishirzi, S. Singh, and R. Fox. Do embodied agents dream of pixelated sheep: Embodied decision making using language guided world modelling. InICML, 2023. 2

    2023

  40. [48]

    S. Hao, Y . Gu, H. Ma, J. J. Hong, Z. Wang, D. Z. Wang, and Z. Hu. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model. InEMNLP, 2023. 2

    2023

  41. [49]

    Liang, W

    J. Liang, W. Huang, F. Xia, P. Xu, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, P. Florence, and A. Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control. InICRA, 2023. 2

    2023

  42. [50]

    Singh, V

    I. Singh, V . Blukis, A. Mousavian, A. Goyal, D. Xu, J. Tremblay, D. Fox, J. Thomason, and A. Garg. Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models. In ICRA, 2023. 2

    2023

  43. [51]

    K. Lin, C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, M. Pavone, and J. Bohg. Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans.Autonomous Robots, 47(8):1345–1365, 2023. 2, 6

    2023

  44. [52]

    Skreta, Z

    M. Skreta, Z. Zhou, J. L. Yuan, K. Darvish, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and A. Garg. Replan: Robotic replanning with perception and language models.arXiv:2401.04157, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Driess, F

    D. Driess, F. Xia, M. S. Sajjadi, C. Lynch, A. Chowdhery, B. Ichter, A. Wahid, J. Tompson, Q. Vuong, T. Yu, et al. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model.arXiv:2303.03378,

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Z. Wu, Z. Wang, X. Xu, J. Lu, and H. Yan. Embodied task planning with large language models. arXiv:2307.01848, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Xiang, T

    J. Xiang, T. Tao, Y . Gu, T. Shu, Z. Wang, Z. Yang, and Z. Hu. Language models meet world models: Embodied experiences enhance language models. InNeurIPS, 2024. 2

    2024

  48. [56]

    H. Wang, K. Kedia, J. Ren, R. Abdullah, A. Bhardwaj, A. Chao, K. Y . Chen, N. Chin, P. Dan, X. Fan, et al. Mosaic: A modular system for assistive and interactive cooking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18796, 2024. 2

    2024

  49. [57]

    Y . Hu, F. Lin, T. Zhang, L. Yi, and Y . Gao. Look before you leap: Unveiling the power of GPT-4v in robotic vision-language planning.arXiv:2311.17842, 2023. 2, 6

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    N. Wake, A. Kanehira, K. Sasabuchi, J. Takamatsu, and K. Ikeuchi. ChatGPT empowered long-step robot control in various environments: A case application.IEEE Access, 2023. 2

    2023

  51. [59]

    L. Wong, J. Mao, P. Sharma, Z. S. Siegel, J. Feng, N. Korneev, J. B. Tenenbaum, and J. Andreas. Learning adaptive planning representations with natural language guidance. InICLR, 2024. 2

    2024

  52. [60]

    L. Guan, K. Valmeekam, S. Sreedharan, and S. Kambhampati. Leveraging pre-trained large language models to construct and utilize world models for model-based task planning. In NeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Smirnov, F

    P. Smirnov, F. Joublin, A. Ceravola, and M. Gienger. Generating consistent PDDL domains with large language models.arXiv:2404.07751, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Z. Li, K. Yu, S. Cheng, and D. Xu. League++: Empowering continual robot learning through guided skill acquisition with large language models. InICLR 2024 Workshop on Large Language Model (LLM) Agents, 2024. 2

    2024

  55. [63]

    Dalal, T

    M. Dalal, T. Chiruvolu, D. Chaplot, and R. Salakhutdinov. Plan-seq-learn: Language model guided rl for solving long horizon robotics tasks. InICLR, 2024. 2

    2024

  56. [64]

    Lifschitz

    V . Lifschitz. On the semantics of STRIPS. In M. Georgeff, Lansky, and Amy, editors,Reasoning about Actions and Plans, pages 1–9. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1987. 3

    1987

  57. [65]

    Aeronautiques, A

    C. Aeronautiques, A. Howe, C. Knoblock, I. D. McDermott, A. Ram, M. Veloso, D. Weld, D. W. SRI, A. Barrett, and D. Christianson. PDDL: The Planning Domain Definition Language, 1998. 4

