Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 32 references

VerifyLLM: LLM-Based Pre-Execution Task Plan Verification for Robots

T0 review · 6 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage LLM-and-LTL pipeline can catch and fix errors in robot plans before they run.

desk verdict The LTL guidance is mostly decorative in the implementation, and the experiments don't support the headline claim; the datasets and the problem are real, but the formal component needs to actually be used. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05118 v1 pith:VOQ42VML submitted 2025-07-07 cs.RO cs.AI

Danil S. Grigorev , Alexey K. Kovalev , Aleksandr I. Panov This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords planverificationlargelanguagemodelslineartemporallogicrobottaskplanningpre-executionhouseholdtasksactionsequencerepair
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 proposes VerifyLLM, a pre-execution verification module that sits between a robot task planner and execution. Given a natural-language task description and a generated action plan, it translates the description into a Linear Temporal Logic formula and then runs a sliding-window LLM analysis over the plan, deciding for each action whether to keep, remove, move, or augment it. The goal is to catch three common failure modes: actions in the wrong order, missing prerequisites, and redundant steps. The authors claim this combination of formal logic and LLM commonsense reasoning substantially improves plan quality on household-task benchmarks, cutting ordering errors by nearly 40 percent relative to baseline optimizers when a strong LLM is used.

What carries the argument

The framework couples two modules. The Translation Module converts the task description into an LTL formula using few-shot prompting, validating syntax by building a Büchi automaton with Spot and reprompting up to three times. The Verification Module slides a window of five actions over the plan; for each action it feeds the window, the task description, and atomic propositions extracted from the LTL formula to an LLM, which must output a structured JSON decision: keep, remove, move, or augment. Augment inserts a generated prerequisite; move reorders the action; remove deletes duplicates. The whole sequence is re-verified until convergence. The LTL formula is the formal scaffold; the LLM supplies the common-sense reasoning about physical preconditions and temporal order.

What would settle it

Run the original and VerifyLLM-corrected plans from the VirtualHome dataset in the VirtualHome simulator and compare task success rates; if corrected plans do not succeed more often than the originals, the central pre-execution verification claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, VerifyLLM shows that a large language model, guided by an LTL formula derived from the task instruction, can act as a general pre-execution plan verifier that repairs incorrectly positioned actions, missing prerequisites, and redundant steps. The central evidence is a comparison on VirtualHome-derived plans: with Claude as the verifier, LCS similarity to reference plans rises from 0.0717 (unverified) to 0.183, ordering errors drop from about 16.5 to 9.47, and the full system outperforms three LLM-based baselines (pairwise, chain-of-thought, and windowed) on nearly every metric. Ablations attribute most of the gain to the LLM verification step, with the LTL translation contributing a smaller but positive effect.

Load-bearing premise

The whole evaluation assumes the LLM's repair decisions are correct and that the reference plans are the true optimal plans; if the repairs are wrong or the references are not ground truth, the claimed verification quality is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding such a verification module to an LLM-based planner lets the planner rely on commonsense constraints without hand-coding every precondition into the domain model.
  • The three error types specifically targeted — missing prerequisites, redundant steps, and ordering mistakes — are directly tied to execution failures and wasted steps, so correcting them before execution should improve downstream success rates.
  • The sliding-window size of 5 is a tuned parameter: a window too small loses context and one too large introduces noise, making context selection a key design choice for the approach.
  • Verification quality scales with the LLM used; larger models and stronger reasoning models yield substantially better plan repairs, suggesting model choice is a dominant factor in performance.
  • Ablations show the LTL translation matters less than the LLM reasoning, implying the formal layer's main role is guiding prompts rather than enforcing correctness on its own.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since no simulator execution or human evaluation was done, the true test is whether repaired plans actually succeed more often when executed; the current metrics only measure similarity to reference plans that are themselves assumed optimal.
  • If the reference plans are not ground truth (e.g., contain their own errors), the reported improvements could partly reflect moving toward the references' biases rather than toward objectively correct plans.
  • A natural testable extension is to feed VerifyLLM-corrected VirtualHome plans into the VirtualHome simulator and compare task success rates against both the original LLM plans and the reference plans.
  • The small ablation contribution of LTL suggests that the formal component may be replaceable by a plain structured prompt; a direct comparison could isolate whether temporal logic adds value beyond annotated examples.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes VerifyLLM, a pre-execution verification module for robot task plans. It translates a natural-language task description into an LTL formula via an LLM, then scans the plan with a sliding window and prompts an LLM to decide for each action whether to keep, move, remove, or augment it, with atomic propositions extracted from the LTL formula included in the prompt. The authors introduce two LTL-annotated datasets, ALFRED-LTL and VirtualHome-LTL, but the experimental section uses only the VirtualHome/Zero-Shot corpus; they report LCS similarity, missing/extra action counts, and order errors, and conclude that combining LTL with LLM verification significantly improves plan quality.

