Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

CoMuRoS claims an LLM-based hierarchical planner can coordinate heterogeneous robot teams and replan on the fly when task-relevant events occur.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

An LLM-based hierarchical system lets heterogeneous robot teams plan, execute, and autonomously replan in response to unexpected events, demonstrated on physical robots and in simulation.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Real hardware demonstrations of event-driven replanning on heterogeneous robots make this worth reading, but the Section V generalization numbers rest on a self-curated benchmark and an author-affiliated evaluator, so they should not be taken at face value. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.22354 v2 pith:INPUOUNQ submitted 2025-11-27 cs.RO

LLM-Based Generalizable Hierarchical Task Planning and Execution for Heterogeneous Robot Teams with Event-Driven Replanning

Suraj Borate , Bhavish Rai B , Vipul Pardeshi , Madhu Vadali This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords CoMuRoShierarchical task planningmulti-robot systemsevent-driven replanninghuman-robot collaborationLLM-based planningheterogeneous robotsROS2
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 introduces CoMuRoS, a hierarchical architecture in which a central Task Manager LLM interprets a natural-language goal, classifies the task as independent, sequential, coordinated, or infeasible, and allocates subtasks to robots; each robot then runs a local LLM that composes executable Python code from primitive skills. The central claim is that this design, with static planning rules plus a per-scenario configuration file, generalizes across domains and supports event-driven replanning: when a robot detects a relevant event, the Task Manager reassigns tasks, lets teammates assist, or asks a human for help, and the system continues. This matters because it would mean LLM-based planners can move from single-robot or simulation-only settings to real, heterogeneous robot teams that recover from failures and accept human interruption anytime. The paper reports hardware success rates of 9/10 for collaborative recovery, 8/8 for coordinated transport, and 5/5 for human-assisted recovery, plus high correctness scores on a curated 22-scenario textual benchmark.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that CoMuRoS achieves runtime, event-driven replanning on physical robots. Keeping the static prompt and core task-manager logic unchanged and modifying only the scenario configuration file gave consistent success across textual datasets, simulations, and hardware experiments. The system's ability to mark tasks as COMPLETED, IN PROGRESS, or INTERRUPTED lets the Task Manager resume incomplete work after replanning, and event classification by each robot filters irrelevant distractions locally. Hardware experiments show a quadruped and two wheeled robots recovering from a deliberately knocked-off object, a three-robot formation coordinating transport wit

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-level hierarchy: a centralized Task Manager LLM that plans, classifies, allocates, and replans using static prompt rules plus dynamic context (chat history, robot status, task status, events), and per-robot 'Robot Brain' LLMs that turn high-level commands into Python code composed from primitive skills (ROS2 nodes or policies). Task statuses (COMPLETED, IN PROGRESS, INTERRUPTED) and a scenario configuration file listing robot capabilities and scenario-specific rules carry the logic of recovery: only non-completed tasks are reconsidered during replanning, and capability descriptions let the manager infer constraints such as 'place the object only when the quadru

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative generalization claims (correctness up to 0.91, replanning 1.0) depend on correctness judgments made by an expert evaluator who helped build the system, applied to 22 scenarios the authors authored; if those judgments are biased or the scenarios were shaped to match the static prompt rules, the evidence does not establish generality beyond the authors' own design.