    1998

  58. [66]

    Migimatsu and J

    T. Migimatsu and J. Bohg. Grounding predicates through actions. InICRA, 2022. 5, 7

    2022

  59. [67]

    J. Mao, T. Lozano-P ´erez, J. Tenenbaum, and L. Kaelbling. PDSketch: Integrated domain programming, learning, and planning. InNeurIPS, 2022. 5

    2022

  60. [68]

    S. Liu, Z. Zeng, T. Ren, F. Li, H. Zhang, J. Yang, C. Li, J. Yang, H. Su, J. Zhu, et al. Grounding Dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. arXiv:2303.05499, 2023. 5, 17

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Hoffmann and B

    J. Hoffmann and B. Nebel. The FF planning system: Fast plan generation through heuristic search.JAIR, 14:253–302, 2001. 5

    2001

  62. [70]

    M. Helmert. The fast downward planning system.JAIR, 26:191–246, 2006. 5

    2006

  63. [71]

    O. Mees, L. Hermann, E. Rosete-Beas, and W. Burgard. Calvin: A benchmark for language- conditioned policy learning for long-horizon robot manipulation tasks.RA-L, 7:7327–7334,

  64. [72]

    O. Mees, L. Hermann, and W. Burgard. What matters in language conditioned robotic imitation learning over unstructured data.RA-L, 7:11205–11212, 2022. 6, 21 12

    2022

  65. [73]

    Zhang, X

    Y . Zhang, X. Huang, J. Ma, Z. Li, Z. Luo, Y . Xie, Y . Qin, T. Luo, Y . Li, S. Liu, et al. Recognize Anything: A strong image tagging model. InCVPR, 2024. 14

    2024

  66. [74]

    Shridhar, L

    M. Shridhar, L. Manuelli, and D. Fox. Perceiver-Actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic manipulation. InCoRL, 2023. 16

    2023

  67. [75]

    T.-W. Ke, N. Gkanatsios, and K. Fragkiadaki. 3D Diffuser Actor: Policy diffusion with 3D scene representations.arXiv:2402.10885, 2024. 16

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Zhang, Y

    Z. Zhang, Y . Li, O. Bastani, A. Gupta, D. Jayaraman, Y . J. Ma, and L. Weihs. Universal Visual Decomposer: Long-horizon manipulation made easy. InICRA, 2024. 16

    2024

  69. [77]

    W. Wan, Y . Zhu, R. Shah, and Y . Zhu. Lotus: Continual imitation learning for robot manipulation through unsupervised skill discovery. InICRA, 2024. 16

    2024

  70. [78]

    Guo, J.-X

    M.-H. Guo, J.-X. Cai, Z.-N. Liu, T.-J. Mu, R. R. Martin, and S.-M. Hu. PCT: Point cloud transformer.Computational Visual Media, 7:187–199, 2021. 17

    2021

  71. [79]

    L. P. Kaelbling and T. Lozano-P´erez. Hierarchical task and motion planning in the now. In ICRA, 2011. 19, 20

    2011

  72. [80]

    place the kettle on the stove

    C. R. Garrett, C. Paxton, T. Lozano-P´erez, L. P. Kaelbling, and D. Fox. Online replanning in belief space for partially observable task and motion problems. InICRA, 2020. 20 13 Supplementary Material for Learning Compositional Behaviors from Demonstration and Language This su...

    2020

  73. [81]

    Move Faucet Head 3

    Place In Sink 2. Move Faucet Head 3. Turn On Faucet 4. Turn Off Faucet

  74. [82]

    Place Pot on Table 7

    Move Faucet Away 6. Place Pot on Table 7. Move Kettle to Stove Unseen Init., Pertub., Geo. Constr. Unseen Initial Conditions Initial States Human Perturbation Perturbed States Geometric Constraints Initial States Not Seen During Training Figure A2:Training and testing states f...