Significance. Reliable pre-execution verification of LLM-generated plans is an important problem, and the paper identifies a relevant error taxonomy (position errors, missing prerequisites, redundancy) and makes code available. The strongest results, however, do not isolate the contributions of the proposed components: the LTL component is reduced to atomic propositions and has a negligible effect in the ablation, the main comparison confounds model choice with method, and the metrics are computed against assumed-optimal reference plans without simulator or human validation. As it stands, the evidence does not support the paper's central claim, so the contribution is not yet established.

major comments (6)
  1. [V.A, Algorithm 1; V.B, Eq. (8)] The verification module passes only ExtractProps(ϕ), i.e., atomic propositions, to the LLM (Algorithm 1, line 11), so the temporal operators G, U, and F from Eq. (1) never reach the verifier. The illustrative formula (8) is a conjunction of three F-clauses and imposes no ordering, yet the paper attributes the reduction in order errors to LTL 'formal logical guidance.' Section VII also concedes difficulties with complex temporal dependencies. This is a structural mismatch between the implemented method and the central claim, not a tuning issue.
  2. [VI.A.3, Table III] The LTL ablation is essentially null: LCS goes from 0.183 to 0.178 and order errors from 9.47 to 9.80, with no error bars, repetitions, or significance tests; this range is easily within run-to-run noise for LLM prompts. The 'No LLM Verification' row (0.0717 LCS, 16.48 order errors) is the raw Llama-3.2-1B output from Table I, whereas 'Full System' uses Claude, so the ablation simultaneously changes the model and the method, making the claimed 74% and 60% improvements non-identifiable.
  3. [VI.A.2, Table II] All three baseline optimizers use Llama-3.2-1B, whereas VerifyLLM (Claude) uses a much stronger, closed-source model. Without a Claude-based baseline for CoT or Window optimization, the large gap to 0.183 LCS and 9.47 order errors cannot be attributed to the VerifyLLM architecture or to LTL; it may be entirely due to model capability. The comparison needs model-matched ablations to support the paper's claim.
  4. [VI, Evaluation Metrics] Every metric compares the corrected plan to the reference plan from VirtualHome/Zero-Shot, which is itself assumed to be the correct or optimal plan. There is no simulator execution, no human evaluation, and no check that the 'augment' or 'move' repairs are physically or temporally valid. If the LLM repairs are wrong, the pre-execution verification claim collapses; the paper provides no evidence on that point.
  5. [V.B; VI.A.4] The LTL formula is generated by the same LLM that later consumes propositions extracted from that translation, and Spot is used only for syntax validation, not semantic correctness, so there is no independent check that the formula faithfully represents the task. In addition, the window size w=5 is selected on the Zero-Shot data in Table IV and then used for the final evaluation on the same data, so the headline numbers are tuned on the test set. These issues directly affect the validity of the comparisons and are not discussed in the paper.
  6. [I, VI] The datasets ALFRED-LTL and VirtualHome-LTL are listed as contributions and the abstract promises 'rigorous testing on datasets of varying complexity,' but the experiments only use the VirtualHome Zero-Shot corpus; no ALFRED-LTL experiments, annotation protocol, or statistics are given. This leaves the claimed broad applicability and the second contribution unsubstantiated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) contains a typo: 'the set of transitions(E is defined as' should read 'the set of transitions E is defined as.'
  2. [Algorithm 1] The output line of Algorithm 1 says 'Verificated sequence'; this should be 'Verified sequence.'
  3. [VI.A.2, Table II] Table II does not state explicitly which LLM powers each baseline; the text should clarify that all three baselines use Llama-3.2-1B and should report decoding parameters such as temperature and the number of runs.
  4. [References] Reference [11] appears mismatched: the citation for 'Can language models learn from explanations in context?' does not match the Ahn et al. author list; please check and correct the reference.
  5. [Figures] The text references 'Fig. 3' twice with different captions, and Section VI.A.5 appears to reuse the figure label for the prompt figure; renumber the figures and correct the in-text pointers.
  6. [Appendix/Reproducibility] Provide the exact prompts, dataset statistics, and annotation details in an appendix, since the code link alone is not sufficient for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial self-reference: window size is tuned on the evaluation set and the claimed LTL guidance is reduced to an LLM-generated proposition list, though external benchmarks keep the paper from being fully circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V.C, Section VI.A.4, Tables IV and II]
    "For a window size w (typically set to 5 based on our empirical findings in Table IV) ... Based on these findings, we selected a window size of 5 for all subsequent experiments."

