Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 67 references

A VLM robot planner that mixes language with imagined future scenes succeeds more on constrained long-horizon kitchen tasks and learns when each mode is worth using.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 13:32 UTC pith:UKEQIJM2

load-bearing objection Solid embodied-planning methods paper: adaptive latent visual thoughts inside the planner’s own trace beat strong VLM and TAMP baselines on KitchenWorlds, with the biggest gains under tight free space; the adaptive story is real but tightly coupled to heuristic labels. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08024 v1 pith:UKEQIJM2 submitted 2026-07-09 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGcs.RO

APIVOT: Adaptive Planning with Interleaved Vision-Language Thoughts

Emily Jin , Joy Hsu , Yiqing Xu , Weiyu Liu , Nick Haber , Jiajun Wu This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGcs.RO
keywords robot planningvision-language modelsvisual thoughtslong-horizon planningmodality selectiongeometric feasibilitytask and motion planningkitchen manipulation
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.

Long-horizon robot planning has to solve two coupled problems at once: semantic structure (what objects matter, which subgoals come first) and geometric feasibility (will things fit, collide, or leave later steps impossible). This paper introduces APIVOT, a vision-language planner that builds a reasoning trace interleaving ordinary language with visual thoughts—latent encodings of imagined future scenes—then emits a grounded action plan. It is trained with a three-stage curriculum that first teaches the model to use provided future images, then to generate them, then to emit them only when geometry is the bottleneck. On kitchen containment, sorting, and held-out leftover-storage tasks, the method beats strong general-purpose VLMs and planning frameworks, with the largest gains as free space tightens, while adaptive image use keeps most of the always-image success at substantially lower token cost. A sympathetic reader cares because the work argues that geometry need not stay outside the planner as a post-hoc check; it can shape the plan from inside the reasoning trace itself.

Core claim

APIVOT claims that adaptively interleaving language for semantic reasoning with visual thoughts as imagined future states for internal geometric verification improves long-horizon planning success and efficiency, outperforming language-centric VLMs and prior planning frameworks especially when spatial constraints are tight, and that the model learns to invoke visual thoughts selectively rather than uniformly.

What carries the argument

Visual thoughts: fixed-length latent visual token spans whose decoder hidden states are aligned, via a cosine loss, to features of ground-truth future RGB observations. They are taught by a three-stage supervised curriculum—comprehend provided thoughts, generate them, then select modality adaptively from heuristic-labeled traces.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that supervised traces whose image-use labels and future-scene targets come from simulator geometry heuristics plus an LLM rewrite will teach latent visual states that truly verify geometry and transfer beyond that labeled distribution.

What would settle it

Train a matched text-only fine-tune on the same tasks and expert plans; if it matches APIVOT under high occupancy, or if ablating visual alignment leaves success and selective image use unchanged on the same KitchenWorlds suites, the claim that imagined visual states drive the gains fails.

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

If this is right

  • Internal geometric checks via imagined futures can beat external-verifier and language-only VLM planners on packing-style long-horizon tasks.
  • Selective visual-thought use can retain most of always-image success at much lower token cost.
  • Relative gains grow as occupancy and placement tightness increase.
  • Planning strategies learned on containment and sorting can transfer to a held-out compositional leftover-storage task.
  • Visual thoughts can encode spatial layout more compactly than long language descriptions of free space and collisions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If latent visual thoughts scale past simulation, high-level planners may need fewer early calls to external motion planners for geometric pruning.
  • The same learn-when-to-switch-modality idea may apply to other dual-mode reasoning (when to sketch a layout versus write a rule).
  • Premature episode termination and missed obstacle-clearing failures suggest progress tracking and geometric-precondition detection remain separate bottlenecks.
  • Sparse labels for when to use images can collapse visual use at inference, so modality selection may need denser or success-driven training signals.

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

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes APIVOT, a VLM-based long-horizon planner that interleaves language reasoning with latent visual thoughts (fixed-length image-pad hidden states aligned to ground-truth future RGB via cosine loss). A three-stage SFT curriculum teaches comprehension of provided visual thoughts, generation of latent visual states, and adaptive modality selection. On KitchenWorlds CONTAINMENT, SORTING, and held-out STORING LEFTOVERS, APIVOT reports average success 0.419 (about 8–9 points above the strongest VLM and planning baselines), with larger gains at high occupancy, better token-budget efficiency than language-only VLMs, and adaptive use retaining ~91% of always-image success at ~39% lower token cost. Ablations cover text-only SFT, training stages, train/inference modality, and heuristic vs random modality labeling.

