Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Vision-Language-Policy Model for Dynamic Robot Task Planning

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single vision-language model, fine-tuned on real-world interaction data, can turn natural-language commands into executable robot policies and revise them when the task changes mid-execution.

desk verdict Solid VLP system paper with honest limitations, but the cross-embodiment generalization claim needs rework: both platforms were in the fine-tuning data. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.19178 v2 pith:63C6K7L5 submitted 2025-12-22 cs.RO cs.AI

Jin Wang , Kim Tien Ly , Jacques Cloete , Jin Jin , Nikos Tsagarakis , Ioannis Havoutis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords vision-languagemodelrobottaskplanningdynamicreplanningbehaviorprimitivescross-embodimentgeneralizationloco-manipulationpolicygenerationsemanticreasoning
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 tries to establish that a vision-language model, post-trained on a modest set of real-world robot interaction samples, can act as a task planner that reads a natural-language instruction and a current camera image, then outputs a structured, executable policy—a sequence of calls to predefined action and perception primitives. The authors claim this design bridges high-level semantic reasoning and low-level robot control without the large datasets and opaque action outputs typical of end-to-end vision-language-action models. They report planning feasibility above 90% and execution success above 70% across pick-and-place, handover, and scene-interaction tasks, and show the model can dynamically re-plan when a new instruction arrives or the task state changes. If correct, the result matters because it suggests interpretable, locally deployable, cross-embodiment task planning can be achieved from hundreds of training samples rather than millions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a fine-tuned vision-language model with a predefined library of behavior primitives—action primitives such as grasp, lift, place, and handover, plus perception primitives for object localization and grasp-point generation. The model's decoder emits a policy as a simplified behavior-tree-like JSON hierarchy executed top-down; each step invokes a primitive, and perception results feed back into the next query. This design is what allows a single model to transfer across embodiments (primitives abstract away platform kinematics) and to re-plan dynamically (the loop re-queries the model on triggers). The paper compares two fine-tuning strategies—apply

What would settle it

Give the deployed system an instruction whose only feasible solution requires an action absent from the primitive library, such as 'screw the cap onto the bottle' where no screwing primitive exists, and observe whether the robot can execute the generated policy. A failure to execute (or a refusal to plan) would show that the system's competence is confined to the library, not generic task planning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a pre-trained vision-language model, after fine-tuning on real-world robot interaction data (images paired with instructions and manually annotated policies), can generate hierarchical JSON-formatted policies that invoke predefined action and perception primitives to control a robot. The model receives the current instruction, onboard camera image, robot state, and a task memory, and outputs an ordered sequence of behaviors; each behavior is executed by low-level primitives, and feedback from perception and state updates flows back. A 'strategic trigger'—a new instruction or a detected change in task state—pauses execution, refreshes memory, and re-queries the model

Load-bearing premise

The predefined library of action and perception primitives is complete enough to express every behavior that the claimed tasks—and any generalization—require; if a task needs an action outside the library, the model can generate a plausible plan that the robot cannot execute.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Task planning for everyday manipulation can be learned from a few hundred real-world samples rather than massive robot datasets, because the model only has to choose and order primitives, not generate low-level actions.
  • A single model can serve multiple robot platforms without retraining, as long as each platform reimplements the same primitive library; the authors report success above 68% on a legged manipulator and a wheeled single-arm robot.
  • Mid-task changes—a different object to hand over, a new goal, a conditional state to monitor—can be handled by re-querying the model, yielding over 20% higher success than the baseline in dynamic scenarios.
  • Policies remain interpretable: each step is a named primitive in a JSON hierarchy, so a human can inspect and, in principle, audit the robot's plan before and during execution.
  • Local deployment on a single GPU achieves millisecond-level policy-generation latency, making real-time replanning feasible without cloud APIs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the approach's scope is bounded by the primitive library: a task requiring an action the library does not encode (e.g., screwing a lid) would expose a generated but unexecutable policy, so the 'autonomous planning' claim is as strong as the library is complete.
  • The cross-embodiment result likely reflects the abstraction layer rather than shared low-level control; each new robot still requires a hand-built primitive implementation, so effort shifts from model training to skill engineering.
  • This design suggests a natural extension: grow the primitive library incrementally and treat the VLP as a router over skills; then the same fine-tuning recipe could extend to long-horizon tasks that the current experiments do not cover.
  • A conservative reading of the reported numbers is that planning feasibility (the model proposing an executable plan) is the model's contribution, while execution success is co-determined by the perception and control stack; the paper's own failure analysis attributes most failures to perception and execution, not planning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Vision-Language-Policy (VLP) model for dynamic robot task planning. A pre-trained Qwen2.5-VL model is fine-tuned with LoRA on an 800-sample real-world interaction dataset to output hierarchical JSON-formatted policies composed of predefined action and perception primitives. The system is deployed locally and supports dynamic replanning when a new instruction arrives or task state changes. Experiments on two robot platforms (ANYmal+Z1 and Toyota HSR) cover pick-and-place, handover, scene interaction, and dynamic re-planning scenarios. The authors report planning feasibility above 90% and execution success above 70% for fine-tuned models, and success above 68% across embodiments. They also provide comparisons with prior LLM/VLM/VLA approaches.

