Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Grounding Language Models with Semantic Digital Twins for Robotic Planning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Semantic Digital Twin that encodes object-action rules grounds an LLM planner, and the paper reports successful completion of all 14 selected ALFRED household tasks.

desk verdict A plausible LLM+SDT planning architecture undermined by an evaluation that cannot support its reliability claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16493 v1 pith:ITJBGY32 submitted 2025-06-19 cs.RO cs.AI

Mehreen Naeem , Andrew Melnik , Michael Beetz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords SemanticDigitalTwinLargeLanguageModelsrobotictaskplanningactiontripletsfailurerecoveryaffordancegroundingALFREDbenchmarkhouseholdrobots
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 claims that coupling a large language model to a hand-authored Semantic Digital Twin—a structured inventory of what each object is, what can be done to it, and under which conditions—lets a simulated household robot turn natural-language instructions into sequences of action triplets, and then repair its own plan when an action fails. On a curated subset of 14 ALFRED tasks, every task is completed once triplet prediction, a context-aware failure resolver, and a replanner work together. The point of the claim is that affordance knowledge does not have to be relearned or queried externally at run time; it can be pre-encoded in rules that both ground the plan and filter plausible recovery actions. If this works generally, it gives a recipe for making LLM-driven robots more interpretable and more resilient to execution errors without retraining.

What carries the argument

The Semantic Digital Twin (SDT) is the central object: a structured set of rules and interaction properties describing each object's affordances and the consequences of actions, such as a bottle being Pickupable, Fillable, or Breakable, plus textual descriptions that ground the LLM's reasoning. The Action Search Graph is the companion mechanism: it takes the set of objects and possible actions, filters actions through a condition function $C_a(O,a)$ that returns true only when action $a$ is valid for object $O$, and sends the resulting action pairs to both adaptive memory (to avoid repeating failed attempts) and the LLM query generator. Together, these components let the planner interpret object affordances, select the right objects for each triplet, and generate recovery actions after failures.

What would settle it

Run the same planner on the ALFRED valid-unseen or test splits, or on tasks from the omitted categories, with the SDT rules frozen; if success drops sharply or the failure resolver keeps proposing actions that violate the simulation's physics, the claim that SDT grounding yields reliable task completion would be undermined. A second check: replace the SDT rule set with randomly permuted action-property annotations and see whether planning degrades; if it does not, the SDT rules are not the load-bearing component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a Semantic Digital Twin built from object descriptions, interaction rules, and action properties provides enough grounding for an LLM-based planner to decompose a task into action triplets of the form (HighLevelAction, Object1, Object2), select contextually appropriate objects during execution, and recover from failures using an Action Search Graph plus adaptive memory. The paper reports 14/14 task success on its selected ALFRED subset, with failures during initial attempts resolved in one to four iterations. The failures addressed include missing visual grounding (trying to interact with an invisible or absent object) and incorrect object selection (choosing the wrong drawer or the wrong container), which the failure resolver corrects by filtering the available action set with a condition function and querying the LLM for a context-aware alternative.

