Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

IndoorWorld: Integrating Physical Task Solving and Social Simulation in A Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Environment

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 IndoorWorld claims that physical task solving and social simulation can be integrated in one world-state engine, and demonstrates the integration through office-task collaboration, resource competition, and spatial-layout experiments.

desk verdict Genuine environment contribution with a solid task-solving ablation, but the resource/layout claims rest on single unreplicated runs and need major revision before the architectural conclusions can be taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12331 v1 pith:ACUCOFJW submitted 2025-06-14 cs.MA cs.AI

Dekun Wu , Frederik Brudy , Bang Liu , Yi Wang This is my paper
classification cs.MAcs.AI
keywords multi-agentsystemsLLMagentssocialsimulationtasksolvingheterogeneousbuildingoccupantspatiallayoutresourcecompetition
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 introduces IndoorWorld, a multi-agent environment in which LLM-driven agents must solve physical office tasks while managing social interactions. The central claim is that the two can be tightly coupled: conversations change task progress and knowledge, while physical locations, objects, and state variables give social behavior a real referent. This coupling, the paper argues, supports agents that differ in role, action, capability, and knowledge, and it produces behavior that purely physical or purely social benchmarks miss. Experiments with an event-preparation benchmark, resource competition, and two office layouts show the environment responding to collaboration, scarcity, and spatial arrangement, setting up IndoorWorld as a candidate building-occupant simulator for architectural design.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an object-oriented world state, with agents, objects, and locations as stateful entities whose actions have preconditions and effects, wrapped in a five-module agent architecture (perception, memory, planning, action, task prioritization). Heterogeneity enters at four levels—profile, action space, capability, and knowledge—so the same world state yields different admissible actions and efficiencies across agents. Conversations are treated as actions anchored to a shared location, which is what physically grounds social behavior. The task-prioritization module is the third piece: it re-reminds agents of incomplete tasks and objects, counteracting LLM agents' tendency to switch tasks mid-way, and the paper shows that removing it degrades completion rates.

What would settle it

Run the two spatial-layout scenarios and compare the simulated agents' location-presence, movement, and unmet-need time series against measured activity data from two comparable real office layouts. If the layout that looks worse in simulation does not also shift real occupants' presence and well-being in the predicted direction, the occupant-simulation claim would be falsified even though the environment might still work as an LLM-agent benchmark.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a world-state engine can hold task solving and social simulation together without letting either collapse into the other. Every object, location, and agent carries explicit state variables; admissible actions are gated by role and capability; conversation is itself a location-bound action that updates internal state and task progress. The result is that agents negotiate labor division, request help for tasks beyond their strength, share passwords to book rooms, and compete for limited water and coffee, while their physiological needs decay and pull them toward resources. The paper interprets these dynamics as evidence that IndoorWorld is a testbed for heterogeneous LLM agents and a potential tool for studying occupant behavior in architectural design.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that LLM-driven behavior in this text-based office is a valid proxy for how real office occupants use space, so layout and resource differences in the simulation predict human behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The five-task event-preparation benchmark provides a reproducible setting for decentralized labor division, task prioritization, and coordination among heterogeneous LLM agents.
  • Resource competition experiments show that adding water dispensers or coffee machines shortens the time until all agents are hydrated, while adding agents lengthens it.
  • Spatial-layout experiments show that moving the same functional areas changes where agents spend time, how much they move, and how often their needs go unmet; Design 1 yielded more balanced area occupancy than Design 2.
  • Removing the task-prioritization module lowered task completion rates across Llama 3.3, Gemma 3, and GPT-4o, with the largest drops for the open-weights models.
  • Architect surveys rated multi-level heterogeneity as more realistic and important, with spatial-layout simulation rated especially helpful for understanding occupant behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test is to compare IndoorWorld's spatial-layout predictions against sensor or diary data from a real office; if simulated presence and movement match human traces, the architectural-design use case is substantially strengthened.
  • The role-gated action space is a generic pattern, so the same JSON-defined engine could be adapted to hospitals, labs, or classrooms where access rights and capacity constraints shape behavior.
  • The task-prioritization results suggest a testable hypothesis: weaker open-weights planners benefit most from external memory scaffolding, implying that structured progress reminders may be a broadly useful design for LLM multi-agent systems.
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 presents IndoorWorld, a text-based multi-agent environment for LLM-driven agents that integrates physical object manipulation with social interactions, using heterogeneous agents that differ in role, action space, capability, and knowledge. The environment supports task-solving sessions with hierarchical multi-step tasks and simulation sessions without explicit objectives. The authors evaluate three LLMs on a collaborative office-event benchmark with ablations of the task-prioritization and semantic-map/task-progress modules, run resource-competition and spatial-layout simulations, and collect surveys from 20 and 9 architects to support claims about heterogeneity realism and design relevance. The central claims are that IndoorWorld 'seamlessly integrates' physical task solving and social simulation and that it is a promising tool for LLM-based building occupant simulation for architectural design.