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, this would be a useful contribution: it demonstrates that a relatively small VLM (3B), fine-tuned on modest amounts of real-robot data, can produce interpretable, executable policies through a primitive-API abstraction, and can update plans in response to mid-task changes. The real-robot experiments with two platforms, the comparison against the unfine-tuned Qwen2.5-VL baseline, and local deployment are strengths. However, the paper's most distinctive claim — cross-embodiment generalization — is not supported by the current experimental design, because both evaluation platforms appear in the fine-tuning data. The quantitative reporting also contains internal inconsistencies and lacks statistical grounding. The core method remains plausible, but the evidence as presented is not sufficient for the strength of the stated conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.C.1, IV.A.3, Sec. II] The claim of 'cross-embodiment generalization' is not supported by the experimental protocol. Section III.C.1 states that the post-training dataset was expanded 'via multi-view acquisition from different robot embodiments,' and Section IV.A.3 evaluates the model on exactly the same two platforms (ANYmal+Z1 and HSR). Success rates above 68% on these platforms test multi-embodiment adaptability or memorization of embodiment-specific cues, not generalization to a held-out embodiment. The Related Work statement that fine-tuning enables deployment 'without requiring additional retraining across different embodiments' is therefore not established. To support the claim, the authors should either train on one embodiment and test on the other, include a held-out embodiment, or explicitly revise the claim to 'multi-embodiment adaptability.'
  2. [Sec. IV.B.2, Table II] The quantitative summary in the text contradicts Table II. The text states that 'both fine-tuned versions achieve execution success rates above 70%,' but Table II reports VLP(V+D) Pick & Place success of 68%. Similarly, the text states 'planning feasibility rate (exceeding 90%),' but Table II shows several planning rates below 90% (e.g., 88%, 84%). These inconsistencies need to be corrected and the aggregate claims recomputed with per-condition values.
  3. [Sec. IV.B.2, Fig. 8, Fig. 9] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any of the success rates. Trial counts are 50 per condition in Table II, 20 in Fig. 8, and 25 in Fig. 9. The word 'significantly' (e.g., 'significantly higher planning feasibility rate') is used without any statistical test. This is especially important because differences between the two fine-tuned variants are small (4–8 percentage points) and could be within chance. Please provide at least bootstrap confidence intervals and, where feasible, a test such as a two-proportion z-test, and define 'planning feasibility' versus 'execution success.'
  4. [Sec. IV.B.1, Fig. 6] The comparison with prior methods in Fig. 6 does not state the experimental conditions for the baselines. It is unclear whether [11], [22], and [29] were run by the authors with the same primitive library, same scenes, same number of trials, and same prompt formatting, or whether numbers are taken from their papers. Without a detailed protocol, the claim of outperforming existing methods is not quantitatively verifiable. Table I is also purely qualitative checkmarks, which is acceptable as a capability matrix but does not support the 'surpasses state-of-the-art' wording. Please specify the comparison protocol and, if baselines were not reproduced, state this explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V] The Conclusion concedes that the system is 'constrained by the predefined set of action and perception primitives.' This limitation should be stated earlier and more prominently, since it directly qualifes the claim of adaptability to 'novel tasks' and 'open-set' environments in the Introduction.
  2. [Sec. IV.A.3, Fig. 9] The text says '25 trials for each of the three tasks on two different physical robot platforms' but Fig. 9 does not clearly label which tasks correspond to which platform. Please clarify the task-platform mapping and the failure-type definitions.
  3. [Sec. IV.A] 'Millisecond-level latency' is mentioned but no timing measurements are provided. A short table of policy-generation latency and replanning latency would strengthen the local-deployment claim.
  4. [Table I] The checkmark table would benefit from a legend explaining what each capability means and from citations for 'BT-Planner' and 'LLM-BT,' which are not explicitly identified in the reference list as the source of those rows.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the fine-tuning/evaluation chain is independently grounded by the unfine-tuned baseline; the cross-embodiment claim is a validity caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than mathematical. A Qwen2.5-VL base model is LoRA fine-tuned on 800 self-collected real-world interaction samples (Sec. III.C.1), then evaluated on 50 trials over three task categories, 20 dynamic-task trials, and cross-platform trials. The central improvements are measured against an unfine-tuned Qwen2.5-VL baseline (Table II, Fig. 8), so the effect of fine-tuning is independently grounded rather than assumed. The JSON policy format and the predefined action/perception primitives are a design choice, not a hidden reuse of the evaluation target. Self-citations ([11], [23], [28], [35]) appear only as related work and as comparison baselines; none carries the derivation. The main caveat concerns the 'cross-embodiment generalization' claim: Sec. III.C.1 states the post-training dataset was expanded via 'multi-view acquisition from different robot embodiments,' and Sec. IV.A.3 then evaluates on the same two platforms (ANYmal+Z1 and HSR). This is a genuine experimental-validity concern: the >68% success figures do not by themselves demonstrate transfer to unseen embodiments, since both platforms were represented in the fine-tuning data. However, this is not circularity by construction: the test trials are separate executions, the model could still fail on them, and the unfine-tuned baseline provides an external reference point. The Conclusion's admission that the system is 'constrained by the predefined set of action and perception primitives' is a stated limitation of the approach, not a circular step. Overall, no load-bearing reduction of a result to its own input was found; the appropriate flag is a low-level validity risk rather than a circularity score above 2.

