Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 49 references

TalkWithMachines: Enhancing Human-Robot Interaction for Interpretable Industrial Robotics Through Large/Vision Language Models

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TalkWithMachines argues that a single large/vision language model can serve as the control, perception, and explanation layer for industrial robot arms, converting natural-language commands into millimetre-level motion patterns and…

desk verdict A plausible LLM-HRI proof-of-concept undermined by an internal mismatch between the claimed discrete control pattern and the actual Python-expression output, plus thin quantitative evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15462 v1 pith:6CPUODO7 submitted 2024-12-19 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CLcs.HCcs.LG

Ammar N. Abbas , Csaba Beleznai This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CLcs.HCcs.LG
keywords largelanguagemodelsvisionhuman-robotinteractionlow-levelroboticcontrolinterpretableroboticssimulationURDFsituationalawareness
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

TalkWithMachines asks whether a single large/vision language model can serve as the human-robot interface for industrial manipulation, doing the work normally split across a planner, a controller, and a monitoring system. The paper argues yes, and supports the claim with four incrementally richer workflows in simulation: plain language-to-pattern control, language feedback that verbalizes the robot's internal state, vision-augmented perception from stacks of rendered frames, and structure-aware planning fed by a robot description file. The motivation is safety-critical industrial settings, where an operator must understand and trust what the machine is doing and why. The stakes are concrete: if the claim holds, natural language becomes a usable control and audit channel for robots without retraining a model for each new task.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a discretized movement-pattern vector $M=(X,Y,Z,G)$, where each coordinate is drawn per time step from $\{-1,0,1\}$ (one millimetre along that axis) and $G$ from $\{0,1\}$ (gripper open or closed), rendered as four labelled lines of repeated numerals. Few-shot prompt examples teach the model to map phrases like 'move forward 100mm and pick a cube' into such patterns, and the paper improves the interface by replacing literal long strings with compact multiplier notation (e.g., $[1]*100$) and by breaking trajectories into steps. Around this pattern core, the paper stacks incremental information layers—textual end-effector and object states, single- or multi-view image frame stacks, and the robot URDF hierarchy—each of which lets the same model verbalize what it sees, reject unsafe commands, and plan within physical limits. The claimed generality rests on the ability of the model to treat these patterns as a language and to reason over them compositionally.

What would settle it

Hold out an obstacle position that appears in none of the few-shot examples, run the obstacle-avoidance task with the same prompt protocol, and measure success over many trials; if the success rate collapses to the level of a model retrieving memorized patterns, the claimed generalization to unseen configurations is falsified. The same test can be applied to the anomaly-detection claims by feeding a frame stack whose anomaly (for example, a collision-triggering misalignment) is visibly present only in a zoomed detail, as the paper's own region-of-interest experiments suggest.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that GPT-4, prompted with a compact movement-pattern vocabulary, can generate low-level control commands for a simulated robot arm—including grasping, obstacle avoidance, circular motion, stacking, and zone placement—directly from natural-language instructions. The same model reads text and image observations to detect imminent collisions, refuses actions that would violate real-world object properties (for example, moving a wooden cube into a fire zone), asks for clarification when commands are incomplete, and uses a Unified Robot Description Format (URDF) to respect reachability and structural constraints. Across the reported experiments, tasks with a small number of objects succeed consistently, while failures concentrate in scenes with many closely spaced objects or tight spatial constraints. The authors take this as evidence that LLMs and VLMs can sustain situational awareness and make informed decisions, not just repeat high-level plans.