Significance. If the results hold, IndoorWorld is a genuinely useful testbed: it is one of the few environments that couples grounded object-state changes with free-form multi-agent dialogue, and the explicit multi-level heterogeneity (profile, action space, capability, knowledge) goes beyond the homogeneous action spaces common in task-solving benchmarks. The task-prioritization module is a simple, plausible mechanism for improving LLM task focus, and the ablation across three models suggests it helps, especially for open-source models. The architect surveys are a welcome attempt to ground design choices in professional practice. I found no circular reasoning: no parameters are fitted, and the task-prioritization module is an engineered addition evaluated by ablation. However, the central experimental demonstrations of resource competition and spatial layout currently rest on unreplicated simulations, and the task-solving results are reported without variance, so the strength of the current evidence is lower than the conclusions in Section 4.3 suggest.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, §4.3, Table 3, Figures 3–6] The resource-management and spatial-layout experiments report a single simulation per condition. Section 4.2 describes running 'simulation with different availability' without mentioning multiple seeds, Table 3 lists single scalar values for each cell, and Figures 3–6 show no error bars or per-run bands. The Limitations section acknowledges that LLM results fluctuate and explicitly states that three independent runs were conducted only 'for each task-solving experiment.' With temperature 0.6 and coupled multi-agent decisions, the observed differences (e.g., Design 2's pantry concentration or the hydration times in Table 3) could reflect run-to-run noise. The conclusions in Section 4.3 that 'spatial design significantly influences resource accessibility, social interactions, and agent efficiency and well-being' and that the simulation 'can effectively reflect the impact of different resource allocation strategies' therefore outrun the evidence. The authors should rerun each resource and layout condition multiple times and report distributions, per-run values, or error bars, and where possible a statistical comparison.
  2. [§4.1, Table 2, Limitations] Table 2 reports a single instance-level and attribute-level completion value per model and ablation condition, yet the Limitations state that three independent runs were conducted for every task-solving experiment. No variance, standard error, confidence intervals, or per-run values are given, so the reader cannot assess whether the reported differences (e.g., GPT-4o Full Model IS 79.3 vs. Full Model w/o TP 74.7, or Llama 3.3 Full Model IS 55.2 vs. 31.0) are larger than run-to-run variability. The qualitative examples in Section 4.3 are illustrative but not a substitute. Please report per-run results and dispersion measures, and supplement the qualitative examples with quantitative evidence that the task-prioritization gains are stable across runs.
  3. [§1, §4.3, Table 6] The architectural-design application rests on the assumption that LLM-generated agent behavior is a valid proxy for real office occupant behavior. The only supporting evidence is the architect surveys, and Table 6 shows that the surveyed architects are neutral on exactly this point: q5 (actionable insights from resource-competition simulation) has a mean of 3.1 and q8 (agent behavior reflects realistic office usage patterns) has a mean of 3.0. The paper should either temper the conclusion that IndoorWorld is a 'promising tool for architectural design' or add a validation component, such as a qualitative or quantitative comparison with real occupancy data, established occupant-behavior models, or prior occupant-simulation literature. Without such grounding, the architectural claim is an aspiration rather than a demonstrated result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2] The labels in Figure 2 are garbled (for example 'Design Showcase are Open area' and 'Pantr'); please regenerate the figure with clean labels.
  2. [Table 2] The header 'A VG' and the inconsistent row spacing make the table difficult to read; please use clear column labels for the five tasks, Average IS, and Average AS.
  3. [Table 3] The caption should clearly explain the triple notation (water drinkers / coffee drinkers / total hydration time) and what '1/1' and '2/2' mean; the current sentence about the 'second row' is confusing.
  4. [References] Several references are incomplete: 'Wang et al.' in the introduction and 'Miller' in the Limitations lack publication years, and some entries do not include full bibliographic details.
  5. [Appendix F] The appendix notes that the code examples are simplified and may not match the actual source. Since code is only promised after acceptance, please consider releasing a minimal runnable example or anonymized repository with the paper to support reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's contributions are an environment design, an ablation study, and external architect surveys; no predictive claim reduces to a fitted input or to a self-citation.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, IndoorWorld makes no fitted-parameter prediction and no formal derivation whose conclusion is equivalent to its inputs. The environment's capabilities are described directly (Section 3), and its experimental claims are evaluated by (i) task-completion ablations in Table 2, (ii) resource-competition and spatial-layout simulations whose outputs are observed agent traces (Section 4.2 and 4.3), and (iii) two independent human surveys of 20 and 9 architects (Appendices B and C). The task-prioritization module is an engineered component whose contribution is measured by removing it, not a parameter fitted to the outcome it later 'predicts'. The architect ratings are external human judgments, not results derived from the environment, so the architectural-design claims are not established by self-citation. The only self-references (e.g., the authors' prior mystery-game paper cited as related work) are not load-bearing for any central claim. The Limitations section candidly notes LLM-driven variability and reports three runs only for task-solving experiments; that is a reproducibility or statistical-evidence concern about the resource/layout conclusions, not a circularity of reasoning. Because no prediction, theorem, or fitted quantity is built from the data it claims to explain, the analysis finds no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on domain assumptions about LLM-to-human proxy validity and the completeness of hand-built environment definitions, not on fitted parameters or invented entities. No free parameters are fit to data; the environment's scenario settings (strength, needs, resource counts) are inputs, not fitted constants.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LLM-generated agent behavior in the text-based environment is a valid proxy for real building occupant behavior.
    Supports the architectural design implications in Section 4.3; validated only by subjective architect ratings, not by real occupancy data.
  • domain assumption The hand-defined object states, action preconditions, and JSON scenario configurations are complete and correct enough to model office physics and social constraints.
    The benchmark's validity depends on these environment definitions (Section 3.1, Appendix E); no formal verification or calibration is provided.
  • domain assumption The architect survey samples (20 and 9 participants) are representative and their Likert responses provide meaningful evidence of realism and usefulness.
    Used in Sections 3.2, 4.3, Appendices B and C to validate design choices and the platform's value; samples are small and recruited via UserTesting.com.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of IndoorWorld: Integrating Physical Task Solving and Social Simulation in A Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ACUCOFJW