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

The empirical claim rests on hand-chosen training hyperparameters and on domain assumptions about the sufficiency of pre-defined primitives, annotation quality, and visual grounding accuracy. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • LoRA rank (visual r=8, decoder r=16) = r=8 on vision encoder, r=16 on LM decoder
    Chosen by hand; affects model capacity and overfitting, but no ablation or validation-based selection is reported.
  • Learning rate = 1e-4
    Standard fine-tuning choice; not justified by experiments.
  • Training epochs = 2
    Fixed at 2 epochs; no early-stopping or validation criterion described.
  • Dataset size = 800 samples
    Dataset expanded by multi-view acquisition and keyframe extraction; this scale is a design choice rather than a fitted parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Qwen2.5-VL contains sufficient visual-language priors for robotic scene reasoning after LoRA adaptation.
    The entire approach depends on the pre-trained VLM being able to ground objects and instructions in real robot images (Section III.C).
  • domain assumption The 800 manually annotated policies represent correct task strategies.
    Training data consists of human annotations of 'the observed states and given task instructions' (Section III.C.1); no inter-annotator agreement or independent verification is reported.
  • domain assumption The predefined action and perception primitives are sufficient to implement all required behaviors for the evaluated tasks.
    The policy-execution loop is built entirely on these primitives (Section III.C.3); the Conclusion acknowledges this limits open-set flexibility.
  • domain assumption Visual grounding combined with depth images yields accurate object localization and grasp points.
    Perception primitives rely on the model's grounding plus depth information (Section III.C.3); no independent accuracy measurement is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vision-Language-Policy Model for Dynamic Robot Task Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63C6K7L5

@misc{pith2026251219178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vision-Language-Policy Model for Dynamic Robot Task Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63C6K7L5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.19178}
}
read the original abstract