Load-bearing premise

The hand-written SDT rules were produced from the behavior of objects in the same simulator used for evaluation, and the 14 selected tasks were chosen as enactable by the agent, so the framework's success could reflect rules and tasks tuned to known simulator behavior rather than generalizable grounding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, an LLM planner can avoid run-time external affordance mapping or retraining, since the SDT supplies the object-action rules directly.
  • Failure recovery becomes a filtered search over action pairs, constrained by object semantics and past attempts via adaptive memory, which should reduce repeated mistakes.
  • The plan is iteratively revisable: after executing all triplets, the replanner compares the current state with the goal state and appends corrective triplets, so incomplete task execution can be patched rather than restarted.
  • The reported success across tasks with altered ground truth (dirty objects, closed containers, invisible objects) suggests the framework handles perceptual and selection errors, not just motion failures.
  • The structured triplets and SDT rules make the planner's decisions more interpretable, since each action is explicitly tied to an object and an affordance rule.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The evaluation's 14-task, valid-seen subset is too small to separate the SDT's contribution from the LLM's built-in commonsense knowledge; a natural testable extension is to ablate the SDT rules or scramble their property annotations and measure the success drop on unseen task variations.
  • Because the SDT rules are written from ai2thor object behaviors, the framework's transfer to real robots would depend on re-authoring rules for new embodiments and physics; a strong stress test would be porting the frozen rules to a different simulator or to a physical robot without modification.
  • The action-triplet vocabulary closely mirrors ALFRED's low-level action API, so part of the reported reliability may come from aligning LLM output to a small closed set of action names; an open-vocabulary object reference test would probe how much of the grounding is genuinely semantic versus syntactic.
  • If the SDT rules are the load-bearing component, then maintaining them for new objects, new tasks, and new environments becomes the main cost of deploying this approach, suggesting that automatic rule induction from observation could be a key next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework that combines Semantic Digital Twins (SDTs) with large language models (LLMs) for robotic task planning in household environments. Natural-language instructions are decomposed into structured action triplets, which are grounded in SDT-supplied object-action rules and current environment state. A context-aware Failure Resolver and a Replanner module handle execution errors and unmet goal conditions. The authors evaluate on 14 tasks from the ALFRED benchmark built on ai2thor, reporting that all tasks were completed successfully, with several tasks requiring failure-resolution or replanning iterations.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the work would be a useful demonstration of how hand-authored semantic object-action knowledge can constrain and repair LLM-generated plans in embodied simulators. The action-triplet representation and the integration of an action-search graph with adaptive memory are reasonable design choices. However, the paper's significance is currently limited by an evaluation that is too narrow to establish the claimed robustness: there are no baselines, no standard ALFRED metrics, no error bars, and no held-out generalization test. The paper also does not ship code or data, so the results are not independently reproducible from the manuscript alone.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Table I] The central claim of "reliable task completion" rests entirely on 14 hand-picked tasks from the valid-seen split, all reported as successful. There are no baselines (e.g., SayPlan, REFLECT, LoTa-Bench, or an LLM-only planner), no standard ALFRED metrics (SR, PLWS), no error bars, and no ablations of the SDT rules, Failure Resolver, or Replanner components. As a result, the abstract's claim of "robust performance across various household scenarios" is not supported by the evidence presented.
  2. [Section III-B and Appendix Figures 7-9] The Action Interpretation Engine and Failure Resolver are described as operating on the "current state SDT of the environment," and the appendix shows recovery actions containing exact simulator coordinates (e.g., PickupObject, WineBottle at |-01.38|+00.76|+02.20). The evaluation therefore uses privileged ground-truth object state rather than egocentric perception. Section IV confirms that failure conditions are generated by altering the environment's ground truth, so the tested "uncertainty" is injected state perturbation, not perception noise, partial observability, or novel-scene generalization. This mismatch makes the abstract's claim about handling "uncertainty and failure" overreaching relative to what the experiments demonstrate.
  3. [Section IV and Section V] The SDT rules are generated "from the behavior of each type of object that appears in ai2thor," and the evaluation is run in that same simulator on a subset of tasks described as "enactable by an agent" from the valid-seen split. This creates a generalization risk: the knowledge base is effectively fitted to the test environment, and the selected tasks may be the easiest rather than a representative sample. No held-out scenes, novel object types, unseen task distributions, or cross-environment transfer are tested. The paper should either provide such an evaluation or substantially temper the generalization claims.
  4. [Section V, Figure 4] Figure 4 is claimed to compare subgoal success rates across three setups (planner alone, planner with Failure Resolver, and planner with Failure Resolver plus Replanner), but no numerical results are reported and the figure is not described in the text. Without quantitative values, the reader cannot assess the relative contribution of each component, which is essential for evaluating the framework's core design.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] There are frequent grammatical errors and awkward phrasings, e.g., "Various approaches have been used to SDTs with LLM agent" and "to enable facilitate large-scale task planning," which should be corrected throughout.
  2. [Section III-B] The notation Triplets(HighLevelAction, Object1, Object2) is used, but many triplets in the appendix contain a third element of 0 with no explanation; the semantics of the tuple should be defined precisely, including what a zero entry means.
  3. [Section IV] The task-selection procedure is underspecified: the paper says tasks were selected from Clean&Place, Heat&Place, and Cool&Place because they are "more challenging," but no criteria or filtering steps are given, and no ALFRED task IDs are provided in Table I, making reproduction difficult.
  4. [Section V] The definition of "Replanner iteration" is given only in prose; it should be formalized or at least stated exactly how a replanning step is counted, especially since some rows report values of 2 while others report 0.
  5. [General] The paper does not state which LLM was used, the prompt format, the temperature or decoding settings, or the number of runs; these details are necessary for reproducibility and for interpreting the failure and success counts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the empirical evaluation is narrow and oracle-based, but success is not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a pipeline: LLM prompt -> action triplets -> parameter grounding via the Semantic Digital Twin -> Action Search Graph -> Failure Resolver. Equation (1) is a definition of a filtered action set, not a derived equivalence, so no formal step reduces to its own input. The SDT rules are hand-authored from simulator behavior ('The SDT is generated from the behavior of each type of object that appears in ai2thor'; 'These rules are explicitly designed to reflect the capabilities and constraints of specific robot agents and simulation environments'), and evaluation runs in the same simulator with ground-truth object coordinates (Figure 7: PickupObject, WineBottle | -01.38|+00.76|+02.20). This is a real generalization and robustness limitation on the abstract claim of 'reliable task completion in the face of uncertainty and failure': the setup uses oracle state rather than perception and a self-selected 14-task valid-seen subset. However, that is an external-validity concern, not circularity: the LLM outputs can fail (Table I reports failure cases and replanning iterations), so success is not guaranteed by construction, and no quantity is fitted to the test set and then renamed as a prediction. The paper contains several self-citations (e.g., [15], [16], [17], [19], [21], [27]), but none carries the load of the mechanism or the evaluation; the framework and its rules are described and demonstrated in the paper itself. Per the stated criteria, there is no exhibited reduction of a claimed result to its inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

