Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

LA-RCS: LLM-Agent-Based Robot Control System

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dual-agent LLM system lets a wheeled robot interpret natural-language commands and completes 90 percent of benchmark requests on average.

desk verdict A modest UFO-style agent integration for small-robot control whose headline 90% success rate is undercut by the paper's own inconsistent numbers and subjective success criteria. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18214 v1 pith:35X4HDVL submitted 2025-05-23 cs.RO cs.AI

TaekHyun Park , YoungJun Choi , SeungHoon Shin , Kwangil Lee This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords LLMagentrobotcontroldual-agentframeworknaturallanguagecommandtaskplanningvisualobservationautonomousnavigationCAROBO
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that an LLM-agent control system can take natural-language requests and drive a small wheeled robot to complete most of them with little human help. The system, LA-RCS, splits the job between a host agent that builds a global plan and an app agent that repeatedly observes the environment, picks a control command, and checks whether the task is finished. Across 20 benchmark requests in four domains, the authors report an average success rate of 90 percent using GPT-4o as the agent. If true, this is a step toward robots that interpret open-ended instructions and adapt to changing surroundings without a hand-coded routine per task.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the dual-agent loop. A host agent receives the user request, current observation, sensor data, and memory, and outputs a global plan plus thoughts and comments. An app agent then iterates: it reads the plan, vision, sensors, and memory; selects one control function from the robot's command set (forward, back, left, right, camera move); executes it; observes the result; and repeats until its status becomes FINISH. Memory of previous actions is fed back so the agent can avoid repeating inefficient moves. The robot itself is a small car with a camera and ultrasonic and infrared sensors, communicating with the control system through a standard robot message protocol. The loop is the load-bearing object: it is what lets planning, execution, and environmental feedback inform each other without a human in the loop.

What would settle it

Run the same 20 benchmark requests multiple times and have an independent evaluator, not the system itself, decide whether each request was actually fulfilled; a verified success rate well under 90 percent for GPT-4o would refute the headline claim. Also record the step count at which the system marks a request FINISH and check whether the goal was genuinely met at that point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a dual-agent LLM architecture can close the loop between natural-language instruction, visual and sensor observation, and physical robot action: the host agent translates a request into a global plan, and the app agent executes the plan through a small set of robot control functions while watching the camera feed and sensor data, storing each decision in memory, and continuing until its status says FINISH. The authors argue that this design reduces human intervention and adapts to unexpected conditions, and they report a 90 percent average success rate across object detection, command execution, obstacle navigation, and situation awareness requests, with GPT-4o outperforming GPT-4-Turbo.

Load-bearing premise

The reported success rates rest on the paper's own success and failure labels, with failure defined only as too many meaningless steps or an incorrect FINISH and no stated threshold, independent checker, or repeated trials.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Open-ended user commands such as "find the box that says Bosch" can be decomposed and executed without a preprogrammed routine for that object.
  • Because the executor only needs a small command set, the same architecture could be attached to a different robot by replacing the control functions.
  • The memory of previous actions is meant to suppress repeated meaningless movements, so execution should become more efficient over the course of a task.
  • Model choice is material: the authors report that GPT-4o outperforms GPT-4-Turbo, with the largest gap in obstacle navigation.
  • The authors also note that API-based agents are slow and that the robot's limited commands held back some tasks, so latency and command expressiveness are current limits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 90 percent figure would be more persuasive with repeated trials and an independent scorer; nothing in the paper rules out that some "success" labels were optimistic.
  • Obstacle navigation's lower scores point to two concrete bottlenecks, single-command-per-step execution and the fixed directions of the sensors, so adding compound commands or a wider sensor array is the obvious next experiment.
  • The dual-agent split resembles how a manager and a worker interact; the same pattern could transfer to drones, manipulators, or simulated agents because the robot interface is only a small list of actions.
  • Since planning and feedback are produced by general-purpose API models, latency dominates task time; distilling the loop into a smaller trained model is a natural test of whether the approach can become real-time.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents LA-RCS, a dual-agent LLM framework for controlling a small wheeled robot (CAROBO) from natural-language user requests. A host agent produces a global plan from the request, sensor data, and observations; an app agent iteratively selects control functions, observes the environment, and provides feedback until it emits FINISH. The authors evaluate the system on 20 requests across four domains using GPT-4-Turbo and GPT-4o and report an average success rate of 90%. The paper does not release code, prompts, logs, or a detailed evaluation environment, and supports the benchmark with only qualitative case studies.