    The window size is selected by maximizing F1 on the Zero-Shot/VirtualHome dataset, and the same dataset is used to report the headline LCS, missing, extra, and order-error results in Table II. The reported verification gains are therefore not an out-of-sample prediction; the evaluation target was used to choose the hyperparameter, so part of the measured improvement is fitted to the data being evaluated.

  2. self definitional [Algorithm 1 lines 9-10; Section V.C; Eq. (7) and Eq. (8)]
    "The context (Eq.9) also includes relevant atomic propositions extracted from the LTL formula ϕ (line 11 in Algorithm 1)."

    The only LTL-derived input to the verifier is the atomic-proposition set; temporal operators G, U, and F are dropped before the LLM reasons about the plan. The paper's own example formula (8), F(heat water) ∧ F(add tea) ∧ F(serve), imposes no ordering, so the formal component cannot constrain the most common failure mode (order errors). Moreover, the formula itself is produced by an LLM from the same natural-language instruction (ϕ = LLM(τ, E)) and Spot performs only syntax validation, not a semantic check. The claimed verification against LTL therefore reduces to passing an LLM-generated proposition list back to the same style of LLM; the temporal content and any independent formal grounding are absent by construction.

full rationale

The paper is not fully circular: it uses external VirtualHome reference plans, compares multiple baseline optimizers, and the large ablation gap when removing LLM verification (LCS 0.183 vs 0.0717) shows that the LLM itself is doing substantial work. However, two parts of the claimed derivation chain are constructed from their own inputs. The window size w=5 is selected on the Zero-Shot evaluation set and then reused in the final numbers, so the headline results are partially tuned on the target data. More importantly, Algorithm 1 passes only ExtractProps(ϕ) to the verifier; the temporal operators that constitute LTL's formal guidance are never used, and the LTL formula is generated by the same LLM family that is being verified, with Spot checking only syntax. The authors' own ablation admits the LTL module's impact is 'relatively limited' (LCS 0.183 to 0.178; order errors 9.47 to 9.80, no significance test), and the conclusion acknowledges 'challenges with complex temporal dependencies.' Thus the central claim that LTL significantly enhances verification quality is not derived by the implemented pipeline; what remains is an LLM prompt-with-propositions approach that is evaluated against external references. This is partial self-reference rather than complete equivalence, so the circularity score is moderate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on empirically tuned and hand-chosen components: window size, few-shot translation examples, and the LLM's judgments. No theorem, formal proof, or machine-checked artifact backs the claims. The assumed correctness of LLM-generated LTL and of the reference plans is the main uncharged input.

free parameters (3)
  • window size w = 5
    Selected on the Zero-Shot dataset as the best F1 (0.65) in Table IV and then used for all reported experiments; no held-out validation.
  • few-shot LTL translation examples E = hand-selected examples
    The prompt examples used to generate LTL formulas from task descriptions are not specified or ablated, and directly determine the LTL outputs.
  • LTL reprompting attempts = 3
    The module reprompts up to three times on syntax errors (Section V.B); this limit is chosen by hand and not analyzed.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption LLM-generated LTL formulas correctly capture the semantics of the natural-language task
    Section V.B: the formula is produced by LLM(τ, E) and only syntax-checked with Spot; semantic correctness is assumed when propositions are later used to judge actions.
  • domain assumption Reference plans from VirtualHome and Zero-Shot are correct and complete ground truth
    Section VI: the metrics compare optimized plans to these references using set-based differences, but no human verification or execution check is reported.
  • domain assumption LLM judgments about position, necessity, and compatibility are reliable for plan repair
    Section V.C: the LLM's remove, move, and augment decisions are accepted and iterated without validation against simulated or physical execution.
  • domain assumption Action normalization preserves task semantics
    Section VI: actions are lowercased and prepositions removed, so distinct actions can collide, affecting Missing, Extra, and Order counts in unknown ways.
  • domain assumption The outer verification loop terminates with a well-defined convergence predicate
    Algorithm 1 lines 24-27 call Converged(π') but no definition is provided, so reproducibility of the iterative process is not guaranteed.
  • standard math Standard semantics of LTL operators
    Section III uses the standard grammar and semantics of Pnueli's LTL; the paper does not derive anything from these operators, it only uses them in prompts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VerifyLLM: LLM-Based Pre-Execution Task Plan Verification for Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOQ42VML