Bridging the gap between natural language commands and autonomous execution in unstructured environments remains an open challenge for robotics. This requires robots to perceive and reason over the current task scene through multiple modalities, and to plan their behaviors to achieve their intended goals. Traditional robotic task-planning approaches often struggle to bridge low-level execution with high-level task reasoning, and cannot dynamically update task strategies when instructions change during execution, which ultimately limits their versatility and adaptability to new tasks. In this work, we propose a novel language model-based framework for dynamic robot task planning. Our Vision-Language-Policy (VLP) model, based on a vision-language model fine-tuned on real-world data, can interpret semantic instructions and integrate reasoning over the current task scene to generate behavior policies that control the robot to accomplish the task. Moreover, it can dynamically adjust the task strategy in response to changes in the task, enabling flexible adaptation to evolving task requirements. Experiments conducted with different robots and a variety of real-world tasks show that the trained model can efficiently adapt to novel scenarios and dynamically update its policy, demonstrating strong planning autonomy and cross-embodiment generalization. Videos: https://robovlp.github.io/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19178 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We introduce the Vision-Language-Policy model, designed for dynamic robot task planning. This innovative model surpasses state-of-the-art performance on semantic understanding, scene reasoning and policy updating through fine-tuning. Real-world experiments demonstrate that the model is applicable to various robotic task scenarios and can be deployed locally across different embodiments. Abstract— Bridging the gap be… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System Overview. Stage 1 performs post-training of the VLM using real-world interaction data consisting of images, task instructions, and corresponding policies. Stage 2 deploys the VLP model locally and generates structured policies based on semantic input to achieve real-time robot control and self-updating. III. METHODOLOGY A. Task Formulation We design a two-stage pipeline including model training and deployment… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Vision-Language-Policy model internal structure and real-world task scenario. fundamental motion and functional units and can be directly invoked by the generated policy. For each new task, the VLP model receives the instruction from the operator and reasons over the perceived physical scene to generate a policy that fulfills the task objective. During policy execution, the system continuously monitors the state and… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of different model fine-tuning strategies. (a) Vision+Decoder LoRA: LoRA is applied to both the vision encoder and LM decoder. (b) Decoder-only LoRA: The vision encoder is frozen, and LoRA is applied solely to the LM decoder. both the last 6 layers of the vi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing average success rates for task planning with existing methods. We validated the cross-embodiment capability of the pro￾posed model on two different robotic platforms: • ANYmal D + Unitree Z1 Arm: A quadruped robot base equipped with a lightweight manipulator …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Real-world experiments across various natural language tasks using the ANYmal and HSR robots, with demonstrations of model’s capability in visual object grounding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evaluation of the models across different embodiments. platforms, the model consistently achieved high task success rates (greater than 68%). Most failures were attributed to perception or execution errors, which are highly dependent on the robot’s hardware characteris…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Snapshots of a dynamic object handover task from different perspectives. Bottom: Model performance in dynamic task scenarios. higher success rates. Moreover, due to requiring multiple rounds of scene reasoning and policy re-evaluation, the model fine-tuned on both…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [11]

    Autonomous behavior planning for humanoid loco-manipulation through grounded language model,

    J. Wang, A. Laurenzi, and N. Tsagarakis, “Autonomous behavior planning for humanoid loco-manipulation through grounded language model,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 10 856–10 863

    2024

  2. [22]

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

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

    2023

  3. [29]

    Alignbot: Aligning vlm-powered cus- tomized task planning with user reminders through fine-tuning for household robots,

    Zhaxizhuoma, P. Chenet al., “Alignbot: Aligning vlm-powered cus- tomized task planning with user reminders through fine-tuning for household robots,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), 2025, pp. 12 549–12 556

    2025

  4. [1]

    PDDLStream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning,

    C. R. Garrettet al., “PDDLStream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning,” inProc. Int. Conf. Autom. Plan. Sched. (ICAPS), vol. 30, 2020, pp. 440–448

    2020

  5. [2]

    R- lgp: A reachability-guided logic-geometric programming framework for optimal task and motion planning on mobile manipulators,