Significance. If the claimed results were reproducible, LA-RCS would be a useful demonstration of dual-agent LLM control for low-cost robots, and the four-domain benchmark could support future comparisons. The paper's positive contribution is architectural: separating plan-level and execution-level agents and closing the loop with observations and sensor data. However, the evaluation as reported is not yet at the standard needed to substantiate the headline claim. The paper provides no machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, parameter-free derivations, or falsifiable predictions beyond the 20 qualitative labels, and those labels are undermined by single-run subjective assessment, absence of baselines, and arithmetic inconsistencies in the reported rates.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2.3, Table 3] The GPT-4o obstacle-navigation result is internally inconsistent. The table lists successes on Requests 1–3 and failures on Requests 4–5, i.e., 3/5 = 60%, while the text says "successfully completed 4 out of 5 tasks, demonstrating an 60% success rate"—4/5 is 80%, not 60%. Moreover, §4.2.4 claims GPT-4o has an "overall success rate of 95%," but the average of the four domain rates (100%, 100%, 60%, 100%) is 90%, and the GPT-4-Turbo average is 60%. The abstract's "average success rate of 90%" therefore matches only the GPT-4o aggregate and does not follow from the tables as presented. The authors must correct the arithmetic and specify exactly which aggregation is reported.
  2. [§4, §4.1] The success/failure criterion is not operationalized. Failure is defined as "meaningless movements beyond a certain number of steps" or an incorrect FINISH judgment, but no threshold for "certain number" is given, no independent checker or post-hoc rubric is specified, and each request is executed exactly once. Since the robot's own FINISH status plus the authors' judgment is the sole criterion, the 20 binary labels in Tables 1–4 are not externally verifiable. Provide an objective scoring protocol, multiple independent runs, and release video/log data or make them available as supplementary material.
  3. [Tables 1 and 4] Two entries are marked Success with Step : 0 (Table 1, Request 5: "Find yellow obstacles and tell me what is written on them"; Table 4, Request 5 for GPT-4o: "From the paper observed in front, tell me the contact information..."). Since a step is defined as a command issued by the App Agent, a zero-step success implies no robot action was taken. Please explain how these requests can be satisfied without commanding the robot, or correct the step counts/labels.
  4. [§4] The evaluation lacks any baseline or ablation. The claim that LA-RCS "demonstrates... capability" and that GPT-4o is "an effective controller" is not supportable from raw per-domain success counts alone; there is no comparison to a single-agent variant, a static-plan variant, a rule-based controller, or the underlying LLM prompted directly. Adding such conditions is necessary to attribute performance to the dual-agent feedback design rather than to the backbone LLM.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typographical and grammatical errors (e.g., "Large Lagauge Models," "sofisticated," "During his process," "An detailed example") should be corrected.
  2. [§3.1.2, §4, §6] Model naming is inconsistent: Section 3.1.2 says the Host Agent uses GPT-4o, Section 4 evaluates GPT-4-Turbo and GPT-4o, and the conclusion mentions GPT-4, Gemini, and Claude even though those models were not evaluated in the benchmark.
  3. [References] Several bibliographic entries are incomplete: [36], [38], and [39] are listed only as URLs, and [49] has a truncated arXiv identifier.
  4. [§4.1] The "Step" metric is reported in the tables but never defined precisely; state whether it counts App Agent decisions, robot commands, or camera observations.
  5. [§5] Figures 5 and 6 are described as illustrative but no quantitative link (e.g., step counts or transcript excerpts) ties them to the benchmark results; adding captions or annotations would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 90% figure is a direct summary of author-assigned evaluation labels, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes an empirical systems claim, not a derived mathematical result. LA-RCS is a dual-agent control architecture that uses an external LLM API (GPT-4-Turbo/GPT-4o) to convert user requests into robot commands, and the evaluation reports success/failure for 20 self-authored user requests. The success labels in Tables 1-4 are author judgments about whether the robot fulfilled each request, and the abstract's 90% figure is an arithmetic summary of those labeled outcomes. Nothing in the paper fits a parameter to a subset of data and then re-predicts that subset; the system is not defined in terms of its own success metric, and no equation or construction makes the outcome true by definition. The dual-agent framework is explicitly attributed to UFO (Ref. [17]), which is prior work by a different group, and is used as an adopted architecture rather than as a self-citation that supplies the paper's central evidence. There is no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via the authors' prior work, and no renaming of a known result as a novel unification. The internal numerical inconsistencies (e.g., Section 4.2.3 says GPT-4o completed 4 out of 5 obstacle-navigation tasks while Table 3 shows 3 successes, and Section 4.2.4 claims a 95% overall success rate while the table averages give 90%) are correctness and reproducibility concerns about subjective single-run evaluation, not circularity. Because the central claim is not derived from or equivalent to its inputs, the circularity score is 0.

