Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 34 references

FrankenBot: Brain-Morphic Modular Orchestration for Robotic Manipulation with Vision-Language Models

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 single VLM call can generate the executable plan, anomaly monitors, and recovery logic for a whole robotic brain.

desk verdict A useful integration of known VLM-robotics components with a one-call efficiency target, but the evidence is thinner than the claims and a couple of internal contradictions need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21627 v1 pith:WAF7HYDV submitted 2025-06-24 cs.RO cs.AI

Shiyi Wang , Wenbo Li , Yiteng Chen , Qingyao Wu , Huiping Zhuang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords roboticmanipulationvision-languagemodelsanomalyhandlingtaskplanninglong-termmemoryskilllibrarybrain-morphicarchitecturezero-shot
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 argues that a robotic manipulation system can run a complete set of brain-like functions—task planning, policy generation, anomaly detection and recovery, and long-term memory—using just one call to a vision-language model per task and no fine-tuning. The authors propose a modular architecture that maps these functions to analogues of the cortex, cerebellum, hippocampus, and brainstem, and decouples most of them from frequent VLM calls. They report 73% overall success across ten open-vocabulary real-world manipulation tasks, beating the two baselines tested, while keeping most executions to a single VLM interaction. If correct, this would show that a comprehensive robotic brain can be assembled from a pretrained VLM with negligible training cost and near-minimal cloud interaction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the one-shot generation of multi-threaded executable code by the VLM, parsed into two structures: a Hierarchical Execution Tree, a tree of nodes (atomic operations, conditional branches, jumps, exits) claimed to be Turing-complete, and a Multi-level Anomaly Handling scaffold with three tiers—predefined code monitors, a fine-tuned local language model for sequence reorganization, and cloud VLM replanning. A Hierarchical Incremental Memory Management module supplies skill descriptions and prior experience to the VLM prompt and grows an incremental skill pool under quality thresholds; the authors report it reduces generated code size by 41% and VLM calls by 27%.

What would settle it

Run the system on a novel task with a weaker VLM such as GPT-4V and count how many trials require a second VLM call or fail at the grammar-parsing stage; the paper's Table 5 already reports code-validity rates of 80–87%, implying roughly one in six or more generations can fail on the tested models, so a substantial share of extra calls or parse failures would falsify the single-call premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single VLM inference can generate the complete executable 'brain' for a manipulation task: a Hierarchical Execution Tree that decomposes the instruction, code for predefined anomaly monitors and handlers, interfaces to a local anomaly expert and VLM replanning, and a scheduler that runs anomaly detection on a separate thread while the control thread executes. After grammar parsing, this multi-threaded code lets task execution and anomaly monitoring run in parallel, so most tasks require only one VLM call. The authors report that this design reaches 73% overall success across ten open-vocabulary tasks on a real desktop setup without any training, and that the multi-level anomaly system recovers predictable anomalies in about 0.3 seconds versus about 11 seconds for full VLM replanning.