Significance. If the results hold, the work is a clear contribution to multimodal robot planning: it internalizes geometric verification as imagined future states inside the planner’s trace rather than relying only on external TAMP/verifiers, and it treats modality choice as a learned, task-grounded decision. Strengths include a coherent three-stage curriculum, multiple complementary ablations (text-only SFT, stage removal, always/no/adaptive image, oracle GT images), occupancy-stratified analysis, token-budget curves, a held-out compositional task, and explicit efficiency–performance trade-offs. These make the paper more than a single-number leaderboard entry and give the community a concrete recipe for interleaved vision–language planning traces.

major comments (3)
  1. Table 1 and Figures 4–6 report single-point success rates with no seeds, confidence intervals, or statistical tests, despite modest eval sets (100 episodes per family). The headline 8.1/9.0-point gains and the occupancy gap widening from ~0.07 to ~0.17 are load-bearing for the central claim; without variance it is hard to judge robustness, especially given the large ID–OOD drops in Appendix Table 2 (relative gaps ~0.19–0.20 for APIVOT). Please report multi-seed means±std (or bootstrap CIs) for main tables and key ablations, or justify why single-run estimates are sufficient.
  2. Sections 3.2–3.3 and Appendix A.2 define Stage-3 modality labels and visual targets from the same simulator free-space / footprint / tightness heuristics that also define occupancy and constraint types used in evaluation (Fig. 4, Fig. 7). Appendix D.5 already shows heuristic 75% labeling beats random 75% (0.419 vs 0.371) and that sparser heuristics collapse visual-thought usage. This couples the “meaningful modality selection” narrative to the labeling rule rather than independently demonstrated geometric verification. The adaptive-efficiency claim (Fig. 6: 91% of Always-Image at 39% lower tokens) therefore needs stronger support: e.g., held-out labeling rules, analysis of whether latent states encode free-space/collision structure beyond RGB reconstruction, or RL/test-time selection optimized for success rather than SFT mimicry of the heuristic.
  3. Appendix D.4 Table 4 shows a persistent gap between generated visual thoughts (adaptive 0.419 / always-image 0.459) and GT-oracle images (0.482). Combined with the OOD hypothesis in D.1 that denser scenes hurt visual-thought generation, this suggests latent visual states may be imperfect geometric verifiers. The paper’s claim that visual thoughts enable “internal verification of geometric feasibility” (Abstract, §1, §5) would be more convincing with a direct diagnostic: when does attending to Hj change placement parameters or avert collisions versus merely correlating with heuristic-labeled steps? Without that, the geometric-verification interpretation remains partly inferential.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Empirical SFT planner with external simulator success; only mild tautology in supervised modality-selection analysis, not in the main performance claims.

specific steps
  1. other [Sec. 3.2–3.3, Fig. 7, App. A.2 / D.5]
    "We assign modality labels based on simulator-derived geometric heuristics that identify subgoals constrained by limited free space, collision-sensitive placements, or downstream feasibility dependencies. ... When our model determines that a step does not require geometric reasoning ... it does not produce visual thoughts. On the other hand, it uses visual thoughts for 48.4% of steps involving limited free space and 56.2% of steps involving downstream feasibility constraints."

    Modality supervision is defined by the same free-space/tightness heuristics later used to stratify and interpret constraint-aware visual-thought use. Reporting that the model emits visual thoughts more on geometric steps partly restates the Stage-3 labeling rule rather than an independently discovered selection policy. This is a mild analysis tautology only; task success remains measured by simulator execution, not by reconstructing the heuristic labels.

full rationale

APIVOT’s load-bearing results are task success under closed-loop KitchenWorlds execution on held-out instances (Table 1, Fig. 4–6), compared to independent VLM and planning baselines. Success is not a fitted constant renamed as a prediction, nor is it defined in terms of the training modality labels. Reference traces are built from PDDLStream demos plus simulator geometric heuristics and LLM expansion (Sec. 3.2–3.3, App. A.2); that is standard imitation supervision, not a self-definitional derivation. Occupancy ratio is computed from object/target areas independently of the plan score. Always-Image vs Adaptive is an inference-time ablation of the same model, so the 91%/39% efficiency claim is an empirical tradeoff, not forced by construction. The only mild circularity is interpretive: Stage-3 SFT explicitly labels visual thoughts on geometrically tight steps, then Fig. 7 reports that the model uses visual thoughts more on geometric constraints—partly reproducing the supervised labeling rule. Appendix D.5’s heuristic-vs-random gap further shows coupling to the labeling policy, but that weakens the “discovered meaningful selection” narrative, not the external success metric. No self-citation uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled as theorem, no renaming of a known closed-form result. Score 1 for that minor supervised-analysis tautology; main claims remain externally benchmarked.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on standard VLM/SFT machinery plus several paper-specific modeling choices: that latent pad-token states aligned by cosine similarity to a frozen vision encoder constitute usable ‘visual thoughts,’ that simulator-derived tightness heuristics correctly label when vision is needed, and that LLM-expanded skeletons are adequate reasoning targets. Free parameters are ordinary training and representation choices; invented entities are the latent visual-thought mechanism itself.