    K. T. Ly, V . Semenov, M. Risiglione, W. Merkt, and I. Havoutis, “R- lgp: A reachability-guided logic-geometric programming framework for optimal task and motion planning on mobile manipulators,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 14 917–14 923

    2024

  6. [3]

    Combined task and motion planning through an extensible planner-independent interface layer,

    S. Srivastavaet al., “Combined task and motion planning through an extensible planner-independent interface layer,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), 2014, pp. 639–646

    2014

  7. [4]

    Ghallab, D

    M. Ghallab, D. Nau, and P. Traverso,Automated Planning: theory and practice. Elsevier, 2004

    2004

  8. [5]

    A survey of optimization-based task and motion planning: From classical to learning approaches,

    Z. Zhao, S. Cheng, Y . Ding, Z. Zhou, S. Zhang, D. Xu, and Y . Zhao, “A survey of optimization-based task and motion planning: From classical to learning approaches,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 2799–2825, 2025

    2025

Show all 40 references
  1. [6]

    Optimization-based control for dynamic legged robots,

    P. M. Wensing, M. Posa, Y . Hu, A. Escande, N. Mansard, and A. Del Prete, “Optimization-based control for dynamic legged robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 43–63, 2023

    2023

  2. [7]

    Constrained differential dynamic programming: A primal-dual augmented lagrangian approach,

    W. Jalletet al., “Constrained differential dynamic programming: A primal-dual augmented lagrangian approach,” inProc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. (IROS), 2022

    2022

  3. [8]

    Optimal scheduling of models and horizons for model hierarchy predictive control,

    C. Khazoom, S. Heim, D. Gonzalez-Diaz, and S. Kim, “Optimal scheduling of models and horizons for model hierarchy predictive control,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 9952–9958

    2023

  4. [9]

    Colledanchise and P

    M. Colledanchise and P. ¨Ogren,Behavior trees in robotics and AI: An introduction. CRC Press, 2018

    2018

  5. [10]

    A survey of behavior trees in robotics and ai,

    M. Iovino, E. Scukins, J. Styrud, P. ¨Ogren, and C. Smith, “A survey of behavior trees in robotics and ai,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 154, p. 104096, 2022

    2022

  6. [12]

    Adaptive manipulation using behavior trees,

    J. Cloete, W. Merkt, and I. Havoutis, “Adaptive manipulation using behavior trees,” in2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on In- telligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Hangzhou, China: IEEE, Oct. 2025, p. 19031–19038

    2025

  7. [13]

    Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,

    J. Hwangbo, J. Lee, A. Dosovitskiy, D. Bellicoso, V . Tsounis, V . Koltun, and M. Hutter, “Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,”Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 26, p. eaau5872, 2019

    2019

  8. [14]

    RLOC: Terrain-aware legged locomotion using reinforcement learning and optimal control,

    S. Gangapurwalaet al., “RLOC: Terrain-aware legged locomotion using reinforcement learning and optimal control,”IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 2908–2927, 2022

    2022

  9. [15]

    Learning to recover: Dynamic reward shaping with wheel-leg coordination for fallen robots,

    B. Deng, L. Rossini, J. Wang, W. Wang, D. Kanoulas, and N. Tsagarakis, “Learning to recover: Dynamic reward shaping with wheel-leg coordination for fallen robots,” 2025

    2025

  10. [16]

    Resilient legged local navigation: Learning to traverse with compromised perception end-to-end,

    J. Jin, C. Zhang, J. Frey, N. Rudin, M. Mattamala, C. Cadena, and M. Hutter, “Resilient legged local navigation: Learning to traverse with compromised perception end-to-end,” 2023

    2023

  11. [17]

    DexMV: Imitation learning for dexterous manipulation from human videos,

    Y . Qinet al., “DexMV: Imitation learning for dexterous manipulation from human videos,” inProc. Eur . Conf. Comput. Vis. (ECCV), 2022, pp. 570–587

    2022

  12. [18]

    Opt2skill: Imitating dynamically-feasible whole-body trajectories for versatile humanoid loco-manipulation,

    F. Liuet al., “Opt2skill: Imitating dynamically-feasible whole-body trajectories for versatile humanoid loco-manipulation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 12 261–12 268, 2025