Load-bearing premise

A single VLM call must produce syntactically and logically correct multi-threaded executable code for any new task and scene; if that code is invalid or incomplete, the one-call design and its efficiency advantages collapse, and the paper's own model comparison shows validity varies with model choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A new manipulation task can be deployed by connecting a few low-level interfaces and issuing one VLM prompt, with no dataset collection or gradient training.
  • Common failures are handled with much lower latency: predictable anomalies are recovered in about 0.3 seconds rather than the 10–14 seconds of full replanning.
  • Repeated executions compile into memory: high-frequency functions are normalized and added to the skill pool, shrinking later VLM outputs and reducing calls.
  • End-to-end success tracks VLM quality; the method remains functional across models but gains substantially with newer, stronger VLMs (73% with o3 versus 63% with GPT-4V).
  • The 73% overall success exceeds the two tested baselines, especially on long-horizon tasks, suggesting the modular recovery and memory design transfers across task families.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the single-call code-generation premise holds broadly, the practical bottleneck shifts to the low-level perception and motion primitives the paper relies on; upgrading them should translate directly into higher success rates, as the paper itself notes.
  • The three-tier anomaly routing—cheap local monitors first, then small-model sequence repair, then costly replanning—is a transferable design for any embodied agent that pays high latency or cost per high-level model call.
  • The ten-task evaluation does not yet establish generalization far beyond the desktop setup; a direct stress-test would be to run the system in cluttered, multi-surface environments and record how often additional VLM calls become necessary.
  • A testable next step is to replace the low-level interfaces with a VLA policy while keeping the VLM as the one-call planner and anomaly manager, since the framework's modularity is built for such substitution.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FrankenBot, a VLM-driven robotic manipulation framework that aims to integrate task planning, policy generation, anomaly monitoring/handling, and long-term memory into a single orchestrated system. The central claim is that a single VLM call can generate multi-threaded executable code—a Hierarchical Execution Tree (HET) and Multi-level Anomaly Handling (MAH) logic—so that, in most cases, only one VLM interaction is needed per task, without any fine-tuning or retraining. The authors report a 73% overall success rate across ten real-world manipulation tasks, compare against VoxPoser and ReKep, conduct anomaly-handling experiments under an injected 5:3:2 distribution, present ablations of memory and skill modules, and provide an error breakdown.

Significance. If the central claims held, FrankenBot would be a notable demonstration that comprehensive robotic-brain functions can be orchestrated with near-minimal VLM interaction and no additional training. The paper has genuine strengths: real-robot deployment with a UR5e and RGB-D camera, comparison against two established baselines, an ablation study (Table 4), an error-source breakdown (Fig. 3), and an exploratory VLM choice study (Table 5). However, the evidence is thin in several load-bearing places: only 10 trials per task with no confidence intervals or statistical tests, a self-chosen anomaly injection distribution, an unfulfilled promise of simulation experiments, and an internal contradiction between the 'no fine-tuning' claim and the 'fine-tuned local anomaly expert' in Sec. 3.3/A.6. These issues directly affect the paper's main contributions as stated, rather than being merely cosmetic.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Table 5] The one-call premise is not established. The VLM comparison in Table 5 reports an 'Inference Validity Rate' of only 84% for the selected GPT-4.1 model and 87% for the best model (o3), meaning a substantial fraction of single-call generations are not valid. Section 3.2 describes only that raw VLM output 'is parsed by a grammar parser into HET and MAH' and gives no fallback, retry, or validation mechanism for parse failures or for valid-but-semantically-wrong code. The paper should report the frequency of first-attempt valid generation, describe and evaluate the recovery path, and show how the reported 1.1 average VLM calls relate to initial generation success versus corrective calls.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. 1, Sec. 3.3, Appendix A.6] There is a direct contradiction between the claim of 'no fine-tuning or retraining' (Abstract, Sec. 1, Sec. 3.1) and the system description in Sec. 3.3 and Appendix A.6, which states that the local anomaly expert is 'a fine-tuned small language model.' If the expert is fine-tuned as part of FrankenBot, the training-free claim is false; if it is pre-trained externally and used without further tuning, the system description is misleading. Either way, the central 'plug-and-play' contribution needs to be restated precisely and consistently, and the training status of the local expert must be resolved.
  3. [Abstract, Sec. 4] The abstract promises 'comprehensive experiments in both simulation and real-world robotic environments,' but Section 4 contains only real-world experiments. No simulation study, simulation results, or simulation section appears anywhere in the manuscript. The authors should either supply the simulation experiments or remove the simulation claim from the abstract and introduction.
  4. [Table 1] The success-rate comparison is statistically unsupported. Each task was run for only 10 trials, and Table 1 reports raw counts with no confidence intervals, variance, or significance tests. In several rows the differences are small (e.g., Block Picking 7/10 vs. 7/10 vs. 9/10; USB Plugging 1/10 vs. 2/10), and the text's assertion of 'significantly higher success rates' is not backed by any statistical analysis. The authors should provide per-task confidence intervals and appropriate tests (e.g., exact binomial or bootstrap) to support the claimed advantage.
  5. [Sec. 3.4, Table 4] The memory-efficiency claims in Sec. 3.4 are not reconciled with the ablation data. The text states that HIMM 'reduces generated code size by 41%, reduces VLM calls by 27%,' but Table 4 gives full-model code size 58 LOC versus 82 LOC without HMM (a 29% reduction) and VLM calls 1.1 versus 5.7 without HMM (an 81% reduction). The percentages and definitions should be made consistent, and the specific calculation behind the 41% and 27% figures should be shown.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Table 1 caption] The text contains inconsistent spelling of the baseline name: 'V oxPoser' appears in the Table 1 caption and in Sec. 4.1, whereas the correct name 'VoxPoser' is used elsewhere. Please make the spelling uniform.
  2. [Sec. 3.4] The abbreviation is introduced as HIMM (Hierarchical Incremental Memory Management), but Sec. 3.4 later refers to 'HIM reduces generated code size.' Please use the full acronym consistently.
  3. [Fig. 3] The pie chart percentages sum to approximately 117% (28.8 + 58.4 + 10.9 + 8.9 + 7.2 + 3.0), which is impossible for a distribution. Please verify the displayed values and the chart's normalization.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Table 3] The anomaly evaluation uses an injected 5:3:2 distribution while the natural distribution reported in Table 2 is roughly 70:20:10. The paper should clarify how the injected distribution was generated and discuss whether the reported per-class success rates would change if evaluated under the natural frequencies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the headline results are empirical robot evaluations, not derived from the framework's own definitions or fitted parameters.

