ASMR: Augmenting Life Scenario using Large Generative Models for Robotic Action Reflection

Angel Garcia Contreras; Koichiro Yoshino; Seiya Kawano; Shang-Chi Tsai; Yun-Nung Chen

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

ASMR: Augmenting Life Scenario using Large Generative Models for Robotic Action Reflection

T0 review · 4 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 This paper claims that synthetic scenario data—LLM-written dialogues plus diffusion-drawn room images—can replace real human-robot interaction samples when fine-tuning a vision-language model for robotic action selection, raising…

desk verdict Useful augmentation study with an unresolved leakage risk: the action-based pipeline's BLIP-Diffusion reference image is undisclosed, making the zero-shot claim uncheckable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13956 v1 pith:T7S6PDU6 submitted 2025-06-16 cs.CL cs.AIcs.RO

Shang-Chi Tsai , Seiya Kawano , Angel Garcia Contreras , Koichiro Yoshino , Yun-Nung Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.RO

keywords roboticactionselectionmultimodalclassificationdataaugmentationlargelanguagemodelsdiffusionvisualinstructiontuningambiguousrequestsDo-I-Demandbenchmark

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a robot's ability to infer the right life-support action from an ambiguous human request plus a camera view can be improved without collecting more real human-robot interaction data. It generates synthetic training material: a large language model writes plausible dialogues between human and robot, and diffusion models draw the room from the robot's perspective. Fine-tuning LLaVA on this synthetic data, with no real target-domain training samples, raises zero-shot accuracy on the Do-I-Demand benchmark from 34.8% to 47.8% (13B, utterance-plus-description setting). The claim matters because real interaction data is expensive and slow to collect, and this pipeline offers a scalable substitute.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-path data generation pipeline. Place-based augmentation prompts gpt-3.5 for ten ambiguous-request dialogues per location, while action-based augmentation prompts for dialogues that lead to one of 43 predefined robot actions, then BLIP-Diffusion generates an image from the environment description using a reference image from the real data collection, with 'room' as the constant subject. The resulting image-text pairs fine-tune LLaVA via LoRA, and at inference a sentence encoder matches LLaVA's free-form response to the action label.

What would settle it

Check which image from the real-world data collection was used as the BLIP-Diffusion reference and which partition it belongs to. If that image is in the Do-I-Demand test set, retraining without it should be run, and if accuracy drops to baseline, the augmentation's reported gains are not evidence of generalization. A second check is to generate action-based images without any reference image and compare accuracy, since the paper's ablation only swaps BLIP-Diffusion for SDXL rather than removing the conditioning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that action-tied synthetic dialogues, combined with diffusion-generated images conditioned on a reference room, transfer to real-world action selection. The paper reports that action-based augmentation generally beats place-based augmentation, and the two combined give the best results, with both LLaVA-7B and LLaVA-13B improving substantially over unmodified baselines. It also reports that replacing BLIP-Diffusion with SDXL hurts accuracy, indicating that the reference-image conditioning is doing real work.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the reference image used to condition BLIP-Diffusion is not taken from the evaluation portion of Do-I-Demand; if it is, the reported gains could be test-set leakage rather than generalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the pipeline works as reported, robot assistants can be adapted to new homes or action sets by generating scenario data instead of running thousands of human-robot interactions.
The combination of place-based and action-based augmentation outperforms either alone, so both diversity of locations and coverage of the action set matter.
The method's gains concentrate on labels that were at zero accuracy before augmentation, meaning the synthetic data helps the hardest action categories most.
Action-based augmentation is more effective than place-based augmentation, suggesting that action-specific data is the stronger training signal.
The ablation shows that reference-image conditioning contributes to the gain, so image realism and consistency matter beyond the text alone.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the reported 'zero-shot' accuracy is zero-shot only with respect to the target dataset; the generation pipeline still saw a reference image from that real-world collection, so a stricter test would withhold any real image from the generation pipeline entirely.
Beyond the paper, the benchmark has only 400 samples and 43 actions, so gains of roughly ten to fifteen points may shrink or vary on larger, more diverse datasets.
Beyond the paper, a testable extension is to run the same augmentation structure with an open-weight language model in place of gpt-3.5, which would show whether the benefit comes from the LLM's scale or from the augmentation structure itself.
Beyond the paper, the sentence-encoder matching step is a potential bottleneck; using a fixed output head over the 43 actions instead of cosine-similarity matching might change the measured benefit of augmentation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this is a straightforward, sensible extension: use GPT-3.5 to write ambiguous-request dialogues conditioned on either places or action labels, render the described rooms with SDXL or BLIP-Diffusion, and fine-tune LLaVA on the synthetic set alone. Within-paper, the augmentation helps consistently, and the bucket analysis shows the gains are concentrated on labels that were at zero. That is a real, useful finding for anyone facing small robot-interaction datasets.