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

No fitted parameters; the paper makes a capability claim whose load rests on LLM reliability, the representativeness of a 20-request benchmark, and the accuracy of hand-assigned success labels. CAROBO is a physical platform, not a new postulated entity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-4 variants can produce correct plans, observations, and control-function choices from camera images and sensor text.
    The entire LA-RCS loop depends on LLM reasoning quality; Sections 3.1 and 3.2 assign all planning and command selection to GPT-4 models, with no fallback or verification beyond the LLM's own status output.
  • domain assumption The 20 benchmark requests are representative of object detection, command execution, obstacle navigation, and situation awareness.
    Section 4.1 states five requests were "designed" per domain by the authors; there is no external benchmark, task taxonomy justification, or coverage analysis.
  • domain assumption The authors' success/failure labels are correct and would repeat on re-runs.
    Section 4 defines failure via an unspecified "certain number of steps" and an "incorrect FINISH" judgment; no independent evaluator, inter-rater agreement, or repeated trials are reported.
  • domain assumption CAROBO hardware, sensors, and ROS communication behave as described.
    Section 3.3 lists components but provides no calibration, logs, or code; the paper later notes limited command execution and sensor directionality as constraints.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LA-RCS: LLM-Agent-Based Robot Control System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/35X4HDVL

@misc{pith2026250518214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LA-RCS: LLM-Agent-Based Robot Control System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/35X4HDVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18214}
}
read the original abstract

LA-RCS (LLM-agent-based robot control system) is a sophisticated robot control system designed to autonomously plan, work, and analyze the external environment based on user requirements by utilizing LLM-Agent. Utilizing a dual-agent framework, LA-RCS generates plans based on user requests, observes the external environment, executes the plans, and modifies the plans as needed to adapt to changes in the external conditions. Additionally, LA-RCS interprets natural language commands by the user and converts them into commands compatible with the robot interface so that the robot can execute tasks and meet user requests properly. During his process, the system autonomously evaluates observation results, provides feedback on the tasks, and executes commands based on real-time environmental monitoring, significantly reducing the need for user intervention in fulfilling requests. We categorized the scenarios that LA-RCS needs to perform into four distinct types and conducted a quantitative assessment of its performance in each scenario. The results showed an average success rate of 90 percent, demonstrating the system capability to fulfill user requests satisfactorily. For more extensive results, readers can visit our project page: https://la-rcs.github.io