@misc{pith2026250705118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VerifyLLM: LLM-Based Pre-Execution Task Plan Verification for Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOQ42VML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05118}
}
read the original abstract

In the field of robotics, researchers face a critical challenge in ensuring reliable and efficient task planning. Verifying high-level task plans before execution significantly reduces errors and enhance the overall performance of these systems. In this paper, we propose an architecture for automatically verifying high-level task plans before their execution in simulator or real-world environments. Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs), our approach consists of two key steps: first, the conversion of natural language instructions into Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), followed by a comprehensive analysis of action sequences. The module uses the reasoning capabilities of the LLM to evaluate logical coherence and identify potential gaps in the plan. Rigorous testing on datasets of varying complexity demonstrates the broad applicability of the module to household tasks. We contribute to improving the reliability and efficiency of task planning and addresses the critical need for robust pre-execution verification in autonomous systems. The code is available at https://verifyllm.github.io.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05118 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. VerifyLLM workflow for verification task plans. The system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed LLM-based pre-execution validation framework. The system processes natural language plan through two main stages: (a) translation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prompt used for guiding the LLM-based reasoning in plan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mind the error! detection and localization of instruction errors in vision-and-language navigation,

    F. Taioli, S. Rosa, A. Castellini, L. Natale, A. Del Bue, A. Farinelli, M. Cristani, and Y . Wang, “Mind the error! detection and localization of instruction errors in vision-and-language navigation,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 12 993–13 000

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Grounding large language models in interactive environ- ments with online reinforcement learning,

    T. Carta, C. Romac, T. Wolf, S. Lamprier, O. Sigaud, and P.-Y . Oudeyer, “Grounding large language models in interactive environ- ments with online reinforcement learning,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 3676–3713

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Pddl2. 1: An extension to pddl for expressing temporal planning domains,

    M. Fox and D. Long, “Pddl2. 1: An extension to pddl for expressing temporal planning domains,” Journal of artificial intelligence research, vol. 20, pp. 61–124, 2003

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Correcting robot plans with natural language feedback,

    P. Sharma, B. Sundaralingam, V . Blukis, C. Paxton, T. Hermans, A. Torralba, J. Andreas, and D. Fox, “Correcting robot plans with natural language feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05186 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Extended tree search for robot task and motion planning,

    T. Ren, G. Chalvatzaki, and J. Peters, “Extended tree search for robot task and motion planning,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 12 048–12 055

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,

    W. Huang, P. Abbeel, D. Pathak, and I. Mordatch, “Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 9118–9147

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Application of pretrained large language models in embodied artificial intelligence,

    A. K. Kovalev and A. I. Panov, “Application of pretrained large language models in embodied artificial intelligence,” in Doklady Mathematics, vol. 106, no. Suppl 1. Springer, 2022, pp. S85–S90

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Evaluation of pretrained large language models in embodied planning tasks,

    C. Sarkisyan, A. Korchemnyi, A. K. Kovalev, and A. I. Panov, “Evaluation of pretrained large language models in embodied planning tasks,” in International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence . Springer, 2023, pp. 222–232

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Grid: Scene-graph-based instruction-driven robotic task planning,

    Z. Ni, X. Deng, C. Tai, X. Zhu, Q. Xie, W. Huang, X. Wu, and L. Zeng, “Grid: Scene-graph-based instruction-driven robotic task planning,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 13 765–13 772

    2024

  2. [10]

    Lookplangraph: Embodied instruction following method with VLM graph augmentation,

    A. Onishchenko, A. Kovalev, and A. Panov, “Lookplangraph: Embodied instruction following method with VLM graph augmentation,” in Workshop on Reasoning and Planning for Large Language Models , 2025. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=B47cCZfJFa

    2025

  3. [11]

    Can lan- guage models learn from explanations in context?