    2025

  13. [19]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,

    B. Ichter, A. Brohan, Y . Chebotar, C. Finn, K. Hausman, and et al., “Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” in6th Annual Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2022

    2022

  14. [20]

    Text2reaction : Enabling reactive task planning using large language models,

    Z. Yang, L. Ning, H. Wang, T. Jiang, S. Zhang, S. Cui, H. Jiang, C. Li, S. Wang, and Z. Wang, “Text2reaction : Enabling reactive task planning using large language models,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4003–4010, 2024

    2024

  15. [21]

    Robots that ask for help: Uncertainty alignment for large language model planners,

    A. Z. Ren, A. Dixit, A. Bodrova, S. Singh, S. Tu, N. Brown, P. Xu, L. Takayama, F. Xia, J. Varley, Z. Xu, D. Sadigh, A. Zeng, and A. Majumdar, “Robots that ask for help: Uncertainty alignment for large language model planners,” 2023

    2023

  16. [23]

    HYPERmotion: Learning hybrid behavior planning for autonomous loco-manipulation,

    J. Wang, R. Dai, W. Wang, L. Rossini, F. Ruscelli, and N. Tsagarakis, “HYPERmotion: Learning hybrid behavior planning for autonomous loco-manipulation,” in8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    InteLiPlan: An interactive lightweight LLM-based planner for domestic robot autonomy,

    K. T. Ly, K. Lu, and I. Havoutis, “InteLiPlan: An interactive lightweight LLM-based planner for domestic robot autonomy,” 2024

    2024

  18. [25]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control,

    J. Liang, W. Huang, F. Xia, P. Xu, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, P. Florence, and A. Zeng, “Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07753, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models,

    I. Singh, V . Blukis, A. Mousavian, A. Goyal, D. Xu, J. Tremblay, D. Fox, J. Thomason, and A. Garg, “Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models,” 2022

    2022

  20. [27]

    Scene-llm: Extending language model for 3d visual understanding and reasoning,

    R. Fu, J. Liu, X. Chen, Y . Nie, and W. Xiong, “Scene-llm: Extending language model for 3d visual understanding and reasoning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11401, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Intention: Inferring tendencies of humanoid robot motion through interactive intuition and grounded vlm,

    J. Wang, W. Wang, B. Deng, H. Zhang, R. Dai, and N. Tsagarakis, “Intention: Inferring tendencies of humanoid robot motion through interactive intuition and grounded vlm,” in2025 IEEE-RAS 24th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids). IEEE, 2025, pp. 389–396

    2025

  22. [30]

    Action contextual- ization: Adaptive task planning and action tuning using large language models,

    S. Gupta, K. Yao, L. Niederhauser, and A. Billard, “Action contextual- ization: Adaptive task planning and action tuning using large language models,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 9407–9414, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    REFLECT: Summarizing robot experiences for failure explanation and correction,

    Z. Liu, A. Bahety, and S. Song, “REFLECT: Summarizing robot experiences for failure explanation and correction,” in7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Replanvlm: Replanning robotic tasks with visual language models,

    A. Mei, G.-N. Zhu, H. Zhang, and Z. Gan, “Replanvlm: Replanning robotic tasks with visual language models,” 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    OpenVLA: An open-source vision-language-action model,

    M. J. e. a. Kim, “OpenVLA: An open-source vision-language-action model,” in8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    π 0.5: A vision-language- action model for open-world generalization,

    P. Intelligence, K. Black, N. Brownet al., “π 0.5: A vision-language- action model for open-world generalization,” 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Robonurse- vla: Robotic scrub nurse system based on vision-language-action model,

    S. Li, J. Wang, R. Dai, W. Ma, W. Y . Ng, Y . Hu, and Z. Li, “Robonurse- vla: Robotic scrub nurse system based on vision-language-action model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19590, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    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

  29. [37]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Qwen2.5-vl technical report,

    S. Bai, K. Chen, X. Liuet al., “Qwen2.5-vl technical report,” 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Qwen2.5 technical report,

    Qwen, A. Yang, B. Yanget al., “Qwen2.5 technical report,” 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention,

    W. Kwonet al., “Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention,” inProc. SOSP, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.