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18214 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall architecture of the LA-RCS. Both agents utilize GPT-4-Turbo or GPT-4 models to comprehend Observations and execute User Requests. They control CAROBO through self-determined actions using Control Functions (com￾mands). Upon receiving a User Request, the Host Agent first analyzes the request. LA-RCS provides the Host Agent with Observations and Sensor Data to facilitate the robot’s understanding of its cu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of the HostAgent. • Global Plan: Action plan to fulfill the user’s request. • Observation: Detailed description of Vision Data. • Thoughts: Logical next steps required to meet the given task. • Comment: Progress status and information to be provided. The Host Agent generates various outputs for the following reasons: 1. To ensure clear analysis of the current situation in constructing the Global Plan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustration of the AppAgent. • Observation: Analyzed Vision Data. • Status: Task status, "CONTINUE" if additional action is needed, "FINISH" if the action is completed. The App Agent determines the next step based on these output states. It repeatedly performs observation through Vision Data and robot control until the action is completed, i.e., until the Status becomes FINISH. These outputs are continuously sto… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of the CAROBO. 3.3.2 CAROBO Output • Action: The robot performs the action according to the Command. • Vision Data: Visual data for confirming the robot’s next action or action termination. • Sensor Data: Data for confirming action or action termination…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An detailed example of completing user request: "Find the box that says Bosch.” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An detailed example of completing user request: "Move forward avoiding obstacles.” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus

    Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    A comprehensive overview of large language models

    Humza Naveed, Asad Ullah Khan, Shi Qiu, Muhammad Saqib, Saeed Anwar, Muhammad Usman, Naveed Akhtar, Nick Barnes, and Ajmal Mian. A comprehensive overview of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06435, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Harnessing large language models for text-rich sequential recommendation

    Zhi Zheng, Wenshuo Chao, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hengshu Zhu, and Hui Xiong. Harnessing large language models for text-rich sequential recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13325, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Large Language Models in the Electric Energy Sector

    Subir Majumder, Lin Dong, Fatemeh Doudi, Yuting Cai, Chao Tian, Dileep Kalathi, Kevin Ding, Anupam A. Thatte, Na Li, and Le Xie. Exploring the capabilities and limitations of large language models in the electric energy sector. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09125, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11916, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback....

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel 12 Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Li...

    arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Gpt-4: Technical report

    OpenAI, Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, Red Avila, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Valerie Balcom, Paul Baltescu, Haiming Bao, Mohammad Bavarian, Jeff Belgum, Irwan Bello, Jake Berdine, Gabriel Bernadett-Shapiro, Christopher Berner...

    arXiv 2023

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Adaplanner: Adaptive planning from feedback with language models

    Haotian Sun, Yuchen Zhuang, Lingkai Kong, Bo Dai, and Chao Zhang. Adaplanner: Adaptive planning from feedback with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16653, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Multimodal dialog systems with dual knowledge-enhanced generative pretrained language model

    Xiaolin Chen, Xuemeng Song, Liqiang Jing, Shuo Li, Linmei Hu, and Liqiang Nie. Multimodal dialog systems with dual knowledge-enhanced generative pretrained language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07934, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Set- of-mark prompting unleashes extraordinary visual grounding in GPT-4V

    Jianwei Yang, Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Xueyan Zou, Chunyuan Li, and Jianfeng Gao. Set- of-mark prompting unleashes extraordinary visual grounding in GPT-4V . arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11441, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning

    Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katie Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, Roman Ring, Eliza Ruther- ford, Serkan Cabi, Tengda Han, Zhitao Gong, Sina Samangooei, Marianne Monteiro, Jacob Menick, Sebasti...

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    UNITER: Universal image-text representation learning

    Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. UNITER: Universal image-text representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11740, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The dawn of lmms: Preliminary explorations with GPT-4V (ision)

    Zhengyuan Yang, Linjie Li, Kevin Lin, Jianfeng Wang, Chung-Ching Lin, Zicheng Liu, and Lijuan Wang. The dawn of lmms: Preliminary explorations with GPT-4V (ision). arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17421, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    GPT-4V (ision) as a generalist evaluator for vision-language tasks

    Xinlu Zhang, Yujie Lu, Weizhi Wang, An Yan, Jun Yan, Lianke Qin, Heng Wang, Xifeng Yan, William Yang Wang, and Linda Ruth Petzold. GPT-4V (ision) as a generalist evaluator for vision-language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01361, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    GPT-4V(ision) is a generalist web agent, if grounded