Second, the stress-test concern lands. The action-based pipeline feeds BLIP-Diffusion a "reference image from our real-world data collection" and never says which image, how many, or whether it comes from the Do-I-Demand evaluation set. BLIP-Diffusion preserves the subject and visual style of that reference, so if the reference is an evaluation image, the generated training images inherit the same rooms, objects, and lighting as the test set. The authors include Do-I-Demand co-authors and no train/eval split is described, so this is not a paranoid reading. The paper's zero-shot generalization claim depends on the reference image being outside the evaluation partition. As written, that is uncheckable. This is the load-bearing soft spot.

The rest of the weaknesses are more ordinary. No error bars or significance tests on 400 samples. No comparison to prior published numbers on Do-I-Demand, so "state-of-the-art" is unsupported. No code or data release. The ablation swapping BLIP for SDXL is useful, but it also cannot separate the value of subject-preserving generation from the leakage concern. If the provenance is cleaned up, the method looks like a legitimate contribution; if not, the main gains could largely be test-set leakage.

I would send this to peer review, because the question is important and the fix is straightforward: disclose and verify the reference image partition, add confidence intervals, and compare against the published Do-I-Demand baselines. But I would not cite it as evidence for synthetic-data generalization until that is resolved. For a reading group, it is a good case study in how easy it is to leave a data-provenance hole in an augmentation pipeline.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ASMR, a data augmentation framework for robotic life-support action classification. It uses GPT-3.5 to generate human-robot dialogues in two modes (place-based and action-based) and diffusion models (SDXL and BLIP-Diffusion) to generate corresponding environmental images. LLaVA-7B/13B is fine-tuned with LoRA on the synthetic data and evaluated zero-shot on the Do-I-Demand benchmark (400 samples). Tables 1 through 3 report consistent accuracy gains from augmentation, with a best accuracy of 48.8%, and the bucket analysis in Section 4.5 shows improvements on labels that initially had zero accuracy. The paper claims that the approach achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Significance. If the reported gains are genuine, the framework would substantially reduce the cost of collecting real human-robot interaction data for intent-to-action mapping, and the within-paper evidence is encouraging: gains appear across two base model sizes, two response encoders, and two augmentation pathways, with ablations isolating the contribution of the BLIP-Diffusion image generator and a prompt-variation study. However, the central claim is not yet fully supported because the evaluation lacks statistical grounding, external comparisons, and a clear guarantee that the image-generation pipeline does not touch the evaluation partition. The paper also provides no code or data release, so the synthetic-data pipeline is not independently reproducible as reported.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2] The reference image used to condition BLIP-Diffusion is described only as 'a reference image from our real-world data collection,' with no identification of the image, the number of reference images, or the partition of Do-I-Demand from which it is drawn. Because BLIP-Diffusion preserves the subject and visual style of the reference, and because the paper never describes a train/evaluation split of the 400-sample benchmark, the gains in Table 1 (for example, 31.5 vs. 20.3 for LLaVA-13B utterance-only with SBERT) and the 6-point drop in Table 3 when BLIP is replaced by SDXL could partly reflect leakage of evaluation-domain images into the training set rather than the value of synthetic augmentation. Please disclose the reference-image provenance, ensure it is disjoint from the evaluation set, and report results with the reference image held out from both generation and evaluation.