full rationale

FrankenBot does not contain a mathematical derivation chain or a fitting loop whose output is renamed as a prediction. The central claims—73% success on ten real-world manipulation tasks, 1.1 average VLM calls, and the ablations in Table 4—are supported by physical robot executions and by measurements reported from the authors' own runs. These are external evidence, not consequences of the framework's definitions. The anomaly taxonomy (predictable / recoverable / complex) is an empirical categorization of observed anomalies from foundational experiments (Table 2), and the memory-efficiency statistics are ablation measurements, not quantities forced by construction. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: the references are to external VLA, planning, and anomaly-detection works, and the one internal 'uniqueness' argument is absent. The brain-morphic terminology is a presentation metaphor rather than a derivation. The limitation in Appendix A.2 that code generation depends on the VLM's reasoning capability and the apparent tension between 'no fine-tuning' and the 'fine-tuned local anomaly expert' in Section 3.3 / A.6 are correctness or scoping concerns, not circularity: the no-training claim is explicitly scoped to retaining the VLM without additional training. No step reduces a claimed result to its own inputs, so a score of 0 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework adds no new physical entity. Its load-bearing numerical assumptions are hand-set thresholds and a chosen anomaly test mixture, plus the domain-level assumption that one VLM call can emit reliable executable code. These parameters and assumptions are not derived from first principles and are not shipped with code or data, so the reader must accept them from the reported experiments.