What would settle it

Have independent annotators re-score the 22-scenario benchmark with a pre-registered rubric, or run the system on a third-party scenario written without knowledge of the static prompt, and check whether correctness remains near 0.91; if agreement is low or correctness drops materially, the generalization claim is falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, a robot team can autonomously recover from mid-task failures—such as an object being knocked off a carrier—by replanning, having a teammate complete the interrupted action, and then resuming the original task.
  • Irrelevant distractions can be filtered at the robot level without burdening the central planner, keeping the system focused on events that actually affect task progress.
  • Coordinated transport and manipulation tasks can include a human as a fallback: when no robot can perform a required action, the Task Manager assigns the step to a human and the team continues.
  • The same planner logic can be reused across very different domains by editing only the scenario configuration file, which is the paper's operational definition of generalizability.
  • Event-driven replanning works not only in simulation but on physical hardware, with reported success rates of 9/10, 8/8, and 5/5 in three hardware settings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's evidence for generalization rests on scenarios and correctness labels produced by the authors themselves; a stronger test would be an independent benchmark written without access to the static prompt, scored by external annotators.
  • Because dependency resolution is implicit through chat history and task status, the architecture could be extended to richer status fields (deadlines, resource use, confidence) without changing the replanning loop, a natural next step the paper does not explore.
  • The reported 1.0 replanning correctness on only five scenarios suggests that the replanning mechanism is tested in a narrow band; stress-testing it with multiple simultaneous failures or conflicting user intent changes would reveal how far the 0.91-level correctness extends.
  • If the configuration-file-only generalization holds, a practical deployment pattern emerges: domain adaptation becomes a data-authoring task (write the config, list capabilities and rules) rather than a code or prompt-engineering task, which would lower the barrier for new robot fleets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. CoMuRoS is a hierarchical architecture for heterogeneous multi-robot teams in which a central Task Manager LLM classifies tasks into independent/sequential/coordinated/infeasible, allocates them according to static rules and dynamic context, and replans when relevant events are reported by robot-level perception. Each robot runs a local LLM that composes Python code from a skill library, while VLM/image processing monitors events. The paper reports hardware experiments (collaborative recovery 9/10, coordinated transport 8/8, human-assisted recovery 5/5), Gazebo simulations, and a 22-scenario textual benchmark with correctness up to 0.91 across eight LLMs, plus a five-scenario replanning set with 1.0 correctness. The central claim is that keeping the static prompt unchanged and modifying only the scenario configuration file yields consistent generalization across textual, simulated, and physical tasks.

Significance. If the results hold, CoMuRoS would be a useful step in LLM-based multi-robot planning: it combines centralized deliberation with decentralized execution, supports event-driven replanning and human-in-the-loop recovery on real hardware, and contributes a modular ROS framework and a public textual benchmark. The hardware demonstrations are concrete, and releasing code, videos, and dataset is a strength. However, the central generalization claim currently rests on an author-constructed benchmark with subjective evaluation and on small-sample hardware trials; these limitations need to be addressed before the stronger claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III-D, §V, Acknowledgement] The generalization claim rests on a benchmark written and scored inside the authors' lab. Correctness is defined as a binary judgment by 'an expert evaluator' (§III-D), and the Acknowledgement says an IIT Gandhinagar PhD student 'helped in dataset evaluation'; no inter-annotator agreement, blinding, or independent evaluation is reported. The high TA/TC/IoU/Exec scores in Fig. 12 are computed against author-written ground truth, and no baseline planner (e.g., SMART-LLM, RoCo, DART-LLM) is run on the same 22 scenarios. Because the configuration files encode scenario-specific rules that drive the Task Manager prompt, the scores may reflect alignment between the evaluator, the benchmark, and the prompt rather than generalizable performance. I therefore do not consider the §V 'correctness up to 0.91' and 'replanning 1.0' results as substantiating generalization yet. Please report the evaluati
  2. [§IV-A, Fig. 4–7] The event-detection pipeline that triggers replanning is underspecified. For the object-drop scenario, the paper says only that 'Burger detects the fall and raises an event' (Fig. 4d); for the ball-in-box scenario it says the events were detected using 'a combination of OwlViT-based object detection and GPT 4.1 for Visual Question Answering.' No details are given for camera placement, detection frequency, confidence thresholds, classification of relevance, or latency. This is load-bearing because runtime event-driven replanning is the headline novelty. Without a precise description, the 9/10, 8/8, and 5/5 hardware results are difficult to reproduce. Please specify the perception modules, their parameters, and their failure modes.
  3. [§IV-A, §IV-A.2] The hardware evidence is small and not statistically characterized. Success rates of 9/10, 8/8, and 5/5 are reported without confidence intervals or per-trial logs, and the single failure is attributed to 'incorrect replanning sequence' without explaining where the planner diverged. Since the conclusion claims robustness and flexibility, the paper should report per-trial descriptions, explicit success criteria, and an error taxonomy; otherwise the numbers are anecdotal. The 'unique' or 'uniquely demonstrates' claims in the abstract and Table I should be softened unless a baseline and error analysis are supplied.
  4. [§III-D, §V, §VI] The textual benchmark measures plan-level outputs, not execution. 'Executability' is defined as 'percentage of feasible allocations given robot capabilities and constraints'—a feasibility judgment, not an execution result—and IoU/correctness are computed against author-written ground truth. Thus the 0.91 correctness figure does not directly establish real-world success. The conclusion's phrase 'consistent success across textual datasets, simulations, and hardware experiments' compares different metrics on different platforms without a common measure; this claim should be qualified or supported by a direct cross-domain evaluation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III-D] The Task Classification (TC) definition is circular or at least ambiguous: 'TC equals 1 if the classification is feasible given the allocation'—but allocation depends on classification. Please clarify the intended causal order or give examples of infeasible classification-allocation pairs.
  2. [§IV-A.2] Typo: 'This experiment had a success rate is8/8' should read 'success rate of 8/8.' Please correct throughout the paper.
  3. [Fig. 11, Fig. 12, §V] The replanning results in Fig. 12b are reported only for Grok 3, but the abstract states that the separate replanning set 'achieves 1.0 correctness' without noting this restriction. Also, Fig. 13 evaluates only three LLMs; please clarify which claims apply to which model.
  4. [§III-A, §V] Temperature=0.5 is fixed for all experiments, but no sensitivity analysis is reported, and the five repeated runs are aggregated without showing variance. Please report per-run results or at least discuss the influence of sampling temperature on the scores.
  5. [§II, Table I] The claim of uniqueness in the abstract and Table I should be phrased as 'to our knowledge' and supported by a direct comparison; currently the table's checkmarks are self-reported with no baseline runs on the same scenarios.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor self-definitional metric in task-classification evaluation; central hardware/planning claims are not circular.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section III-D (Evaluation Metrics), with allocation flow in Section III-A]
    "Task Classification (TC) equals 1 if the classification is feasible given the allocation, otherwise 0 (some tasks may be performed both sequentially and independently)."