free parameters (5)
  • visual thought length K = 16
    Fixed at 16 pad tokens; controls capacity of each latent future-state representation and is not derived from first principles.
  • visual loss weight λ_vis = 5.0
    Set to 5.0 in stages 2–3; balances CE plan/trace losses against cosine alignment and is chosen by the authors.
  • geometric tightness threshold for modality labels = pre-defined threshold (value not numerically reported)
    Maps free-space / footprint metrics to text-only vs visual-thought labels in reference traces; directly shapes what ‘adaptive’ means.
  • LoRA rank and learning rate = r=16, lr=4e-5
    r=16, α=32, lr=4e-5; standard but free finetuning knobs that affect whether the curriculum succeeds.
  • Stage-3 visual-thought usage rate in reference data = 75%
    Heuristic dataset constructed at ~75% visual steps; ablations show performance collapses at 50%/25%, so the claim depends on this design choice.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Parameterized skills open/pick/place with image-space (u,v) placements lifted via depth and known camera extrinsics are a sufficient action interface for the tasks.
    Problem formulation Section 3; isolates planning from low-level control and perception.
  • ad hoc to paper Cosine alignment of decoder hidden states at image-pad tokens to average-pooled frozen vision-encoder features of ground-truth future RGB yields latent states that subsequent tokens can use for geometric planning.
    Visual alignment loss in Section 3.2; core mechanism of ‘visual thoughts.’
  • ad hoc to paper Simulator-derived free-space margins and future-feasibility metrics correctly identify steps that benefit from visual thoughts.
    Reference construction Section 3.2 and Appendix A.2; defines adaptive supervision.
  • domain assumption High-capacity LLM expansion of annotated skeletons produces reasoning traces that are valid SFT targets for the VLM’s natural style.
    Standard practice for synthetic CoT; used throughout data pipeline.
  • domain assumption KitchenWorlds + PDDLStream successful trajectories are representative enough that measured success rates support claims about long-horizon geometric planning.
    Experimental setup Section 4.1; all quantitative claims rest on this environment.
invented entities (2)
  • Latent visual thought (Hj span of K image-pad hidden states) no independent evidence
    purpose: Internal imagined future observation that conditions later reasoning and placement parameters without external rendering at inference.
    Defined in Section 3.1; the paper’s main technical object. Independent evidence is only the downstream planning gains and alignment loss, not an external measurement of the latent content.
  • Three-stage adaptive modality curriculum no independent evidence
    purpose: Progressively teach comprehension, generation, then selective emission of visual thoughts.
    Section 3.3; training procedure rather than a physical entity, but it is a new postulated training object the results depend on.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 30243 in / 3449 out tokens · 39065 ms · 2026-07-10T13:32:00.312960+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Long-horizon robot planning requires jointly reasoning over semantic task structure and geometric feasibility. To successfully execute a task, a robot must decompose goals, select task-relevant objects, and sequence actions, while ensuring that plans satisfy spatial constraints such as limited free space and object collisions. In this work, we propose APIVOT, a VLM-based planner that adaptively interleaves language and visual thoughts for long-horizon planning. APIVOT learns to leverage language for semantic reasoning, while using visual thoughts as imagined future states for internal verification of geometric feasibility. On long-horizon kitchen tasks, APIVOT outperforms general-purpose VLMs and prior planning frameworks, achieving the largest gains in spatially constrained settings. We find that APIVOT learns meaningful modality selection behavior, demonstrating that adaptive interleaving of vision-language thoughts improves both planning success and reasoning efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08024 by Emily Jin, Jiajun Wu, Joy Hsu, Nick Haber, Weiyu Liu, Yiqing Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: APIVOT (above) plans for long-horizon tasks by interleaving language reasoning with visual thoughts. While a standard VLM planner (below) reasonsing in text may produce a semantically plausible but geometrically infeasible plan, APIVOT imagines future states inside its reasoning trace. These visual thoughts reveal potential collisions or constraints before execution, enabling the planner to verify geometri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: APIVOT produces a reasoning trace of interleaved language tokens (yellow) and visual￾thoughts (purple) followed by a plan, and is trained with a three-stage SFT curriculum. In all stages, we apply teacher-forced SFT to a reference reasoning trace and plan (blue border). Stage 1 teaches the model to plan with ground-truth visual thoughts, provided at every reasoning step; Stage 2 trains it to generate visua… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: We show execution traces of APIVOT and the top-performing baseline on each task: CONTAINMENT (top) and SORTING (bottom). cases with ample free-space to harder ones requiring opening doors, removing obstacles, or carefully arranging objects under tight space. For each task instance, we use PDDLStream [21] to generate a successful trajectory and synthesize the corresponding reference output. We train on 2,00… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Success rate by occupancy ratio. Performance under increasing geometric complex￾ity. To understand where these gains arise, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Success rates of VLMs at different token budgets. Performance under reasoning budgets. To assess whether visual thoughts encode spatial information more efficiently than language, we compare APIVOT against VLM baselines under matched maximum reasoning-token budgets ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Perf.