    Boyuan Zheng, Boyu Gou, Jihyung Kil, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. GPT-4V(ision) is a generalist web agent, if grounded. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01614, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    UFO : A UI-focused agent for windows OS interaction

    Chaoyun Zhang, Liqun Li, Shilin He, Xu Zhang, Bo Qiao, Si Qin, Minghua Ma, Yu Kang, Qingwei Lin, Saravan Rajmohan, Dongmei Zhang, and Qi Zhang. UFO : A UI-focused agent for windows OS interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07939, 2024. 13

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    AIOS: LLM agent operating system

    Kai Mei, Zelong Li, Shuyuan Xu, Ruosong Ye, Yingqiang Ge, and Yongfeng Zhang. AIOS: LLM agent operating system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16971, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11366, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mind2web: Towards a generalist agent for the web

    Xiang Deng, Yu Gu, Boyuan Zheng, Shijie Chen, Samuel Stevens, Boshi Wang, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Mind2web: Towards a generalist agent for the web. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06070, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang

    Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V . Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettle- moyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    NaVid: Video-based VLM plans the next step for vision-and-language navigation

    Jiazhao Zhang, Kunyu Wang, Rongtao Xu, Gengze Zhou, Yicong Hong, Xiaomeng Fang, Qi Wu, Zhizheng Zhang, and He Wang. NaVid: Video-based VLM plans the next step for vision-and-language navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15852, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    & Srinadh, K.V .S

    Patil, S., Vasu, V . & Srinadh, K.V .S. Advances and perspectives in collaborative robotics. Advances and perspectives in collaborative robotics: a review of key technologies and emerging trends. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s44245-023-00021-8

    doi

  17. [25]

    GPT-4V(ision) for robotics: Multimodal task planning from human demonstration

    Naoki Wake, Atsushi Kanehira, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Jun Takamatsu, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. GPT-4V(ision) for robotics: Multimodal task planning from human demonstration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12015, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Large language models for robotics: Opportunities, challenges, and perspectives

    Jiaqi Wang, Zihao Wu, Yiwei Li, Hanqi Jiang, Peng Shu, Enze Shi, Huawen Hu, Chong Ma, Yiheng Liu, Xuhui Wang, Yincheng Yao, Xuan Liu, Huaqin Zhao, Zhengliang Liu, Haixing Dai, Lin Zhao, Bao Ge, Xiang Li, Tianming Liu, and Shu Zhang. Large language models for robotics: Opportun...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Enhancing the LLM-based robot manipulation through human-robot collaboration

    Haokun Liu, Yaonan Zhu, Kenji Kato, Atsushi Tsukahara, Izumi Kondo, Tadayoshi Aoyama, and Yasuhisa Hasegawa. Enhancing the LLM-based robot manipulation through human-robot collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14097, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    LLM-based human-robot collaboration framework for manipulation tasks

    Haokun Liu, Yaonan Zhu, Kenji Kato, Izumi Kondo, Tadayoshi Aoyama, and Yasuhisa Hasegawa. LLM-based human-robot collaboration framework for manipulation tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14972, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey

    Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, et al. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07864, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A survey on large language model based autonomous agents

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11432, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Significant Gravitas. AutoGPT. URL https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/ AutoGPT

  25. [33]

    TaskWeaver: A code-first agent framework

    Bo Qiao, Liqun Li, Xu Zhang, Shilin He, Yu Kang, Chaoyun Zhang, Fangkai Yang, Hang Dong, Jue Zhang, Lu Wang, et al. TaskWeaver: A code-first agent framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17541, 2023. 14

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    LangChain, October 2022

    Harrison Chase. LangChain, October 2022. URL https://github.com/langchain-ai/ langchain

    2022

  27. [35]

    AutoGen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversation framework

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Shaokun Zhang, Erkang Zhu, Beibin Li, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, and Chi Wang. AutoGen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversation framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    URL https://github.com/crewAIInc/crewAI

    crewAIInc. URL https://github.com/crewAIInc/crewAI

  29. [37]