free parameters (3)
  • Anomaly detection threshold tau_i = Not reported; hand-set per anomaly type
    In Section 3.3, delta_t > tau_i triggers anomaly handling; the paper does not state how these thresholds are chosen, yet they determine which anomalies are handled locally versus by VLM replanning.
  • Memory management thresholds = Short-term <=10 entries; medium-term >=3 calls/hour and 10-minute summaries; skill pool >=5 invocations and >=90% test…
    These hand-selected numbers in Section 3.4 define when skills are promoted to memory; the reported 41% code-size reduction and 27% call reduction depend on them.
  • Anomaly test distribution = 5:3:2 (predictable:recoverable:complex), injected
    Section 4.2 replaces the measured 70:20:10 natural distribution with a 5:3:2 injected distribution before computing Table 3 averages, so the aggregate success and time-penalty outcomes depend on this chosen mixture.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A single VLM call can generate correct, executable multi-threaded code for a new manipulation task.
    Used throughout Sections 3.2 and 3.3; the entire one-call efficiency claim depends on this. Appendix A.5 shows code validity varies from 80% to 87% across models, so the assumption holds only for strong VLMs and is not guaranteed.
  • domain assumption Naturally occurring anomalies fall into three tiers (predictable, recoverable, complex) with the measured 70:20:10 distribution.
    Section 4.2 derives this from five tasks on one desktop platform; the MAH design and its latency and success tradeoffs are built on this taxonomy.
  • ad hoc to paper The fine-tuned local anomaly expert is consistent with the no-training plug-and-play claim.
    Appendix A.6 says the local expert is a fine-tuned small language model, while the abstract claims the system works without any fine-tuning or retraining. To keep the claim true, one must assume this component falls outside the no-training scope, which the paper never states.
  • domain assumption The hierarchical execution tree, being Turing-complete, can express the required task logic.
    Section 3.2 invokes Turing completeness to argue expressive power; this is reasonable for control flow but assumes the VLM output matches the grammar and that real robot constraints map onto the node types.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FrankenBot: Brain-Morphic Modular Orchestration for Robotic Manipulation with Vision-Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WAF7HYDV

@misc{pith2026250621627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FrankenBot: Brain-Morphic Modular Orchestration for Robotic Manipulation with Vision-Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WAF7HYDV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21627}
}
read the original abstract

Developing a general robot manipulation system capable of performing a wide range of tasks in complex, dynamic, and unstructured real-world environments has long been a challenging task. It is widely recognized that achieving human-like efficiency and robustness manipulation requires the robotic brain to integrate a comprehensive set of functions, such as task planning, policy generation, anomaly monitoring and handling, and long-term memory, achieving high-efficiency operation across all functions. Vision-Language Models (VLMs), pretrained on massive multimodal data, have acquired rich world knowledge, exhibiting exceptional scene understanding and multimodal reasoning capabilities. However, existing methods typically focus on realizing only a single function or a subset of functions within the robotic brain, without integrating them into a unified cognitive architecture. Inspired by a divide-and-conquer strategy and the architecture of the human brain, we propose FrankenBot, a VLM-driven, brain-morphic robotic manipulation framework that achieves both comprehensive functionality and high operational efficiency. Our framework includes a suite of components, decoupling a part of key functions from frequent VLM calls, striking an optimal balance between functional completeness and system efficiency. Specifically, we map task planning, policy generation, memory management, and low-level interfacing to the cortex, cerebellum, temporal lobe-hippocampus complex, and brainstem, respectively, and design efficient coordination mechanisms for the modules. We conducted comprehensive experiments in both simulation and real-world robotic environments, demonstrating that our method offers significant advantages in anomaly detection and handling, long-term memory, operational efficiency, and stability -- all without requiring any fine-tuning or retraining.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21627 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FrankenBot integrates task planning, policy generation, anomaly handling, and long-term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview framework. Given real-time visual observations and instruction, the VLM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pie chart of error type distribution 4.4 System Error Breakdown By virtue of the interpretability and modular design of our framework, we can pinpoint and quantify component-wise error rates, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Execution Snapshot for Experimental Tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tinyvla: Towards fast, data-efficient vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation

    Junjie Wen, Yichen Zhu, Jinming Li, Minjie Zhu, Kun Wu, Zhiyuan Xu, Ning Liu, Ran Cheng, Chaomin Shen, Yaxin Peng, et al. Tinyvla: Towards fast, data-efficient vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12514, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation

    Songming Liu, Lingxuan Wu, Bangguo Li, Hengkai Tan, Huayu Chen, Zhengyi Wang, Ke Xu, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07864, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, et al. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Rt-2: Vision-language- action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choro- manski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language- action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Rt-trajectory: Robotic task generalization via hindsight trajectory sketches

    Jiayuan Gu, Sean Kirmani, Paul Wohlhart, Yao Lu, Montserrat Gonzalez Arenas, Kanishka Rao, Wenhao Yu, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Zhuo Xu, et al. Rt-trajectory: Robotic task generalization via hindsight trajectory sketches. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01977, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Cogact: A foundational vision-language-action model for synergizing cognition and action in robotic manipulation