[Section 4.1] The paper is inconsistent about whether any real Do-I-Demand training samples are used. Section 1 says training is 'supplemented with a small, real-world dataset,' while Section 4.1 states 'We fine-tune the base models using our augmentation dataset' and evaluates zero-shot accuracy on the evaluation dataset. Specify exactly which real data, if any, are used for fine-tuning, and describe how the 400 samples are divided into any training and evaluation subsets; otherwise the 'zero-shot' interpretation of the results cannot be assessed.
[Section 4.2 and Table 1] The claims of 'significant improvement' and 'state-of-the-art performance' are not supported by any statistical evidence or external comparison. The table reports single accuracies with no error bars, no number of seeds, no significance tests, and no comparison against previously published results on Do-I-Demand. Please add repeated-seed experiments with variance or confidence intervals and a comparison table that includes prior published results on this benchmark before claiming state-of-the-art performance.
[Section 3.1 and Section 4.3] No human or automatic quality check of the generated dialogues or images is reported, and the diverse-prompt experiment in Table 2 shows that some prompt variants decrease accuracy (for example, LLaVA-7B utterance-only drops from 30.3 to 23.3). A quality-filtering step or at least a small human evaluation of the generated data would strengthen the claim that the improvements come from realistic synthetic scenarios rather than from accidental distribution matching or from the specific prompt wording.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] The manuscript contains inconsistent typography, including 'LLaV A' with a space instead of 'LLaVA' and 'DO-I-DEMAND' versus 'Do-I-Demand'; please unify these.
[Section 4.1] The 'Description + Utterance' setting is described as combining the human request with 'a description of the environment, inferred from an image'; please clarify whether the actual image is also provided to LLaVA or only the text description, since this affects the interpretation of the multimodal claim.
[Section 4.5 and Figures 3-4] Please define the bucket construction precisely, including the number of labels per bucket and whether the buckets are computed from baseline or augmented-model predictions, and add y-axis labels to Figures 3 and 4.
[Abstract and Section 3] The phrase 'large-scale dataset' overstates the synthetic data size (10 places and 43 actions, each with ten dialogues, yields roughly 530 examples); consider a more neutral description.
[Section 3.2] The prompt templates for dialogue generation are given, but the image-generation prompts for both SDXL and BLIP-Diffusion are not; please include the exact image prompts for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular dependency: the augmentation pipeline's outputs are evaluated against an external benchmark, and no prediction reduces to its own input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that synthetic dialogues and diffusion-generated images improve LLaVA's zero-shot action classification on Do-I-Demand. The derivation chain is: (1) GPT-3.5 generates dialogues conditioned on either a place or one of 43 predefined action labels; (2) diffusion models generate images from text descriptions; (3) LLaVA is fine-tuned on these synthetic pairs; (4) zero-shot accuracy is measured on the real Do-I-Demand benchmark. The action labels used in action-based augmentation are the same category names used in evaluation, but this is standard label-conditioned data augmentation rather than a fitted prediction: the model must still learn to map ambiguous utterances and images to the correct action, and the reported accuracy is an externally defined metric, not a quantity reconstructed from the augmentation inputs. The paper also uses a 'reference image from our real-world data collection' to condition BLIP-Diffusion; if that image came from the evaluation partition, the results would be contaminated, but that is an evaluation-leakage risk, not a circularity in the derivation. The self-citations, including to the Do-I-Demand dataset whose authors overlap with the present paper, support the benchmark and related work but are not load-bearing for the central augmentation result. The reported gains over unmodified LLaVA baselines therefore have independent empirical content.