-efficiency trade-off. Effective modality selection. To evaluate the ben￾efit of adaptive modality selection, we compare our method (Adaptive) against two inference-time abla￾tions: text-only reasoning (No-Image) and visual thoughts at every step (Always-Image). As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Adaptive reasoning behavior on a held-out STORING LEFTOVERS task. APIVOT reasons in language for semantic decisions such as food-to-container assignment, while selectively generating visual thoughts for geometry-sensitive steps, such as collision-free zucchini placement and final fridge storage. This shows that APIVOT invokes visual reasoning when spatial precision is needed, rather than using visual thoug… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual thought usage by constraint. Constraint-aware modality selection. Beyond its effect on efficiency, we examine whether APIVOT’s adaptive use of visual thoughts reflects meaningful modality-selection behavior. We analyze our model’s reasoning traces to see whether it uses visual thoughts systematically based on the constraint it identifies at each reasoning step. For different constraint types, [PITH… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: These families test different combinations of constraints, including semantic preconditions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: KitchenWorlds task suite with increasing complexity. CONTAINMENT (above) requires placing target objects into constrained storage regions, testing accessibility, obstruction handling, and free-space reasoning. SORTING (middle) requires semantic reasoning over object types to assign food objects to containers, while capacity constraints make some assignments geometrically infeasible. STORING LEFTOVERS (belo… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Training examples for CONTAINMENT, showing the inputs and reference outputs. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Training examples for SORTING, showing the inputs and reference outputs. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Success rates across all task families. D.3 Training Stage Ablation Experiment Setup. APIVOT is trained through a three-stage curriculum that progressively teaches it to understand, generate, and adaptively use visual thoughts for planning (Section 3.3). To evaluate the contribution of each stage, we ablate one stage at a time starting from the full APIVOT training pipeline and evaluate on all tasks. This… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qualitative comparison of CONTAINMENT: APIVOT clears an obstacle to complete the task, while Gemini-ER-1.5 recognizes the space constraint too late and times out. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Qualitative comparison of CONTAINMENT: APIVOT preserves space for future bowl placements, while VLM-TAMP fails to anticipate the final placement constraint. 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Qualitative comparison of SORTING: APIVOT succeeds with the correct braiser assign￾ment, while Gemini-ER-1.5 fails and switches to an infeasible assignment. 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Qualitative comparison of SORTING: APIVOT succeeds by selecting a more spatially flexible braiser assignment, while VLM-TAMP chooses the opposite, leaving insufficient room for placement. 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Qualitative comparison of STORING LEFTOVERS: APIVOT sorts the objects and fits both large braisers in the fridge, while Gemini-ER-1.5 cannot place both braisers feasibly. 31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Qualitative comparison of STORING LEFTOVERS: APIVOT completes sorting, obstacle removal, and placement in a constrained region, while VLM-TAMP times out after several errors. 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Prompt used to expand structured planning traces into natural-language reasoning traces. 34 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Planning prompt used for APIVOT. 36 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Text-only planning prompt used for VLM baselines. 37 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_21.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 29 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Daniel Ho, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Rosario Jauregui Ruano, Kyle Jeffrey, Sally Jesmonth, Nikhil J. Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Yuheng Kuang, ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Language Models as Zero-Shot Planners: Extracting Actionable Knowledge for Embodied Agents

    Wenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, and Igor Mordatch. Language Models as Zero-Shot Planners: Extracting Actionable Knowledge for Embodied Agents, March 2022. arXiv:2201.07207 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Inner Monologue: Embodied Reasoning through Planning with Language Models

    Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, Pierre Sermanet, Noah Brown, Tomas Jackson, Linda Luu, Sergey Levine, Karol Hausman, and Brian Ichter. Inner Monologue: Embodied Reasoning through Planning with Language Models, July 2022. arXiv:2207.05608 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    LLM+P: Empowering Large Language Models with Optimal Planning Proficiency

    Bo Liu, Yuqian Jiang, Xiaohan Zhang, Qiang Liu, Shiqi Zhang, Joydeep Biswas, and Peter Stone. LLM+P: Empowering Large Language Models with Optimal Planning Proficiency, September 2023. arXiv:2304.11477 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Progprompt: Program generation for situated robot task planning using large language models.Autonomous Robots, 47(8):999–1012, 2023

    Ishika Singh, Valts Blukis, Arsalan Mousavian, Ankit Goyal, Danfei Xu, Jonathan Tremblay, Dieter Fox, Jesse Thomason, and Animesh Garg. Progprompt: Program generation for situated robot task planning using large language models.Autonomous Robots, 47(8):999–1012, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control. In2023 IEEE International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 9493–9500. IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

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

    Chan Hee Song, Jiaman Wu, Clayton Washington, Brian M Sadler, Wei-Lun Chao, and Yu 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, pages 2998–3009, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Embodied Task Planning with Large Language Models

    Zhenyu Wu, Ziwei Wang, Xiuwei Xu, Jiwen Lu, and Haibin Yan. Embodied task planning with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01848, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    CoPAL: Corrective Planning of Robot Actions with Large Language Models

    Frank Joublin, Antonello Ceravola, Pavel Smirnov, Felix Ocker, Joerg Deigmoeller, Anna Belardinelli, Chao Wang, Stephan Hasler, Daniel Tanneberg, and Michael Gienger. CoPAL: Corrective Planning of Robot Actions with Large Language Models. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8664–8670, May 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    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, October 2024. arXiv:2410.02193 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    LLM3:Large Language Model-based Task and Motion Planning with Motion Failure Reasoning

    Shu Wang, Muzhi Han, Ziyuan Jiao, Zeyu Zhang, Ying Nian Wu, Song-Chun Zhu, and Hangxin Liu. LLM3:Large Language Model-based Task and Motion Planning with Motion Failure Reasoning, August 2024. arXiv:2403.11552 [cs]. 10

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    RePLan: Robotic Replanning with Perception and Language Models

    Marta Skreta, Zihan Zhou, Jia Lin Yuan, Kourosh Darvish, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Animesh Garg. RePLan: Robotic Replanning with Perception and Language Models, February 2024. arXiv:2401.04157 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Reflective Planning: Vision-Language Models for Multi-Stage Long-Horizon Robotic Manipulation

    Yunhai Feng, Jiaming Han, Zhuoran Yang, Xiangyu Yue, Sergey Levine, and Jianlan Luo. Reflective Planning: Vision-Language Models for Multi-Stage Long-Horizon Robotic Manipu- lation, February 2025. arXiv:2502.16707 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Robotic Control via Embodied Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

    Michał Zawalski, William Chen, Karl Pertsch, Oier Mees, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Robotic Control via Embodied Chain-of-Thought Reasoning, March 2025. arXiv:2407.08693 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    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, Ankur Handa, Ming-Yu Liu, Donglai Xiang, Gordon Wetzstein, and Tsung-Yi Lin. CoT-VLA: Visual Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Vision- Language-Action Models, March 2025. arXiv:2503.22020 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    BagelVLA: Enhancing long-horizon manipulation via interleaved vision-language-action generation, February 2026

    Yucheng Hu, Jianke Zhang, Yuanfei Luo, Yanjiang Guo, Xiaoyu Chen, Xinshu Sun, Kun Feng, Qingzhou Lu, Sheng Chen, Yangang Zhang, Wei Li, and Jianyu Chen. BagelVLA: Enhancing long-horizon manipulation via interleaved vision-language-action generation, February 2026. arXiv:2602.09849 [cs.RO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    EO-1: An open unified embodied foundation model for general robot control, August 2025

    Delin Qu, Haoming Song, Qizhi Chen, Zhaoqing Chen, Xianqiang Gao, Dong Wang, Xinyi Ye, Qi Lv, Modi Shi, Guanghui Ren, Cheng Ruan, Maoqing Yao, Haoran Yang, Jiacheng Bao, Bin Zhao, and Xuelong Li. EO-1: An open unified embodied foundation model for general robot control, August 2025. arXiv:2508.21112 [cs.RO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    From Seeing to Doing: Bridging Reasoning and Decision for Robotic Manipulation

    Yifu Yuan, Haiqin Cui, Yibin Chen, Zibin Dong, Fei Ni, Longxin Kou, Jinyi Liu, Pengyi Li, Yan Zheng, and Jianye Hao. From seeing to doing: Bridging reasoning and decision for robotic manipulation, May 2025. arXiv:2505.08548 [cs.RO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    ${\pi}_{0.7}$: a Steerable Generalist Robotic Foundation Model with Emergent Capabilities

    Physical Intelligence, Bo Ai, Ali Amin, Raichelle Aniceto, Ashwin Balakrishna, Greg Balke, Kevin Black, George Bokinsky, Shihao Cao, Thomas Charbonnier, Vedant Choudhary, Foster Collins, Ken Conley, Grace Connors, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Maitrayee Dhaka, Jared DiCarlo, Danny Driess, et al. π0.7: A steerable generalist robotic foundation model wit...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Integrated Task and Motion Planning.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 4(1):265–293, May 2021