No numeric free parameters were identified; the hand-written SDT rules are knowledge engineering choices rather than fitted scalars, and the paper reports no numerical fitting. No new physical or formal entities are postulated; components such as the Action Search Graph and Adaptive Memory are software modules, not invented entities with independent evidence requirements.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The hand-authored SDT rules and object-action properties accurately model the simulator's dynamics for all evaluated tasks.
    Section IV states the SDT is generated from the behavior of each object type in ai2thor; if these rules are incomplete or wrong, the planner and failure resolver will fail, so the entire evaluation depends on this premise.
  • domain assumption The 14-task subset is representative of the difficulty of the ALFRED valid-seen split.
    Section V says the authors selected a subset 'enactable by an agent' without giving selection criteria; the claim of robust performance assumes this subset is not unusually easy.
  • domain assumption The LLM used in the planner has sufficient commonsense and instruction-following ability to generate valid triplets and recovery actions from the provided prompts.
    Section III-B relies on the LLM to predict triplets and resolve parameters; no model name, version, or prompts are given.
  • standard math Standard set theory (set comprehension and boolean conditions) is used to define the Action Search Graph.
    Equation (1) filters actions by a condition function; this is a standard mathematical construction and not an issue.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Grounding Language Models with Semantic Digital Twins for Robotic Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITJBGY32

@misc{pith2026250616493,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Grounding Language Models with Semantic Digital Twins for Robotic Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITJBGY32}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16493}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel framework that integrates Semantic Digital Twins (SDTs) with Large Language Models (LLMs) to enable adaptive and goal-driven robotic task execution in dynamic environments. The system decomposes natural language instructions into structured action triplets, which are grounded in contextual environmental data provided by the SDT. This semantic grounding allows the robot to interpret object affordances and interaction rules, enabling action planning and real-time adaptability. In case of execution failures, the LLM utilizes error feedback and SDT insights to generate recovery strategies and iteratively revise the action plan. We evaluate our approach using tasks from the ALFRED benchmark, demonstrating robust performance across various household scenarios. The proposed framework effectively combines high-level reasoning with semantic environment understanding, achieving reliable task completion in the face of uncertainty and failure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16493 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LLM-based task planning with a Semantic Digital Twin. The SDT provides real-time context, enabling the LLM to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the Context-Aware Failure Resolver system: SDT Object descriptions are processed with a condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Semantic Digital Twin based on “Rules and Interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Action-Triplets Prompting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of Failure Query [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Robot fails to locate bottle in a Fridge(top-left) then it locate the bottle (top-right) after Failure resolver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Robot tries to put knife in a drawer. TASK : Place a rinsed knife inside a drawer. Robot tries to put a Knife in a small-size drawer with the action (PutObject,Drawer|-00.05|+00.38|-01.32) but encounter a Error: “No valid positions to place object found.” Failure Resol…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Tasks, along with their predicted triplets and summary of actions, leads to success after failure resolver and replanner. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Objects contextual interactions properties from ai2Thor https://ai2thor.allenai.org/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Objects actionable properties from ai2Thor https://ai2thor.allenai.org/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Survey on Evaluating Quality and Trustworthiness in LLM-Generated Data

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A metric-oriented survey that classifies intrinsic quality and trustworthiness metrics for LLM-generated data across six modalities and documents systematic evaluation gaps in the current literature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    LLM-mediated Dynamic Plan Generation with a Multi-Agent Approach