    The Task Manager first classifies tasks and then allocates them in the same LLM call (Section III-A: 'classifies user-provided tasks... It then allocates tasks to robots...'). TC is therefore defined against the allocation produced by the same classifier, not against an independent ground-truth task type. A classification that is merely consistent with the model's own allocation is scored 1, even if the classification is wrong with respect to the user's intent. Thus the reported TC scores measure self-consistency of one output with another, not external classification correctness.

full rationale

No load-bearing circularity found in the main derivation. CoMuRoS is validated by physical hardware experiments (9/10, 8/8, 5/5) whose outcomes are external to the authors' code and prompt text; those results are not derived from the claimed outputs. The Section V textual benchmark is author-curated and its Correctness metric relies on an 'expert evaluator' acknowledged as a collaborator, which is a validity limitation, but it is not a by-construction equivalence: the evaluator could in principle judge plans as failures. The one genuine definitional circularity is the TC metric, which checks classification feasibility against the same model's allocation and therefore is partly guaranteed by construction. This is a minor metric-design issue and does not invalidate the independent hardware evidence or the event-driven replanning contribution.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central performance claims rest on hand-crafted prompts, author-curated scenario configurations, and an author-affiliated evaluation, with no fitted constants. There are no invented physical entities, but the task taxonomy and status schema are author-defined abstractions.