@misc{pith2026250612331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: IndoorWorld: Integrating Physical Task Solving and Social Simulation in A Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ACUCOFJW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12331}
}
read the original abstract

Virtual environments are essential to AI agent research. Existing environments for LLM agent research typically focus on either physical task solving or social simulation, with the former oversimplifying agent individuality and social dynamics, and the latter lacking physical grounding of social behaviors. We introduce IndoorWorld, a heterogeneous multi-agent environment that tightly integrates physical and social dynamics. By introducing novel challenges for LLM-driven agents in orchestrating social dynamics to influence physical environments and anchoring social interactions within world states, IndoorWorld opens up possibilities of LLM-based building occupant simulation for architectural design. We demonstrate the potential with a series of experiments within an office setting to examine the impact of multi-agent collaboration, resource competition, and spatial layout on agent behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12331 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. INDOORWORLD system. (a) Agent architecture; (b) Example agent behaviors; (c) Example of heteroge￾neous agent profiles orate on tasks with complex hierarchy, involving self-regulated labor division, prioritization and co￾ordination, while satisfying physiological needs through environmental interactions. By incor￾porating fine-grained modeling of agent internal structure and decision-making process, INDOOR￾WORLD more… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Suboptimal State Distribution. designated workspaces, opting instead to work or engage in activities elsewhere [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Agent Presence Across Locations. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Time (minutes) Role-Related Movement Others Physiological Communication Design 1 Design 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Realism comparison (Homo.=homogeneity, Hetero.=heterogeneity). A majority consider heterogeneity more realistic than homogeneity at every level. Environment Profile Action Capability Knowledge D2A (Wang et al., 2024) ✓ ✗ ✗ – Humanoid Agents (Wang et al., 2023) ✓ ✗ ✗ – …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Importance ratings for understanding real space use (5-point scale). Most participants rate heterogeneity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Whether architects typically consider each heterogeneity type in their own work. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reasons given by those who answered “No” in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Excerpt from the JSON configuration file defining locations, agents, objects, and receptacles in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Illustration of the Computer class, defining interaction methods like power_on() and specifying admissible agent actions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Illustration of the Agent class, where act() maps commands to interaction methods like turn_on() [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Illustration of the ITAdmin class, where repair_computer() enables role-specific actions via command mapping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hongru Cai, Yongqi Li, Wenjie Wang, Fengbin Zhu, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.17236 Large language models empowered personalized web agents . Preprint, arXiv:2410.17236