    Caelan Reed Garrett, Rohan Chitnis, Rachel Holladay, Beomjoon Kim, Tom Silver, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, and Tomás Lozano-Pérez. Integrated Task and Motion Planning.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 4(1):265–293, May 2021

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    PDDLStream: Integrating Symbolic Planners and Blackbox Samplers via Optimistic Adaptive Planning

    Caelan Reed Garrett, Tomás Lozano-Pérez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. PDDLStream: Integrat- ing Symbolic Planners and Blackbox Samplers via Optimistic Adaptive Planning, March 2020. arXiv:1802.08705 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Pddl—the planning domain definition language.Technical Report, Tech

    Constructions Aeronautiques, Adele Howe, Craig Knoblock, ISI Drew McDermott, Ashwin Ram, Manuela Veloso, Daniel Weld, David Wilkins Sri, Anthony Barrett, Dave Christianson, et al. Pddl—the planning domain definition language.Technical Report, Tech. Rep., 1998

    work page 1998

  23. [23]

    M. Helmert. The Fast Downward Planning System.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 26:191–246, July 2006. arXiv:1109.6051 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  24. [24]

    set it up

    Yiqing Xu, Jiayuan Mao, Linfeng Li, Yilun Du, Tomas Lozáno-Pérez, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, and David Hsu. “set it up”: Functional object arrangement with compositional generative models.The International Journal of Robotics Research, page 02783649251378198, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Kavraki, and Zachary Kingston

    Muyang Yan, Miras Mengdibayev, Ardon Floros, Weihang Guo, Lydia E. Kavraki, and Zachary Kingston. Using VLM Reasoning to Constrain Task and Motion Planning, March 2026. arXiv:2510.25548 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Qwen3-VL Technical Report

    Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, Zesen Cheng, Lianghao Deng, Wei Ding, Chang Gao, Chunjiang Ge, Wenbin Ge, Zhifang Guo, Qidong Huang, Jie Huang, Fei Huang, Binyuan Hui, Shutong Jiang, Zhaohai Li, Mingsheng Li, Mei Li, Kaixin 11 Li, Zicheng Lin, Junyang Lin, Xuejing Liu, Jiawei Liu, Chenglong Liu, Yang Liu, Dayiheng Liu, Shixu...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Gemini Robotics ER 1.6 Model Card

    work page

  28. [28]

    Emerging Properties in Unified Multimodal Pretraining

    Chaorui Deng, Deyao Zhu, Kunchang Li, Chenhui Gou, Feng Li, Zeyu Wang, Shu Zhong, Weihao Yu, Xiaonan Nie, Ziang Song, Guang Shi, and Haoqi Fan. Emerging properties in unified multimodal pretraining, 2025. arXiv:2505.14683 [cs.CV]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Show-o2: Improved Native Unified Multimodal Models

    Jinheng Xie, Zhenheng Yang, and Mike Zheng Shou. Show-o2: Improved native unified multimodal models, 2025. arXiv:2506.15564 [cs.CV]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    TUNA: Taming unified visual representations for native unified multimodal models, 2025

    Zhiheng Liu, Weiming Ren, Haozhe Liu, Zijian Zhou, Shoufa Chen, Haonan Qiu, Xiaoke Huang, Zhaochong An, Fanny Yang, Aditya Patel, Viktar Atliha, Tony Ng, Xiao Han, Chuyan Zhu, Chenyang Zhang, Ding Liu, Juan-Manuel Perez-Rua, Sen He, Jürgen Schmidhuber, Wenhu Chen, Ping Luo, Wei Liu, Tao Xiang, Jonas Schult, and Yuren Cong. TUNA: Taming unified visual repr...

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Tuna-2: Pixel Embeddings Beat Vision Encoders for Multimodal Understanding and Generation

    Zhiheng Liu, Weiming Ren, Xiaoke Huang, Shoufa Chen, Tianhong Li, Mengzhao Chen, Yatai Ji, Sen He, Jonas Schult, Belinda Zeng, Tao Xiang, Wenhu Chen, Ping Luo, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Yuren Cong. Tuna-2: Pixel embeddings beat vision encoders for multimodal understanding and generation, April 2026. arXiv:2604.24763 [cs.CV]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Beyond language modeling: An exploration of multimodal pretraining, March 2026

    Shengbang Tong, David Fan, John Nguyen, Ellis Brown, Gaoyue Zhou, Shengyi Qian, Boyang Zheng, Théophane Vallaeys, Junlin Han, Rob Fergus, Naila Murray, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, Nicolas Ballas, Amir Bar, Michael Rabbat, Jakob Verbeek, Luke Zettlemoyer, Koustuv Sinha, Yann LeCun, and Saining Xie. Beyond language modeling: An exploration of multimod...