    S. M. Ahn, A. Brohan, N. Brown, Y . Chebotar, O. Cortes, B. David, C. Finn, K. Fu, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman, et al. , “Can lan- guage models learn from explanations in context?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02329, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Common sense plan verification with large language models,

    D. S. Grigorev, A. K. Kovalev, and A. I. Panov, “Common sense plan verification with large language models,” International Conference on Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Systems , pp. 224–236, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Temporal-logic- based reactive mission and motion planning,

    H. Kress-Gazit, G. E. Fainekos, and G. J. Pappas, “Temporal-logic- based reactive mission and motion planning,” IEEE transactions on robotics, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1370–1381, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    Iterative temporal planning in uncertain environments with partial satisfaction guarantees,

    M. Lahijanian, M. R. Maly, D. Fried, L. E. Kavraki, H. Kress- Gazit, and M. Y . Vardi, “Iterative temporal planning in uncertain environments with partial satisfaction guarantees,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 583–599, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Distributed multi-robot co- ordination with time-scale temporal logic tasks,

    D. Aksaray, C.-I. Vasile, and C. Belta, “Distributed multi-robot co- ordination with time-scale temporal logic tasks,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pp. 2629–2634, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models,

    C. H. Song, J. Wu, C. Washington, B. M. Sadler, W.-L. Chao, and Y . Su, “Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 2998–3009

    2023

  9. [17]

    ALFRED: A Benchmark for Interpreting Grounded Instructions for Everyday Tasks,

    M. Shridhar, J. Thomason, D. Gordon, Y . Bisk, W. Han, R. Mottaghi, L. Zettlemoyer, and D. Fox, “ALFRED: A Benchmark for Interpreting Grounded Instructions for Everyday Tasks,” in The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020. [Online]. Available...

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Virtualhome: Simulating household activities via programs,

    X. Puig, K. Ra, M. Boben, J. Li, T. Wang, S. Fidler, and A. Torralba, “Virtualhome: Simulating household activities via programs,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 8494–8502

    2018

  11. [19]

    From informal safety-critical requirements to property-driven formal validation,

    A. Cimatti, M. Roveri, A. Susi, and S. Tonetta, “From informal safety-critical requirements to property-driven formal validation,” in Proceedings of the Sixth NASA Langley Formal Methods Workshop , 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Val: Automatic plan validation, continuous effects and mixed initiative planning using pddl,

    R. Howey, D. Long, and M. Fox, “Val: Automatic plan validation, continuous effects and mixed initiative planning using pddl,” in 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence . IEEE, 2004, pp. 294–301

    2004

  13. [21]

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

    Z. Yang, C. Garrett, D. Fox, T. Lozano-P ´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling, “Guiding long-horizon task and motion planning with vision language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02193 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Grounding classical task planners via vision-language models,

    X. Zhang, Y . Ding, S. Amiri, H. Yang, A. Kaminski, C. Esselink, and S. Zhang, “Grounding classical task planners via vision-language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08587 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans,

    K. Lin, C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, M. Pavone, and J. Bohg, “Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1345–1365, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    LLatrieval: LLM-verified retrieval for verifiable generation,

    X. Li, C. Zhu, L. Li, Z. Yin, T. Sun, and X. Qiu, “LLatrieval: LLM-verified retrieval for verifiable generation,” in Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long P...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Improving llm reasoning through scaling inference computation with collabora- tive verification,

    Z. Liang, Y . Liu, T. Niu, X. Zhang, Y . Zhou, and S. Yavuz, “Improving llm reasoning through scaling inference computation with collabora- tive verification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05318 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Replan: Robotic replanning with perception and language models,

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

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    The temporal logic of programs,

    A. Pnueli, “The temporal logic of programs,” in 18th annual sympo- sium on foundations of computer science (sfcs 1977) . ieee, 1977, pp. 46–57

    1977

  20. [28]

    The temporal logic of reactive and concur- rent systems,

    A. Pnueli and Z. Manna, “The temporal logic of reactive and concur- rent systems,” Springer, vol. 16, p. 12, 1992

    1992

  21. [29]

    Temporal logic motion planning for dynamic robots,

    G. E. Fainekos, A. Girard, H. Kress-Gazit, and G. J. Pappas, “Temporal logic motion planning for dynamic robots,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 343–352, 2009

    2009

  22. [30]

    Soter: A runtime assurance framework for programming safe robotics systems,

    A. Desai, S. Ghosh, S. A. Seshia, N. Shankar, and A. Tiwari, “Soter: A runtime assurance framework for programming safe robotics systems,” IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, pp. 138–150, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Generalizing to new domains by mapping natural language to lifted ltl,

    E. Hsiung, H. Mehta, J. Chu, X. Liu, R. Patel, S. Tellex, and G. Konidaris, “Generalizing to new domains by mapping natural language to lifted ltl,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 3624–3630

    2022

  24. [32]

    Grounding language to non- markovian tasks with no supervision of task specifications

    R. Patel, E. Pavlick, and S. Tellex, “Grounding language to non- markovian tasks with no supervision of task specifications.” in Robotics: Science and Systems , vol. 2020, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.