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Hyungjoo Chae, Namyoung Kim, Kai Tzu iunn Ong, Minju Gwak, Gwanwoo Song, Jihoon Kim, Sunghwan Kim, Dongha Lee, and Jinyoung Yeo. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13232 Web agents with world models: Learning and leveraging environment dynamics in web navigation . Preprint, arXiv:2410.13232

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    DeepSeek-AI, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, Aixin Liu, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Bei Feng, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, Damai D...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Xiaohang Feng, Da Yan, and Tianzhen Hong. 2015. Simulation of occupancy in buildings. Energy and Buildings, 87:348--359

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Bear, Dan Gutfreund, David Cox, Antonio Torralba, James J

    Chuang Gan, Jeremy Schwartz, Seth Alter, Damian Mrowca, Martin Schrimpf, James Traer, Julian De Freitas, Jonas Kubilius, Abhishek Bhandwaldar, Nick Haber, Megumi Sano, Kuno Kim, Elias Wang, Michael Lingelbach, Aidan Curtis, Kevin Feigelis, Daniel M. Bear, Dan Gutfreund, David Cox, Antonio Torralba, James J. DiCarlo, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Josh H. McDermott,...

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Zhenyu Guan, Xiangyu Kong, Fangwei Zhong, and Yizhou Wang. 2025. Richelieu: Self-evolving llm-based agents for ai diplomacy. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:123471--123497

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jonathan Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, Chenyu Ran, Lingfeng Xiao, Chenglin Wu, and J \"u rgen Schmidhuber. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=VtmBAGCN7o Meta GPT : Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework . In The Twelfth ...

    2024

  8. [8]

    Zhang, Michael Luck, Qingwen Bu, Yuhao Qing, and Heming Cui

    Dong Huang, Jie M. Zhang, Michael Luck, Qingwen Bu, Yuhao Qing, and Heming Cui. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.13010 Agentcoder: Multi-agent-based code generation with iterative testing and optimisation . Preprint, arXiv:2312.13010

    arXiv 2024

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Yizhe Huang, Xingbo Wang, Hao Liu, Fanqi Kong, Aoyang Qin, Min Tang, Song-Chun Zhu, Mingjie Bi, Siyuan Qi, and Xue Feng. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03865 Adasociety: An adaptive environment with social structures for multi-agent decision-making . Preprint, arXiv:2411.03865

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bokyung Lee, Michael Lee, Jeremy Mogk, Rhys Goldstein, Jacobo Bibliowicz, Frederik Brudy, and Alexander Tessier. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462030 Designing a multi-agent occupant simulation system to support facility planning and analysis for covid-19 . In Proceed...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Sicong Leng, Yang Zhou, Mohammed Haroon Dupty, Wee Sun Lee, Sam Joyce, and Wei Lu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.820 T ell2 D esign: A dataset for language-guided floor plan generation . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa...

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Chengyuan Li, Tianyu Zhang, Xusheng Du, Ye Zhang, and Haoran Xie. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2024.10.001 Generative ai models for different steps in architectural design: A literature review . Frontiers of Architectural Research

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    Nian Li, Chen Gao, Mingyu Li, Yong Li, and Qingmin Liao. 2024. Econagent: large language model-empowered agents for simulating macroeconomic activities. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 15...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Yuanyuan Liu, Ying Zhou, Le Yang, and Yangpeng Xin. 2024. Simulating staff activities in healthcare environments: An empirical multi-agent modeling approach. Journal of Building Engineering

    2024

  7. [15]

    Pattie Maes. 1995. Artificial life meets entertainment: lifelike autonomous agents. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):108--114

    1995

  8. [16]

    George A. Miller. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Commun. ACM

  9. [17]

    Ahmed, Puneet Mathur, Seunghyun Yoon, Lina Yao, Branislav Kveton, Thien Huu Nguyen, Trung Bui, Tianyi Zhou, Ryan A

    Dang Nguyen, Jian Chen, Yu Wang, Gang Wu, Namyong Park, Zhengmian Hu, Hanjia Lyu, Junda Wu, Ryan Aponte, Yu Xia, Xintong Li, Jing Shi, Hongjie Chen, Viet Dac Lai, Zhouhang Xie, Sungchul Kim, Ruiyi Zhang, Tong Yu, Mehrab Tanjim, Nesreen K. Ahmed, Puneet Mathur, Seunghyun Yoon, ...