free parameters (2)
  • LLM sampling temperature = 0.5
    Temperature=0.5 is fixed for all experiments (Section III-A) with no sweep or justification; a hand-chosen hyperparameter that affects planning determinism.
  • Scenario-specific configuration rules = hand-authored per scenario
    Each scenario's configuration file contains hand-written robot capabilities, morphology constraints, and task-specific rules (e.g., Waffle's manipulator lacks reach to place an object on a standing quadruped, catch-point coordinates). The generalization claim depends on these per-scenario author-curated inputs.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption LLMs provide reliable zero-shot task decomposition, code generation, and event classification.
    Invoked throughout Sections III and IV; if LLM outputs are unreliable, the architecture's central functions fail.
  • domain assumption Onboard perception (VLM/image processing) can detect and classify event relevance in real time.
    Section III-B states event detection runs in parallel with execution; the hardware demos depend on this perception working for specific events.
  • ad hoc to paper The four task categories (independent, sequential, coordinated, infeasible) sufficiently represent all multi-robot task dependencies in the evaluated scenarios.
    Section III-A defines these categories; the benchmark and replanning correctness scores assume this taxonomy captures realistic task structure.
  • domain assumption Task status (COMPLETED/IN PROGRESS/INTERRUPTED) reported by robots is accurate.
    Section III-A uses reported status for replanning decisions; inaccurate status would break task-resumption and dependency reasoning.
  • ad hoc to paper The 'expert evaluator' ground truth for correctness is objective and unbiased.
    Section III-D defines Correctness as judged by an expert evaluator; the evaluator is an author-lab collaborator (Acknowledgments), so this axiom is not independently verified.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLM-Based Generalizable Hierarchical Task Planning and Execution for Heterogeneous Robot Teams with Event-Driven Replanning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/INPUOUNQ

@misc{pith2026251122354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLM-Based Generalizable Hierarchical Task Planning and Execution for Heterogeneous Robot Teams with Event-Driven Replanning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/INPUOUNQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.22354}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

This paper introduces CoMuRoS (Collaborative Multi-Robot System), a generalizable hierarchical architecture for heterogeneous robot teams that unifies centralized deliberation with decentralized execution, and supports event-driven replanning. A Task Manager LLM interprets natural-language goals, classifies tasks, and allocates subtasks using static rules plus dynamic contexts (task, history, robot and task status, and events).Each robot runs a local LLM that composes executable Python code from primitive skills (ROS2 nodes, policies), while onboard perception (VLMs/image processing) continuously monitors events and classifies them into relevant or irrelevant to the task. Task failures or user intent changes trigger replanning, allowing robots to assist teammates, resume tasks, or request human help. Hardware studies demonstrate autonomous recovery from disruptive events, filtering of irrelevant distractions, and tightly coordinated transport with emergent human-robot cooperation (e.g., multirobot collaborative object recovery success rate: 9/10, coordinated transport: 8/8, human-assisted recovery: 5/5).Simulation studies show intention-aware replanning. A curated textual benchmark spanning 22 scenarios (3 tasks each, around 20 robots) evaluates task allocation, classification, IoU, executability, and correctness, with high average scores (e.g., correctness up to 0.91) across multiple LLMs, a separate replanning set (5 scenarios) achieves 1.0 correctness. Compared with prior LLM-based systems, CoMuRoS uniquely demonstrates runtime, event-driven replanning on physical robots, delivering robust, flexible multi-robot and human-robot collaboration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.22354 by Bhavish Rai B, Madhu Vadali, Suraj Borate, Vipul Pardeshi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Architectural Diagram of CoMuRoS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Task Manager Prompt role of a CEO or chairman, providing high-level goals in natural language to a manager. The manager, with knowledge of the portfolios and capabilities of each agent, allocates tasks accordingly. Each team member then decides how to combine their available skills for execution and proactively reports back to the manager in case of any significant events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Chat Interface for human robot collaboration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Demonstration of event-driven replanning, incomplete task resumption, and emergence of cooperation where robots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Demonstration of ignoring irrelevant events. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of human–multi-robot collaboration resulting from failure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Hospital scenario: interpreting the human prompt “I [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hospital scenario: demonstration of anytime human [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Correctness scores across scenarios(1-22) across dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Per-metric performance across 22 scenar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Correctness scores different LLMs (GPT 4, GPT 4o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Melding LLM and temporal logic for reliable human-swarm collaboration in complex scenarios

    cs.RO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A framework melds LLMs with temporal logic and task automata to produce valid, context-grounded subtask sequences for long-horizon human-swarm collaboration while limiting operator involvement.