    Reo Abe, Akifumi Ito, Kanata Takayasu, and Satoshi Kurihara. Llm-mediated dynamic plan generation with a multi-agent approach, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2504.01637

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Cognitive planning for object goal navigation using gen- erative ai models

    PS Arjun, Andrew Melnik, and Gora Chand Nandi. Cognitive planning for object goal navigation using gen- erative ai models. In NeurIPS 2024 Workshop on Open- World Agents

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Conceptual mod- eling for a simulation-based digital twin in human-robot collaboration

    Alessio Baratta, Antonio Cimino, Lucia Gazzaneo, Letizia Nicoletti, and Vittorio Solina. Conceptual mod- eling for a simulation-based digital twin in human-robot collaboration. Procedia Computer Science , 253:3247– 3256, 01 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2025.02.049

    work page doi:10.1016/j.procs.2025.02.049 2025

  4. [4]

    Ground- ing llms for robot task planning using closed-loop state feedback, 2024

    Vineet Bhat, Ali Umut Kaypak, Prashanth Krishna- murthy, Ramesh Karri, and Farshad Khorrami. Ground- ing llms for robot task planning using closed-loop state feedback, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08546

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Autogpt+p: Affordance-based task plan- ning using large language models

    Timo Birr, Christoph Pohl, Abdelrahman Younes, and Tamim Asfour. Autogpt+p: Affordance-based task plan- ning using large language models. In Robotics: Science and Systems XX , RSS2024. Robotics: Science and Sys- tems Foundation, July 2024. doi: 10.15607/rss.2024.xx

    doi:10.15607/rss.2024.xx 2024

  6. [6]

    G3flow: Generative 3d semantic flow for pose-aware and general- izable object manipulation, 2025

    Tianxing Chen, Yao Mu, Zhixuan Liang, Zanxin Chen, Shijia Peng, Qiangyu Chen, Mingkun Xu, Ruizhen Hu, Hongyuan Zhang, Xuelong Li, and Ping Luo. G3flow: Generative 3d semantic flow for pose-aware and general- izable object manipulation, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2411.18369

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Lota-bench: Benchmarking language-oriented task planners for embodied agents,

    Jae-Woo Choi, Youngwoo Yoon, Hyobin Ong, Jaehong Kim, and Minsu Jang. Lota-bench: Benchmarking language-oriented task planners for embodied agents,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi S. M. Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, Wenlong Huang, Yevgen Chebotar, Pierre Sermanet, Daniel Duckworth, Sergey Levine, Vincent Vanhoucke, Karol Hausman, Marc Toussaint, Klaus Greff, Andy Zeng, Igor Mordatch, and Pete Florence. Palm-e: An embodied ...

    arXiv 2023

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Tenenbaum, Antonio Torralba, Florian Shkurti, and Liam Paull

    Qiao Gu, Alihusein Kuwajerwala, Sacha Morin, Kr- ishna Murthy Jatavallabhula, Bipasha Sen, Aditya Agarwal, Corban Rivera, William Paul, Kirsty Ellis, Rama Chellappa, Chuang Gan, Celso Miguel de Melo, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Antonio Torralba, Florian Shkurti, and Liam Paull. Conce...

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Instruct2act: Mapping multi-modality instructions to robotic actions with large language model, 2023

    Siyuan Huang, Zhengkai Jiang, Hao Dong, Yu Qiao, Peng Gao, and Hongsheng Li. Instruct2act: Mapping multi-modality instructions to robotic actions with large language model, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305. 11176

    2023

  3. [11]

    Shyam Sundar Kannan, Vishnunandan L. N. Venkatesh, and Byung-Cheol Min. Smart-llm: Smart multi-agent robot task planning using large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10062

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Safety aware task planning via large language models in robotics, 2025

    Azal Ahmad Khan, Michael Andrev, Muhammad Ali Murtaza, Sergio Aguilera, Rui Zhang, Jie Ding, Seth Hutchinson, and Ali Anwar. Safety aware task planning via large language models in robotics, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15707

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Delta: Decomposed effi- cient long-term robot task planning using large language models, 2025

    Yuchen Liu, Luigi Palmieri, Sebastian Koch, Ilche Georgievski, and Marco Aiello. Delta: Decomposed effi- cient long-term robot task planning using large language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03275

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Reflect: Sum- marizing robot experiences for failure explanation and correction, 2023

    Zeyi Liu, Arpit Bahety, and Shuran Song. Reflect: Sum- marizing robot experiences for failure explanation and correction, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15724

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Uniteam: Open vocabulary mobile manipulation challenge