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

The central claim rests on the assumption that synthetic multimodal data faithfully approximates real human-robot interaction conditions, and on several hand-chosen experimental settings. None of these are fitted parameters in a derivation, but they are unverified conditions for transfer and generalization.

free parameters (3)

generated dialogues per source = 10
Each of 10 places and 43 actions yields 10 dialogues; no ablation over this count is reported, so performance may depend on the hand-chosen number.
fine-tuning epochs = 5
Fine-tuning runs for five epochs with no reported epoch sweep or early stopping criterion.
blip diffusion reference image = not specified
A reference image from the real-world data collection conditions generation in action-based augmentation; its partition (train or eval) is not stated, creating a potential leakage risk.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption GPT-3.5-generated dialogues capture the distribution of real ambiguous requests and reflected actions.
Section 3.1 assumes these synthetic conversations are realistic enough to transfer to Do-I-Demand; no human evaluation or filtering is performed.
domain assumption Diffusion-model images provide useful first-person visual context for the multimodal model.
Section 3.1 and 3.2 assume generated images match the robot-observation perspective; no image quality or distributional analysis is reported.
domain assumption Cosine similarity between sentence-encoder embeddings is a valid proxy for action-label matching.
Section 4.1 maps open-ended LLaVA outputs to the 43 labels by highest similarity; the validity of this mapping is not assessed against exact-match alternatives.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ASMR: Augmenting Life Scenario using Large Generative Models for Robotic Action Reflection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7S6PDU6

@misc{pith2026250613956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ASMR: Augmenting Life Scenario using Large Generative Models for Robotic Action Reflection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7S6PDU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13956}
}

read the original abstract

When designing robots to assist in everyday human activities, it is crucial to enhance user requests with visual cues from their surroundings for improved intent understanding. This process is defined as a multimodal classification task. However, gathering a large-scale dataset encompassing both visual and linguistic elements for model training is challenging and time-consuming. To address this issue, our paper introduces a novel framework focusing on data augmentation in robotic assistance scenarios, encompassing both dialogues and related environmental imagery. This approach involves leveraging a sophisticated large language model to simulate potential conversations and environmental contexts, followed by the use of a stable diffusion model to create images depicting these environments. The additionally generated data serves to refine the latest multimodal models, enabling them to more accurately determine appropriate actions in response to user interactions with the limited target data. Our experimental results, based on a dataset collected from real-world scenarios, demonstrate that our methodology significantly enhances the robot's action selection capabilities, achieving the state-of-the-art performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13956 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Example of two augmentation methods. When crafting prompts for gpt-3.5, we do not set constraints on the generated user requests or robot actions. This approach allows the language model to conjure a wide array of scenarios, helping the model to learn and adapt to a diverse range of potential situations. For the image generation via the diffusion model, we emphasize the first-person perspective in the prompt, mirror… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** performance of different buckets in utterance setting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: performance of different buckets in utterance+description setting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

ArXiv (2021)

Bommasani, R., Hudson, D.A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M.S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chat- terji, N.S., Chen, A.S., Creel, K.A., Davis, J., Demszky, D., Donahue, C., Doumbouya, M., Durmus, E., Ermon, S., Etchemendy, J., Ethayarajh, K., Fei-Fei, L., Finn, C....

work page 2021
[2]

Brohan, A., Brown, N., Carbajal, J., Chebotar, Y ., Chen, X., Choromanski, K., Ding, T., Driess, D., Dubey, A., Finn, C., Florence, P., Fu, C., Arenas, M.G., Gopalakrishnan, K., Han, K., Hausman, K., Herzog, A., Hsu, J., Ichter, B., Irpan, A., Joshi, N., Julian, R., Kalashnikov, D., Kuang, Y ., Leal, I., Lee, L., Lee, T.W.E., Levine, S., Lu, Y ., Michalew...

work page 2023
[3]

Brown, T.B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-V oss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D.M., Wu, J., Winter, C., Hesse, C., Chen, M., Sigler, E., Litwin, M., Gray, S., Chess, B., Clark, J., Berner, C., McCandlish, S., Radford, A...