    Qixiu Li, Yaobo Liang, Zeyu Wang, Lin Luo, Xi Chen, Mozheng Liao, Fangyun Wei, Yu Deng, Sicheng Xu, Yizhong Zhang, et al. Cogact: A foundational vision-language-action model for synergizing cognition and action in robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19650, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations

    Yanjie Ze, Gu Zhang, Kangning Zhang, Chenyuan Hu, Muhan Wang, and Huazhe Xu. 3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03954, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy

    Octo Model Team, Dibya Ghosh, Homer Walke, Karl Pertsch, Kevin Black, Oier Mees, Sudeep Dasari, Joey Hejna, Tobias Kreiman, Charles Xu, et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gr-2: A generative video-language-action model with web-scale knowledge for robot manipulation

    Chi-Lam Cheang, Guangzeng Chen, Ya Jing, Tao Kong, Hang Li, Yifeng Li, Yuxiao Liu, Hongtao Wu, Jiafeng Xu, Yichu Yang, et al. Gr-2: A generative video-language-action model with web-scale knowledge for robot manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06158, 2024

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Roboflamingo-plus: Fusion of depth and rgb perception with vision-language models for enhanced robotic manipulation

    Sheng Wang. Roboflamingo-plus: Fusion of depth and rgb perception with vision-language models for enhanced robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19510, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Vision-language foundation models as effective robot imitators

    Xinghang Li, Minghuan Liu, Hanbo Zhang, Cunjun Yu, Jie Xu, Hongtao Wu, Chilam Cheang, Ya Jing, Weinan Zhang, Huaping Liu, et al. Vision-language foundation models as effective robot imitators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01378, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hybridvla: Collaborative diffusion and autoregression in a unified vision-language-action model

    Jiaming Liu, Hao Chen, Pengju An, Zhuoyang Liu, Renrui Zhang, Chenyang Gu, Xiaoqi Li, Ziyu Guo, Sixiang Chen, Mengzhen Liu, et al. Hybridvla: Collaborative diffusion and autoregression in a unified vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10631, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cot-vla: Visual chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-language-action models

    Qingqing Zhao, Yao Lu, Moo Jin Kim, Zipeng Fu, Zhuoyang Zhang, Yecheng Wu, Zhaoshuo Li, Qianli Ma, Song Han, Chelsea Finn, et al. Cot-vla: Visual chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-language-action models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22020, 2025. 10

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Pointvla: Injecting the 3d world into vision-language-action models

    Chengmeng Li, Junjie Wen, Yan Peng, Yaxin Peng, Feifei Feng, and Yichen Zhu. Pointvla: Injecting the 3d world into vision-language-action models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07511, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Spatialvla: Exploring spatial representations for visual-language-action model

    Delin Qu, Haoming Song, Qizhi Chen, Yuanqi Yao, Xinyi Ye, Yan Ding, Zhigang Wang, JiaYuan Gu, Bin Zhao, Dong Wang, et al. Spatialvla: Exploring spatial representations for visual-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15830, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots

    Johan Bjorck, Fernando Castañeda, Nikita Cherniadev, Xingye Da, Runyu Ding, Linxi Fan, Yu Fang, Dieter Fox, Fengyuan Hu, Spencer Huang, et al. Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hi robot: Open-ended instruction following with hierarchical vision-language-action models

    Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, Brian Ichter, Michael Equi, Liyiming Ke, Karl Pertsch, Quan Vuong, James Tanner, Anna Walling, Haohuan Wang, Niccolo Fusai, et al. Hi robot: Open-ended instruction following with hierarchical vision-language-action models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19417, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Gemini robotics: Bringing ai into the physical world

    Gemini Robotics Team, Saminda Abeyruwan, Joshua Ainslie, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Montser- rat Gonzalez Arenas, Travis Armstrong, Ashwin Balakrishna, Robert Baruch, Maria Bauza, Michiel Blokzijl, et al. Gemini robotics: Bringing ai into the physical world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Robobrain: A unified brain model for robotic manipulation from abstract to concrete