Load-bearing premise

The decisive assumption is that a movement vocabulary of one-millimetre steps along X, Y, and Z plus a binary gripper is expressive enough to encode every task the robot faces, so that a successful run reflects the model's language-to-action reasoning rather than the prompt's hidden enumeration of the answer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Language becomes a direct control path for low-level robot motion, not only a high-level planning interface; the paper demonstrates millimetre-accuracy grasp pattern generation in simulation.
  • The same model can act as a safety monitor, issuing interpretable warnings such as 'Collision imminent' with a reason, which gives operators a natural audit trail for machine decisions.
  • Supplying a robot's physical structure description (URDF) lets the model avoid out-of-reach or singular configurations, moving toward command validation before execution.
  • An operator can delegate routine decisions to the model—sorting objects by real-world attributes, choosing safe zones—while retaining the ability to ask why; the model's verbalized reasoning is the explanation.
  • The reported failure pattern predicts that dense scenes and tight tolerances are the next bottleneck, guiding where to add higher-resolution visual inputs or conventional verification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the discretized pattern interface is the limiting factor, a practical deployment would likely be hierarchical—LLM for planning and verbal justification, a classical controller for precise execution—rather than relying on the model for every millimetre.
  • Editorial inference: The paper's refusal behavior (declining to move a wooden cube into a fire zone) suggests a testable safety property: the same prompting scheme could be benchmarked as a rule-encoding layer, checking whether forbidden actions are vetoed consistently across paraphrases.
  • Editorial inference: The frame-stack experiments point to a concrete extension—measuring how detection accuracy scales with the number of viewpoints and zoom level, which the paper treats qualitatively but does not quantify.
  • Editorial inference: A comparison against classical or code-generated trajectory baselines was not reported; adding such a control would make the claimed advantage in accuracy and success rate directly measurable.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents TalkWithMachines, a framework that uses GPT-4 and vision-language models to let users control a simulated industrial robotic arm through natural language, while also generating textual explanations of machine states, interpreting visual observations, and incorporating URDF-based structural awareness. The authors propose four experimental workflows addressing nine research questions covering low-level control, complex trajectory generation, environment perception, anomaly detection, decision-making from real-world attributes, and structure-aware planning. The central claim is that LLMs/VLMs can serve as an interpretable intermediate layer for low-level robotic control, not just high-level planning. Quantitative results in Table II compare the proposed 'improved control pattern' with a SayTap-inspired baseline over 10 runs, reporting better spatial accuracy but only 50% success on obstacle avoidance. The remainder of the experimental evidence consists of selected qualitative examples of verbalized machine states, image-based anomaly detection, and URDF-informed task planning.

Significance. If the central claim is sound, the paper would extend prior work on LLMs as general pattern machines and language-to-locomotion interfaces (SayTap) toward industrial manipulator control, with a useful emphasis on interpretable verbal feedback and structure awareness. The paper is clearly written and the authors are explicit about their experimental design and limitations. Strengths include the use of a real simulation environment (Gazebo/ROS-Industrial), a quantitative comparison against a prior-art baseline, and a well-documented set of prompts in the appendix. However, the significance is currently moderated by an internal inconsistency in the claimed control interface, the absence of statistical rigor in the quantitative comparison, and the largely anecdotal nature of the perception experiments. The paper's contribution would be substantially strengthened by resolving these issues, but the central idea remains potentially valuable to the HRI and LLM-robotics communities.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section III-B / Section V-A2] The qualitative comparison in Table I claims that the proposed method supports all six properties (planning, motion planning, adaptable, explainable, interactive, learnable) with 'Yes', whereas no comparative criteria or evaluation procedure for these attributes is provided. This is an unsupported self-assessment that should either be substantiated with a rubric or removed in favor of a more cautious claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV-B] There is a typo: 'enviroment' should be 'environment'.
  2. [Section III-C4] The itemization lists '(i) ... and/or (iii)' but has no (ii); this numbering should be corrected.
  3. [Section V-A2 / Appendix A] The 'improved control pattern' uses Python list-repetition syntax like '[0] *99 + [1] *1' without stating whether the parser evaluates Python expressions or only interprets a restricted grammar. Please specify the exact parsing and execution mechanism, including how the cosine/sine expressions are handled.
  4. [References] Reference [25] is incomplete: the author list ends with 'et al.' without a title or publication venue. Please provide the full citation.
  5. [Figure 10 and Figure 11] The captions refer to 'Fig. 10' and 'Fig. 11' but the corresponding figures are not clearly referenced in the text; consider numbering figures consistently and referring to them in the body.
  6. [Section V-A1] The baseline pattern examples use long unbroken strings like 'X: 00000000000000000000000000' which are difficult to verify for length; adding line breaks or grouping digits by tens would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper is an empirical demonstration with external success criteria.