work page 2020
[4]

SalesBot 2.0: A Human-Like Intent-Guided Chit-Chat Dataset

Chang, W.Y ., Chen, Y .N.: SalesBot 2.0: A human-like intent-guided chit-chat dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14266 (2023)

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[5]

Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H.W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., Schuh, P., Shi, K., Tsvyashchenko, S., Maynez, J., Rao, A., Barnes, P., Tay, Y ., Shazeer, N., Prabhakaran, V ., Reif, E., Du, N., Hutchinson, B., Pope, R., Bradbury, J., Austin, J., Isard, M., Gur-Ari, G., Yin, P., Duke, T., Levsk...

work page 2022
[6]

Chung, H.W., Hou, L., Longpre, S., Zoph, B., Tay, Y ., Fedus, W., Li, Y ., Wang, X., Dehghani, M., Brahma, S., Webson, A., Gu, S.S., Dai, Z., Suzgun, M., Chen, X., Chowdhery, A., Castro- Ros, A., Pellat, M., Robinson, K., Valter, D., Narang, S., Mishra, G., Yu, A., Zhao, V ., Huang, Y ., Dai, A., Yu, H., Petrov, S., Chi, E.H., Dean, J., Devlin, J., Robert...

work page 2022
[7]

Devlin, J., Chang, M.W., Lee, K., Toutanova, K.: Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional trans- formers for language understanding (2019)

work page 2019
[8]

Driess, D., Xia, F., Sajjadi, M.S.M., Lynch, C., Chowdhery, A., Ichter, B., Wahid, A., Tomp- son, J., Vuong, Q., Yu, T., Huang, W., Chebotar, Y ., Sermanet, P., Duckworth, D., Levine, S., Vanhoucke, V ., Hausman, K., Toussaint, M., Greff, K., Zeng, A., Mordatch, I., Florence, P.: Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 42 references

[9]

Minds and Ma- chines30, 681–694 (2020)

Floridi, L., Chiriatti, M.: GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Ma- chines30, 681–694 (2020)

2020
[10]

In: International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations (2021)

Hu, E.J., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y ., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W., et al.: LoRA: Low- rank adaptation of large language models. In: International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations (2021)

2021
[11]

In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pp

Huang, C.W., Hsu, C.Y ., Hsu, T.Y ., Li, C.A., Chen, Y .N.: CONVERSER: Few-shot conver- sational dense retrieval with synthetic data generation. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 381–387 (2023)

2023
[12]

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05289

Huang, C.W., Tsai, S.C., Chen, Y .N.: Plm-icd: Automatic icd coding with pretrained language models (2022). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05289

2022 arXiv
[13]

Huang, S., Dong, L., Wang, W., Hao, Y ., Singhal, S., Ma, S., Lv, T., Cui, L., Mohammed, O.K., Patra, B., Liu, Q., Aggarwal, K., Chi, Z., Bjorck, J., Chaudhary, V ., Som, S., Song, X., Wei, F.: Language is not all you need: Aligning perception with language models (2023)

2023
[14]

In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp

Kim, H., Hessel, J., Jiang, L., West, P., Lu, X., Yu, Y ., Zhou, P., Bras, R., Alikhani, M., Kim, G., Sap, M., Choi, Y .: SODA: Million-scale dialogue distillation with social commonsense contextualization. In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural...