  2. A Hierarchical Error-Corrective Graph Framework for Autonomous Agents with LLM-Based Action Generation

    cs.AI 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    HECG combines multi-dimensional metrics for strategy choice, ten-type error classification with recoverability details, and causal-context graphs to improve LLM agent reliability in complex tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Efficient multi-robot coverage of a known environment,

    N. Karapetyan, K. Benson, C. McKinney, P. Taslakian, and I. Rekleitis, “Efficient multi-robot coverage of a known environment,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1846–1852

    2017

  2. [2]

    Multi-robot formation control and object transport in dynamic environments via constrained opti- mization,

    J. Alonso-Mora, S. Baker, and D. Rus, “Multi-robot formation control and object transport in dynamic environments via constrained opti- mization,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1000–1021, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Building cooperative embodied agents modularly with large language models,

    H. Zhang, W. Du, J. Shan, Q. Zhou, Y . Du, J. B. Tenenbaum, T. Shu, and C. Gan, “Building cooperative embodied agents modularly with large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02485, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Smart-llm: Smart multi-agent robot task planning using large language models,

    S. S. Kannan, V . L. Venkatesh, and B.-C. Min, “Smart-llm: Smart multi-agent robot task planning using large language models,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 12 140–12 147

    2024

  5. [5]

    Roco: Dialectic multi-robot col- laboration with large language models,

    Z. Mandi, S. Jain, and S. Song, “Roco: Dialectic multi-robot col- laboration with large language models,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 286–299

    2024

  6. [6]

    Coherent: Collaboration of heterogeneous multi-robot system with large language models,

    K. Liu, Z. Tang, D. Wang, Z. Wang, X. Li, and B. Zhao, “Coherent: Collaboration of heterogeneous multi-robot system with large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15146, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Dart-llm: Dependency-aware multi- robot task decomposition and execution using large language models,

    Y . Wang, R. Xiao, J. Y . L. Kasahara, R. Yajima, K. Nagatani, A. Yamashita, and H. Asama, “Dart-llm: Dependency-aware multi- robot task decomposition and execution using large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09022, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    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,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 9118–9147

    2022

  9. [9]

    Lm-nav: Robotic navigation with large pre-trained models of language, vision, and action,

    D. Shah, B. Osi ´nski, S. Levineet al., “Lm-nav: Robotic navigation with large pre-trained models of language, vision, and action,” in Conference on robot learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 492–504

    2023

  10. [10]

    Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future,

    R. Firoozi, J. Tucker, S. Tian, A. Majumdar, J. Sun, W. Liu, Y . Zhu, S. Song, A. Kapoor, K. Hausmanet al., “Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 701–739, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

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

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, J. Dabis, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, J. Hsuet al., “Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

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

    B. Zitkovich, T. Yu, S. Xu, P. Xu, T. Xiao, F. Xia, J. Wu, P. Wohlhart, S. Welker, A. Wahidet al., “Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” inConference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 2165–2183

    2023

  13. [13]

    Open- vla: An open-source vision-language-action model,

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketiet al., “Open- vla: An open-source vision-language-action model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024. Preprint

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots,

    J. Bjorck, F. Casta ˜neda, N. Cherniadev, X. Da, R. Ding, L. Fan, Y . Fang, D. Fox, F. Hu, S. Huanget al., “Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Reinforcement learning: An introduction. by richard’s sutton,

    A. G. Barto, “Reinforcement learning: An introduction. by richard’s sutton,”SIAM Rev, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 423, 2021

    2021

  16. [16]

    M. W. Spong and M. Vidyasagar,Robot dynamics and control. John Wiley & Sons, 2008

    2008

  17. [17]

    Pddl—the planning domain definition language,

    C. Aeronautiques, A. Howe, C. Knoblock, I. D. McDermott, A. Ram, M. Veloso, D. Weld, D. W. Sri, A. Barrett, D. Christiansonet al., “Pddl—the planning domain definition language,”Technical Report, Tech. Rep., 1998

    1998

  18. [18]

    Strips: A new approach to the appli- cation of theorem proving to problem solving,

    R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson, “Strips: A new approach to the appli- cation of theorem proving to problem solving,”Artificial intelligence, vol. 2, no. 3-4, pp. 189–208, 1971

    1971

  19. [19]

    Scalable multi-robot collaboration with large language models: Centralized or decentralized systems?

    Y . Chen, J. Arkin, Y . Zhang, N. Roy, and C. Fan, “Scalable multi-robot collaboration with large language models: Centralized or decentralized systems?” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 4311–4317

    2024

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.