    work page arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Zhaochen Su, Peng Xia, Hangyu Guo, Zhenhua Liu, Yan Ma, Xiaoye Qu, Jiaqi Liu, Yanshu Li, Kaide Zeng, Zhengyuan Yang, Linjie Li, Yu Cheng, Heng Ji, Junxian He, and Yi R. Fung. Thinking with Images for Multimodal Reasoning: Foundations, Methods, and Future Frontiers, July 2025. arXiv:2506.23918 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Zebra-CoT: A dataset for interleaved vision language reasoning, July 2025

    Ang Li, Charles Wang, Deqing Fu, Kaiyu Yue, Zikui Cai, Wang Bill Zhu, Ollie Liu, Peng Guo, Willie Neiswanger, Furong Huang, Tom Goldstein, and Micah Goldblum. Zebra-CoT: A dataset for interleaved vision language reasoning, July 2025. arXiv:2507.16746 [cs.CV]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Imagine while Reasoning in Space: Multimodal Visualization-of-Thought, January

    Chengzu Li, Wenshan Wu, Huanyu Zhang, Yan Xia, Shaoguang Mao, Li Dong, Ivan Vuli´c, and Furu Wei. Imagine while Reasoning in Space: Multimodal Visualization-of-Thought, January

    work page

  36. [36]

    arXiv:2501.07542 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Chain-of-Visual-Thought: Teaching VLMs to See and Think Better with Continuous Visual Tokens, November 2025

    Yiming Qin, Bomin Wei, Jiaxin Ge, Konstantinos Kallidromitis, Stephanie Fu, Trevor Darrell, and Xudong Wang. Chain-of-Visual-Thought: Teaching VLMs to See and Think Better with Continuous Visual Tokens, November 2025. arXiv:2511.19418 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Machine Mental Imagery: Empower Multimodal Reasoning with Latent Visual Tokens

    Zeyuan Yang, Xueyang Yu, Delin Chen, Maohao Shen, and Chuang Gan. Machine Mental Imagery: Empower Multimodal Reasoning with Latent Visual Tokens, June 2025. arXiv:2506.17218 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    ThinkMorph: Emergent Properties in Multimodal Interleaved Chain-of-Thought Reasoning, February 2026

    Jiawei Gu, Yunzhuo Hao, Huichen Will Wang, Linjie Li, Michael Qizhe Shieh, Yejin Choi, Ranjay Krishna, and Yu Cheng. ThinkMorph: Emergent Properties in Multimodal Interleaved Chain-of-Thought Reasoning, February 2026. arXiv:2510.27492 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    LATTE: Learning to Think with Vision Specialists, September 2025

    Zixian Ma, Jianguo Zhang, Zhiwei Liu, Jieyu Zhang, Juntao Tan, Manli Shu, Juan Carlos Niebles, Shelby Heinecke, Huan Wang, Caiming Xiong, Ranjay Krishna, and Silvio Savarese. LATTE: Learning to Think with Vision Specialists, September 2025. arXiv:2412.05479 [cs]. 12

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Pixel Reasoner: Incentivizing Pixel-Space Reasoning with Curiosity-Driven Reinforcement Learning, October

    Haozhe Wang, Alex Su, Weiming Ren, Fangzhen Lin, and Wenhu Chen. Pixel Reasoner: Incentivizing Pixel-Space Reasoning with Curiosity-Driven Reinforcement Learning, October

    work page

  42. [42]

    arXiv:2505.15966 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Plummer, Kate Saenko, Ranjay Krishna, Leonidas Guibas, and Wen-Sheng Chu

    Arijit Ray, Ahmed Abdelkader, Chengzhi Mao, Bryan A. Plummer, Kate Saenko, Ranjay Krishna, Leonidas Guibas, and Wen-Sheng Chu. Mull-tokens: Modality-agnostic latent thinking,

    work page

  44. [44]

    arXiv:2512.10941 [cs.CV]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Thinking with visual primitives, 2026

    Ruijie Lu, Yiyang Ma, Xiaokang Chen, Lingxiao Luo, Zhiyu Wu, Zizheng Pan, Xingchao Liu, Yutong Lin, Hao Li, Wen Liu, Zhewen Hao, Xi Gao, Shaoheng Nie, Yixuan Wei, Zhenda Xie, Ting Chen, and Gang Zeng. Thinking with visual primitives, 2026. Technical report

    work page 2026

  46. [46]

    AdaCoT: Pareto-Optimal Adaptive Chain-of-Thought Triggering via Reinforcement Learning