2023
[15]

In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pp

Lai, C.M., Hsu, M.H., Huang, C.W., Chen, Y .N.: Controllable user dialogue act augmentation for dialogue state tracking. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 53–61 (2022)

2022
[16]

Li, D., Li, J., Hoi, S.C.H.: Blip-diffusion: Pre-trained subject representation for controllable text-to-image generation and editing (2023)

2023
[17]

Liu, H., Li, C., Wu, Q., Lee, Y .J.: Visual instruction tuning (2023)

2023
[18]

Liu, Y ., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Stoyanov, V .: Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach (2019)

2019
[19]

Mansimov, E., Parisotto, E., Ba, J.L., Salakhutdinov, R.: Generating images from captions with attention (2016)

2016
[20]

Nichol, A., Dhariwal, P., Ramesh, A., Shyam, P., Mishkin, P., McGrew, B., Sutskever, I., Chen, M.: Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models (2022)

2022
[21]

OpenAI: Gpt-4 technical report (2023)

2023
[22]

Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C.L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agar- wal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller, L., Simens, M., Askell, A., Welinder, P., Christiano, P., Leike, J., Lowe, R.: Training language models to fol...

2022
[23]

Peng, B., Li, C., He, P., Galley, M., Gao, J.: Instruction tuning with gpt-4 (2023)

2023
[24]

Peng, Z., Wang, W., Dong, L., Hao, Y ., Huang, S., Ma, S., Wei, F.: Kosmos-2: Grounding multimodal large language models to the world (2023)

2023
[25]

Podell, D., English, Z., Lacey, K., Blattmann, A., Dockhorn, T., M ¨uller, J., Penna, J., Rom- bach, R.: Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis (2023)

2023
[26]

Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y ., Li, W., Liu, P.J.: Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer (2023)

2023
[27]

Ramesh, A., Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A., Chu, C., Chen, M.: Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents (2022)

2022
[28]

Ramesh, A., Pavlov, M., Goh, G., Gray, S., V oss, C., Radford, A., Chen, M., Sutskever, I.: Zero-shot text-to-image generation (2021)

2021
[29]

Reed, S., Akata, Z., Yan, X., Logeswaran, L., Schiele, B., Lee, H.: Generative adversarial text to image synthesis (2016)

2016
[30]

Reimers, N., Gurevych, I.: Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks (2019)

2019
[31]

Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models (2022)

2022
[32]

Saharia, C., Chan, W., Saxena, S., Li, L., Whang, J., Denton, E., Ghasemipour, S.K.S., Ayan, B.K., Mahdavi, S.S., Lopes, R.G., Salimans, T., Ho, J., Fleet, D.J., Norouzi, M.: Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding (2022)

2022
[33]

IEEE Access12, 11,774–11,784 (2024)

Tanaka, S., Yamasaki, K., Yuguchi, A., Kawano, S., Nakamura, S., Yoshino, K.: Do as i de- mand, not as i say: A dataset for developing a reflective life-support robot. IEEE Access12, 11,774–11,784 (2024). DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3350174

2024
[34]

Tanaka, S., Yoshino, K., Sudoh, K., Nakamura, S.: Arta: Collection and classification of am- biguous requests and thoughtful actions (2021)

2021
[35]

Thoppilan, R., Freitas, D.D., Hall, J., Shazeer, N., Kulshreshtha, A., Cheng, H.T., Jin, A., Bos, T., Baker, L., Du, Y ., Li, Y ., Lee, H., Zheng, H.S., Ghafouri, A., Menegali, M., Huang, Y ., Krikun, M., Lepikhin, D., Qin, J., Chen, D., Xu, Y ., Chen, Z., Roberts, A., Bosma, ...

2022
[36]

Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y ., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., Bikel, D., Blecher, L., Ferrer, C.C., Chen, M., Cucurull, G., Es- iobu, D., Fernandes, J., Fu, J., Fu, W., Fuller, B., Gao, C., Goswami, V ., Goyal,...

2023
[37]

Tsai, S.C., Chen, Y .N.: Balancing knowledge delivery and emotional comfort in healthcare conversational systems. In: M.I. Torres, Y . Matsuda, Z. Callejas, A. del Pozo, L.F. D’Haro (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems Tech- nology, ...