    Andrew Melnik, Michael B ¨uttner, Leon Harz, Lyon Brown, Gora Chand Nandi, Arjun PS, Gaurav Kumar Yadav, Rahul Kala, and Robert Haschke. Uniteam: Open vocabulary mobile manipulation challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08611, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Digital twin generation from visual data: A survey

    Andrew Melnik, Benjamin Alt, Giang Nguyen, Artur Wilkowski, Qirui Wu, Sinan Harms, Helge Rhodin, Manolis Savva, Michael Beetz, et al. Digital twin generation from visual data: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13159, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Natural language as policies: Reasoning for coordinate-level embodied control with llms

    Yusuke Mikami, Andrew Melnik, Jun Miura, and Ville Hautam¨aki. Natural language as policies: Reasoning for coordinate-level embodied control with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13801, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Pivot: Iterative visual prompting elicits actionable knowledge for vlms, 2024

    Soroush Nasiriany, Fei Xia, Wenhao Yu, Ted Xiao, Jacky Liang, Ishita Dasgupta, Annie Xie, Danny Driess, Ayzaan Wahid, Zhuo Xu, Quan Vuong, Tingnan Zhang, Tsang-Wei Edward Lee, Kuang-Huei Lee, Peng Xu, Sean Kirmani, Yuke Zhu, Andy Zeng, Karol Hausman, Nicolas Heess, Chelsea Fin...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Splatr: Experience goal visual rearrangement with 3d gaussian splatting and dense feature matching

    Arjun PS, Andrew Melnik, and Gora Chand Nandi. Splatr: Experience goal visual rearrangement with 3d gaussian splatting and dense feature matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14322, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable robot task planning, 2023

    Krishan Rana, Jesse Haviland, Sourav Garg, Jad Abou- Chakra, Ian Reid, and Niko Suenderhauf. Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable robot task planning, 2023. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2307.06135

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Contrastive language, action, and state pre-training for robot learning

    Krishan Rana, Andrew Melnik, and Niko S ¨underhauf. Contrastive language, action, and state pre-training for robot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10782 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks,

    Mohit Shridhar, Jesse Thomason, Daniel Gordon, Yonatan Bisk, Winson Han, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Dieter Fox. Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks,

  15. [23]

    Re- plan: Robotic replanning with perception and language models, 2024

    Marta Skreta, Zihan Zhou, Jia Lin Yuan, Kourosh Darvish, Al ´an Aspuru-Guzik, and Animesh Garg. Re- plan: Robotic replanning with perception and language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.04157

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Robogen: Towards un- leashing infinite data for automated robot learning via generative simulation, 2024

    Yufei Wang, Zhou Xian, Feng Chen, Tsun-Hsuan Wang, Yian Wang, Katerina Fragkiadaki, Zackory Erickson, David Held, and Chuang Gan. Robogen: Towards un- leashing infinite data for automated robot learning via generative simulation, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2311.01455

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A human-like reasoning framework for multi-phases planning task with large language models, 2024

    Chengxing Xie and Difan Zou. A human-like reasoning framework for multi-phases planning task with large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405. 18208

    2024

  18. [26]

    Lidar-llm: Exploring the potential of large language models for 3d lidar under- standing, 2023

    Senqiao Yang, Jiaming Liu, Ray Zhang, Mingjie Pan, Zoey Guo, Xiaoqi Li, Zehui Chen, Peng Gao, Yandong Guo, and Shanghang Zhang. Lidar-llm: Exploring the potential of large language models for 3d lidar under- standing, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14074

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Towards open-world mobile manipulation in homes: Lessons from the neurips 2023 homerobot open vocabulary mobile manipulation challenge

    Sriram Yenamandra, Arun Ramachandran, Mukul Khanna, Karmesh Yadav, Jay Vakil, Andrew Melnik, Michael B ¨uttner, Leon Harz, Lyon Brown, Gora Chand Nandi, et al. Towards open-world mobile manipulation in homes: Lessons from the neurips 2023 homerobot open vocabulary mobile manip...

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Target object not found within the specified visibility

    Fanlong Zeng, Wensheng Gan, Yongheng Wang, Ning Liu, and Philip S. Yu. Large language models for robotics: A survey, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311. 07226. APPENDIX Fig. 5: Action-Triplets Prompting Fig. 6: Example of Failure Query Fig. 7: Robot fails to locate bottle in...

    2023

  21. [112]

    URL http://dx.doi.org/10.15607/RSS.2024.XX.112

    2024 doi

  22. [2020]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.01734

    1912 arXiv

  23. [2024]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08178

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.