    2024

  10. [18]

    O'Brien, Carrie J

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O'Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2023. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In In the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '23), UIST '23...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Xavier Puig, Kevin Ra, Marko Boben, Jiaman Li, Tingwu Wang, Sanja Fidler, and Antonio Torralba. 2018. Virtualhome: Simulating household activities via programs. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8494--8502

    2018

  12. [20]

    Chen Qian, Wei Liu, Hongzhang Liu, Nuo Chen, Yufan Dang, Jiahao Li, Cheng Yang, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Xin Cong, Juyuan Xu, Dahai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07924 Chatdev: Communicative agents for software development . arXiv preprint a...

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Alexander Raistrick, Lingjie Mei, Karhan Kayan, David Yan, Yiming Zuo, Beining Han, Hongyu Wen, Meenal Parakh, Stamatis Alexandropoulos, Lahav Lipson, Zeyu Ma, and Jia Deng. 2024. Infinigen indoors: Photorealistic indoor scenes using procedural generation. In Proceedings of th...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Davide Schaumann, Simon Breslav, Rhys Goldstein, Azam Khan, and Yehuda E Kalay. 2017. Simulating use scenarios in hospitals using multi-agent narratives. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 10(5-6):636--652

    2017

  15. [23]

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2024. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  16. [24]

    Mohit Shridhar, Jesse Thomason, Daniel Gordon, Yonatan Bisk, Winson Han, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Dieter Fox. 2020 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.01734 ALFRED: A Benchmark for Interpreting Grounded Instructions for Everyday Tasks . In The IEEE Conference on Comp...

    2020 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre C\^ot\'e, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03768 ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Lea...

    2021 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Karen Liu, Silvio Savarese, Hyowon Gweon, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei

    Sanjana Srivastava, Chengshu Li, Michael Lingelbach, Roberto Martín-Martín, Fei Xia, Kent Vainio, Zheng Lian, Cem Gokmen, Shyamal Buch, C. Karen Liu, Silvio Savarese, Hyowon Gweon, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.03332 Behavior: Benchmark for everyd...

    2021 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Xiangru Tang, Anni Zou, Zhuosheng Zhang, Ziming Li, Yilun Zhao, Xingyao Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Mark Gerstein. 2024. M ed A gents: Large language models as collaborators for zero-shot medical reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pa...

    2024

  20. [29]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.11432 A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, Wayne Xin Zhao, Zhewei Wei, and Ji-Rong Wen. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.11432 A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents . Preprint, arXiv:2308.11432

    arXiv

  21. [30]

    Xiaoqiang Wang and Bang Liu. 2024. Oscar: Operating system control via state-aware reasoning and re-planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18963

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Yiding Wang, Yuxuan Chen, Fangwei Zhong, Long Ma, and Yizhou Wang. 2024. Simulating human-like daily activities with desire-driven autonomy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06435

    2024 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Zhilin Wang, Yu Ying Chiu, and Yu Cheung Chiu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-demo.15 Humanoid agents: Platform for simulating human-like generative agents . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonst...

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    Deciphering digital detectives: Understanding LLM behaviors and capabilities in multi-agent mystery games

    Dekun Wu, Haochen Shi, Zhiyuan Sun, and Bang Liu. Deciphering digital detectives: Understanding LLM behaviors and capabilities in multi-agent mystery games. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024

    2024

  25. [34]

    Yuzhuang Xu, Shuo Wang, Peng Li, Fuwen Luo, Xiaolong Wang, Weidong Liu, and Yang Liu. 2023. Exploring large language models for communication games: An empirical study on werewolf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.04658

    2023 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Da Yan, William O’Brien, Tianzhen Hong, Xiaohang Feng, H Burak Gunay, Farhang Tahmasebi, and Ardeshir Mahdavi. 2015. Occupant behavior modeling for building performance simulation: Current state and future challenges. Energy and buildings, 107:264--278

    2015

  27. [36]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2022. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629

    2022 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Xianhao Yu, Jiaqi Fu, Renjia Deng, and Wenjuan Han. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19267 Mineland: Simulating large-scale multi-agent interactions with limited multimodal senses and physical needs . Preprint, arXiv:2403.19267

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Hongxin Zhang, Weihua Du, Jiaming Shan, Qinhong Zhou, Yilun Du, Joshua B Tenenbaum, Tianmin Shu, and Chuang Gan. 2024. Building cooperative embodied agents modularly with large language models. ICLR

    2024

  30. [39]

    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...

  31. [40]

    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.