2025
[38]

Yang, L., Zhang, Z., Song, Y ., Hong, S., Xu, R., Zhao, Y ., Zhang, W., Cui, B., Yang, M.H.: Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications (2023)

2023
[39]

Yu, J., Xu, Y ., Koh, J.Y ., Luong, T., Baid, G., Wang, Z., Vasudevan, V ., Ku, A., Yang, Y ., Ayan, B.K., Hutchinson, B., Han, W., Parekh, Z., Li, X., Zhang, H., Baldridge, J., Wu, Y .: Scaling autoregressive models for content-rich text-to-image generation (2022)

2022
[40]

Zhang, C., Zhang, C., Zhang, M., Kweon, I.S.: Text-to-image diffusion models in generative ai: A survey (2023)

2023
[41]

Zhang, T., Wang, Z., Huang, J., Tasnim, M.M., Shi, W.: A survey of diffusion based image generation models: Issues and their solutions (2023)

2023
[42]

Zhao, W.X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y ., Min, Y ., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., Du, Y ., Yang, C., Chen, Y ., Chen, Z., Jiang, J., Ren, R., Li, Y ., Tang, X., Liu, Z., Liu, P., Nie, J.Y ., Wen, J.R.: A survey of large language models (2023)

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

ArXiv (2021)

Bommasani, R., Hudson, D.A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M.S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chat- terji, N.S., Chen, A.S., Creel, K.A., Davis, J., Demszky, D., Donahue, C., Doumbouya, M., Durmus, E., Ermon, S., Etchemendy, J., Ethayarajh, K., Fei-Fei, L., Finn, C....

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Brohan, A., Brown, N., Carbajal, J., Chebotar, Y ., Chen, X., Choromanski, K., Ding, T., Driess, D., Dubey, A., Finn, C., Florence, P., Fu, C., Arenas, M.G., Gopalakrishnan, K., Han, K., Hausman, K., Herzog, A., Hsu, J., Ichter, B., Irpan, A., Joshi, N., Julian, R., Kalashnikov, D., Kuang, Y ., Leal, I., Lee, L., Lee, T.W.E., Levine, S., Lu, Y ., Michalew...

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Brown, T.B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-V oss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D.M., Wu, J., Winter, C., Hesse, C., Chen, M., Sigler, E., Litwin, M., Gray, S., Chess, B., Clark, J., Berner, C., McCandlish, S., Radford, A...

work page 2020

[4] [4]

SalesBot 2.0: A Human-Like Intent-Guided Chit-Chat Dataset

Chang, W.Y ., Chen, Y .N.: SalesBot 2.0: A human-like intent-guided chit-chat dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14266 (2023)

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H.W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., Schuh, P., Shi, K., Tsvyashchenko, S., Maynez, J., Rao, A., Barnes, P., Tay, Y ., Shazeer, N., Prabhakaran, V ., Reif, E., Du, N., Hutchinson, B., Pope, R., Bradbury, J., Austin, J., Isard, M., Gur-Ari, G., Yin, P., Duke, T., Levsk...

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Chung, H.W., Hou, L., Longpre, S., Zoph, B., Tay, Y ., Fedus, W., Li, Y ., Wang, X., Dehghani, M., Brahma, S., Webson, A., Gu, S.S., Dai, Z., Suzgun, M., Chen, X., Chowdhery, A., Castro- Ros, A., Pellat, M., Robinson, K., Valter, D., Narang, S., Mishra, G., Yu, A., Zhao, V ., Huang, Y ., Dai, A., Yu, H., Petrov, S., Chi, E.H., Dean, J., Devlin, J., Robert...

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Devlin, J., Chang, M.W., Lee, K., Toutanova, K.: Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional trans- formers for language understanding (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Driess, D., Xia, F., Sajjadi, M.S.M., Lynch, C., Chowdhery, A., Ichter, B., Wahid, A., Tomp- son, J., Vuong, Q., Yu, T., Huang, W., Chebotar, Y ., Sermanet, P., Duckworth, D., Levine, S., Vanhoucke, V ., Hausman, K., Toussaint, M., Greff, K., Zeng, A., Mordatch, I., Florence, P.: Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model (2023)

work page 2023