    Yuheng Ji, Huajie Tan, Jiayu Shi, Xiaoshuai Hao, Yuan Zhang, Hengyuan Zhang, Pengwei Wang, Mengdi Zhao, Yao Mu, Pengju An, et al. Robobrain: A unified brain model for robotic manipulation from abstract to concrete. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21257, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Look before you leap: Unveiling the power of gpt-4v in robotic vision-language planning

    Yingdong Hu, Fanqi Lin, Tong Zhang, Li Yi, and Yang Gao. Look before you leap: Unveiling the power of gpt-4v in robotic vision-language planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17842 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Guiding long-horizon task and motion planning with vision language models

    Zhutian Yang, Caelan Garrett, Dieter Fox, Tomás Lozano-Pérez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. Guiding long-horizon task and motion planning with vision language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02193, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Open-world task and mo- tion planning via vision-language model inferred constraints

    Nishanth Kumar, Fabio Ramos, Dieter Fox, and Caelan Reed Garrett. Open-world task and mo- tion planning via vision-language model inferred constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08253, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Sofar: Language-grounded orientation bridges spatial reasoning and object manipulation

    Zekun Qi, Wenyao Zhang, Yufei Ding, Runpei Dong, Xinqiang Yu, Jingwen Li, Lingyun Xu, Baoyu Li, Xialin He, Guofan Fan, et al. Sofar: Language-grounded orientation bridges spatial reasoning and object manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13143, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Vlmpc: Vision-language model predictive control for robotic manipulation

    Wentao Zhao, Jiaming Chen, Ziyu Meng, Donghui Mao, Ran Song, and Wei Zhang. Vlmpc: Vision-language model predictive control for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09829, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kuda: Keypoints to unify dynamics learning and visual prompting for open-vocabulary robotic manipulation

    Zixian Liu, Mingtong Zhang, and Yunzhu Li. Kuda: Keypoints to unify dynamics learning and visual prompting for open-vocabulary robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10546, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Moka: Open-world robotic manipulation through mark-based visual prompting

    Fangchen Liu, Kuan Fang, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Moka: Open-world robotic manipulation through mark-based visual prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03174, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rekep: Spatio- temporal reasoning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Yunzhu Li, Ruohan Zhang, and Li Fei-Fei. Rekep: Spatio- temporal reasoning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01652, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Omni- manip: Towards general robotic manipulation via object-centric interaction primitives as spatial constraints

    Mingjie Pan, Jiyao Zhang, Tianshu Wu, Yinghao Zhao, Wenlong Gao, and Hao Dong. Omni- manip: Towards general robotic manipulation via object-centric interaction primitives as spatial constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03841, 2025. 11

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Geomanip: Geometric constraints as general interfaces for robot manipulation

    Weiliang Tang, Jia-Hui Pan, Yun-Hui Liu, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Li Erran Li, Chi-Wing Fu, and Mingyu Ding. Geomanip: Geometric constraints as general interfaces for robot manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09783, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Code-as-monitor: Constraint-aware visual programming for reactive and proac- tive robotic failure detection

    Enshen Zhou, Qi Su, Cheng Chi, Zhizheng Zhang, Zhongyuan Wang, Tiejun Huang, Lu Sheng, and He Wang. Code-as-monitor: Constraint-aware visual programming for reactive and proac- tive robotic failure detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04455, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Doremi: Grounding language model by detecting and recovering from plan-execution misalignment

    Yanjiang Guo, Yen-Jen Wang, Lihan Zha, and Jianyu Chen. Doremi: Grounding language model by detecting and recovering from plan-execution misalignment. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 12124–12131. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    object unexpectedly moved

    Alan Mathison Turing. On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsprob- lem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society , 42(1):230–265, 1936. Corrected reprint in: M. Davis (ed.), The Undecidable, Raven Press, 1965. 12 A Technical Appendices and Supplem...

    1936

Pith tools

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