    MetaGPT: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework

    Sirui Hong, Xiawu Zheng, Jonathan Chen, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, et al. MetaGPT: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00352, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    URL https://github.com/langchain-ai/langgraph

    Langchain-ai. URL https://github.com/langchain-ai/langgraph

  31. [39]

    AutoAgents: A framework for automatic agent generation

    Guangyao Chen, Siwei Dong, Yu Shu, Ge Zhang, Jaward Sesay, Borje F Karlsson, Jie Fu, and Yemin Shi. AutoAgents: A framework for automatic agent generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Christopher E. Mower, Yuhui Wan, Hongzhan Yu, Antoine Grosnit, Jonas Gonzalez-Billandon, Matthieu Zimmer, Jinlong Wang, Xinyu Zhang, Yao Zhao, Anbang Zhai, Puze Liu, Daniel Palenicek, Davide Tateo, Cesar Cadena, Marco Hutter, Jan Peters, Guangjian Tian, Yuzheng Zhuang, Kun Sha...

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Language Models as Zero-Shot Trajectory Generators

    Teyun Kwon, Norman Di Palo, and Edward Johns. Language Models as Zero-Shot Trajectory Generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11604

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    M. Ahn, A. Brohan, N. Brown, Y . Chebotar, O. Cortes, B. David, C. Finn, C. Fu, K. Gopalakr- ishnan, K. Hausman, et al. Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Control

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choro- manski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, Pete Florence, Chuyuan Fu, Montse Gonzalez Arenas, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Kehang Han, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Ja...

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Brown, B

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language Models are Few-shot Learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    K. Lin, C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, M. Pavone, and J. Bohg. Text2Motion: From Natural Language Instructions to Feasible Plans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12153, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    ChatGPT for Robotics: Design Principles and Model Abilities

    Sai Vemprala, Rogerio Bonatti, Arthur Bucker, and Ashish Kapoor. ChatGPT for Robotics: Design Principles and Model Abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17582

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    PROGPROMPT: Generating Situated Robot Task Plans using Large Language Models

    Ishika Singh, Valts Blukis, Arsalan Mousavian, Ankit Goyal, Danfei Xu, Jonathan Tremblay, Dieter Fox, Jesse Thomason, and Animesh Garg. PROGPROMPT: Generating Situated Robot Task Plans using Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11302

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903. 15

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Shyam Sundar Kannan, Vishnunandan L. N. Venkatesh, and Byung-Cheol Min. SMART- LLM: Smart Multi-Agent Robot Task Planning using Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.0062

  42. [50]

    OpenAGI: When LLM Meets Domain Experts

    Yingqiang Ge, Wenyue Hua, Kai Mei, Juntao Tan, Shuyuan Xu, Zelong Li, and Yongfeng Zhang. OpenAGI: When LLM Meets Domain Experts. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Toolalpaca: Generalized tool learning for language models with 3000 simulated cases

    Qiaoyu Tang, Ziliang Deng, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Qiao Liang, and Le Sun. Toolalpaca: Generalized tool learning for language models with 3000 simulated cases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05301, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    AppAgent: Multimodal agents as smartphone users

    Zhao Yang, Jiaxuan Liu, Yucheng Han, Xin Chen, Zebiao Huang, Bin Fu, and Gang Yu. AppAgent: Multimodal agents as smartphone users. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13771, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Mobile-Agent: Autonomous multi-modal mobile device agent with visual perception

    Junyang Wang, Haiyang Xu, Jiabo Ye, Ming Yan, Weizhou Shen, Ji Zhang, Fei Huang, and Jitao Sang. Mobile-Agent: Autonomous multi-modal mobile device agent with visual perception. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16158, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Minedojo: Building open-ended embodied agents with internet-scale knowledge

    Linxi Fan, Guanzhi Wang, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Yuncong Yang, Haoyi Zhu, Andrew Tang, De-An Huang, Yuke Zhu, and Anima Anandkumar. Minedojo: Building open-ended embodied agents with internet-scale knowledge. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:18343–18...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.