  75. [83]

    Open Right Door 3

    Unblock Doors 2. Open Right Door 3. Place Kettle On Stove 4. Open Drawer 5. Place Teabag In Kettle Unseen Initial Conditions Initial States Human Perturbation Intermediate States Geometric Constraints Initial States Partial Observability Initial States

  76. [84]

    place_in_slider

    Unblock Doors 2. Open Right Door 3. Place Kettle On Stove 4. Open Drawer 5. Place Teabag In Kettle Not Seen During Training Figure A3:Training and testing states for the Make Tea domain. • Initial State:The kettle is placed inside the sink and the stove is blocked, creating a ...

  77. [85]

    place_in_slider

    Parse the goal. For example "place_in_slider", the goal is to place a block into the slider

  78. [86]

    lift_block_table

    Think about the possible effects achieved by previous tasks and the previous actions that have been performed. For "lift_block_table", a block is lifted from the table and the effect is that the block is lifted. For "lift_block_drawer", a block is lifted from the drawer and th...

  79. [87]

    place_in_slider

    Parse the demonstrations and choose the combination of primitives for the current task. The demonstrations are noisy so that the demonstrated primitive sequences may include extra primitive actions that are not necessary for the current task at the beginning or end. The extra ...

  80. [88]

    place_in_slider

    Think about the preconditions. Also specify the types of all relevant objects in the preconditions. 4a. In this case, previous tasks are relevant to the current task. We should think about the effects of the previous tasks. For "place_in_slider", the effects of previous tasks ...

  81. [89]

    place_in_slider

    Think about the effects. For "place_in_slider", the effects are that the block is in the slider and the block is not lifted

  82. [90]

    **Additional Instructions: **

    Write down the mechanism in the format of the example. **Additional Instructions: **

  83. [91]

    mechanism

    Make sure the generated lifted description starts with <code name="mechanism"> and ends with </code>

  84. [92]

    You can only use the predicates listed above

    Please do not invent any new predicates for the precondition and effect. You can only use the predicates listed above

  85. [93]

    For example, a robot arm can not go through a closed door

    Consider the physical constraints of the objects. For example, a robot arm can not go through a closed door

  86. [94]

    primitive_sequence

    For each parameter in :parameters, you should use one of the predicates for specifying the type of the object to indicate its type (e.g., is-drawer, is-block, and etc). Listing 6: Example Prompt for CALVIN–Task Input. **Current Task: ** place_in_drawer **Example Sequences: ** ...

  87. [95]

    lift_red_block_table

  88. [96]

    lift_red_block_slider

  89. [97]

    lift_red_block_drawer

  90. [98]

    lift_blue_block_table

  91. [99]

    lift_blue_block_slider

  92. [100]

    lift_blue_block_drawer

  93. [101]

    lift_pink_block_table

  94. [102]

    lift_pink_block_slider

  95. [103]

    lift_pink_block_drawer

  96. [104]

    rotate_red_block_right

  97. [105]

    rotate_red_block_left

  98. [106]

    rotate_blue_block_right

  99. [107]

    rotate_blue_block_left

  100. [108]

    rotate_pink_block_right

  101. [109]

    rotate_pink_block_left

  102. [110]

    push_red_block_right

  103. [111]

    push_blue_block_right

  104. [112]

    push_blue_block_left

  105. [113]

    push_pink_block_right

  106. [114]

    push_pink_block_left

  107. [115]

    Group the predicates into unary predicates that define the states of objects and binary relations that specify relations between two objects

    turn_off_led Before writing the operators, define the predicates that should be used to write the preconditions and effects of the operators. Group the predicates into unary predicates that define the states of objects and binary relations that specify relations between two ob...

  108. [117]

    Think Step-by-Step. Goal predicate: {Based on the given task} Current symbolic state: {Based on the simulator state} Executed actions: {Based on the previously executed actions} Listing 9: Initial Prompt for Robot-VILA. You are highly skilled in robotic task planning, breaking...

  109. [118]

    Place the list between ‘‘‘python and ends with ‘‘‘

    Make sure the generated plan is a list of actions. Place the list between ‘‘‘python and ends with ‘‘‘

  110. [119]

    Think Step-by-Step. 37

Pith tools

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