    Chenwei Lou, Zewei Sun, Xinnian Liang, Meng Qu, Wei Shen, Wenqi Wang, Yuntao Li, Qing- ping Yang, and Shuangzhi Wu. AdaCoT: Pareto-optimal adaptive chain-of-thought triggering via reinforcement learning, 2025. arXiv:2505.11896 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Training Strategies for Efficient Embodied Reasoning

    William Chen, Suneel Belkhale, Suvir Mirchandani, Oier Mees, Danny Driess, Karl Pertsch, and Sergey Levine. Training strategies for efficient embodied reasoning, 2025. arXiv:2505.08243 [cs.RO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context

    Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context, June 2023. arXiv:2302.00093 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang

    Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts, November

    work page

  50. [50]

    arXiv:2307.03172 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    How Easily do Irrelevant Inputs Skew the Responses of Large Language Models?

    Siye Wu, Jian Xie, Jiangjie Chen, Tinghui Zhu, Kai Zhang, and Yanghua Xiao. How Eas- ily do Irrelevant Inputs Skew the Responses of Large Language Models?, September 2024. arXiv:2404.03302 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Between mdps and semi-mdps: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning.Artificial intelligence, 112(1- 2):181–211, 1999

    Richard S Sutton, Doina Precup, and Satinder Singh. Between mdps and semi-mdps: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning.Artificial intelligence, 112(1- 2):181–211, 1999

    work page 1999

  53. [53]

    Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality.Automatica, 36(6):789–814, 2000

    David Q Mayne, James B Rawlings, Christopher V Rao, and Pierre OM Scokaert. Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality.Automatica, 36(6):789–814, 2000

    work page 2000

  54. [54]

    Learning compositional behaviors from demonstration and language

    Weiyu Liu, Neil Nie, Ruohan Zhang, Jiayuan Mao, and Jiajun Wu. Learning compositional behaviors from demonstration and language. In8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2024. 13 Supplementary for APIVOT: Adaptive Planning with Interleaved Vision-Language Thoughts The appendix is organized as follows: In Appendix A, we include details about the task sui...

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    State what the action does in the context of the task

    work page

  56. [56]

    Identify the key constraint that matters at this step

    work page

  57. [57]

    step_index

    Explain why the selected modality (text or text_image_post) is appropriate. At the end, indicating that the task is complete and that it will output the final answer. Do NOT add this earlier. The reasoning should sound like a planner thinking through the decision, not like metadata description. Reasoning style requirements: - Write in natural reasoning st...

    work page

  58. [60]

    Answer Format: You must output exactly two sections: <think>...</think> <answer>...</answer> ––––––––––––––––

    You should aim to achieve the goal with the minimum number of actions. Answer Format: You must output exactly two sections: <think>...</think> <answer>...</answer> ––––––––––––––––

    work page

  59. [61]

    Each step should describe the next planning subgoal required to complete the task

    <think>section: In the <think>section, you must produce a structured planning trace as an ordered sequence of reasoning steps written in the format: Step k: ... Each step should describe the next planning subgoal required to complete the task. Each step should include reasoning about the following:

    work page

  60. [62]

    Planning intention: State what must be decided or done next and how it contributes to achieving the goal

    work page

  61. [63]

    Examples include: - spatial capacity - object accessibility - ordering dependencies - none

    Key constraint: Identify the most important constraint affecting this step. Examples include: - spatial capacity - object accessibility - ordering dependencies - none

    work page

  62. [64]

    Modality decision: Decide whether this step requires visual verification or whether text reasoning is sufficient

    work page

  63. [65]

    –––––––––––––––– Image representation rule: If visual verification is required for a step, you must emit an image representation immediately after the reasoning for that step

    Justification: Explain WHY that modality choice is appropriate. –––––––––––––––– Image representation rule: If visual verification is required for a step, you must emit an image representation immediately after the reasoning for that step. Correct structure example: Step 2: I need to determine whether the container still has enough space for the remaining...

    work page

  64. [66]

    <answer>section: Output the final plan as a list of primitive actions. Requirements: - One action per line - Use only the formal primitive action language - Do not include reasoning here - The plan must be consistent with the reasoning in <think> –––––––––––––––– Final rules: - Your output must follow EXACTLY this structure: <think>...</think> <answer>......

    work page

  65. [67]

    You must have at least one empty hand before you can pick up an object

    work page

  66. [68]

    You can only take actions on objects listed above

    work page

  67. [69]

    Output Format: First, write step-by-step reasoning about how to complete the task, including task decomposition, subgoal setting, and action sequencing

    You should aim to achieve the goal with the minimum number of actions. Output Format: First, write step-by-step reasoning about how to complete the task, including task decomposition, subgoal setting, and action sequencing. Each step should focus on planning the next planning subgoal required to complete the task, and reasoning about what must be decided ...

    work page