full rationale

Walked the claimed derivation chain: the paper defines a discrete control-pattern interface (Section III-B), constructs prompts, and evaluates outputs against task completion, generation time, goal error, and success rate (Table II) in a Gazebo simulation. These success criteria are external to the prompt text, so the central results are not encoded in the inputs by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the 'improved control pattern' in Section V-A2 is a modified prompt/parser interface, not a parameter fit to the measured outcomes. There are no load-bearing self-citations: references [3], [4], and [18] are external prior works, not by the present authors, and the prompt design borrowing from SayTap is an ordinary methodological influence, not an imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The URDF input, image stacks, and observation lists are all independent external evidence. The most substantive concern found is internal consistency rather than circularity: Section V-A2 shows outputs such as 'X: [cos(t) for t in range (360)]' that violate the declared alphabet X, Y, Z in {-1, 0, 1}, suggesting some demonstrations may amount to code generation rather than discrete-pattern mapping. This is a threat to the validity of the low-level-control claim, not a circular reduction, because the claimed capability is not defined in terms of the inputs. The paper's own 'Observed failure modes' passage acknowledges limited spatial-reasoning robustness, which further weakens generality but does not indicate that any result is forced by definition. Overall, no step in this paper reduces to its own input by construction.

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

The central claims rest on the behavior of a proprietary LLM and on author-designed prompt and movement representations. The paper provides no free parameters, since no numbers are fitted to data; the few quantitative values come from 10-run averages. The main unstated assumptions are the reliability of GPT-4's few-shot responses and the sufficiency of the discretized motion primitives and rendered observations for the tasks studied.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-4 responds reliably and consistently to the few-shot pattern prompts without additional fine-tuning.
    The entire workflow relies on a proprietary cloud model's behavior; no open model or fixed hyperparameters are specified, and the paper only shows a handful of responses.
  • ad hoc to paper The discretized movement pattern space (X,Y,Z in {-1,0,1} per step, G binary) is sufficient to express and execute all studied tasks, including obstacle avoidance and stacking.
    This representation is designed by the authors in Section III-B to make LLM generation tractable; if it is too coarse, the claimed low-level control success would be an artifact of the interface rather than a general LLM capability.
  • domain assumption The rendered simulation images and text observation lists fully capture the state required for anomaly detection and structure awareness.
    Used in Sections V-C through V-E; no ablations show what happens when observations are noisy, partial, or incorrectly rendered.
  • domain assumption The URDF text provides sufficient structural information for reasoning about reachability and singularities.
    Section V-D assumes that reading an XML description lets the LLM infer physical limits; the paper does not test the limits of this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TalkWithMachines: Enhancing Human-Robot Interaction for Interpretable Industrial Robotics Through Large/Vision Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6CPUODO7

@misc{pith2026241215462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TalkWithMachines: Enhancing Human-Robot Interaction for Interpretable Industrial Robotics Through Large/Vision Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6CPUODO7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15462}
}
read the original abstract

TalkWithMachines aims to enhance human-robot interaction by contributing to interpretable industrial robotic systems, especially for safety-critical applications. The presented paper investigates recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs), in combination with robotic perception and control. This integration allows robots to understand and execute commands given in natural language and to perceive their environment through visual and/or descriptive inputs. Moreover, translating the LLM's internal states and reasoning into text that humans can easily understand ensures that operators gain a clearer insight into the robot's current state and intentions, which is essential for effective and safe operation. Our paper outlines four LLM-assisted simulated robotic control workflows, which explore (i) low-level control, (ii) the generation of language-based feedback that describes the robot's internal states, (iii) the use of visual information as additional input, and (iv) the use of robot structure information for generating task plans and feedback, taking the robot's physical capabilities and limitations into account. The proposed concepts are presented in a set of experiments, along with a brief discussion. Project description, videos, and supplementary materials will be available on the project website: https://talk-machines.github.io.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15462 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the axes of robot movement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed framework: human-robot interaction interface from language [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prompt structures with incrementally added information, facilitating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Design of experiments for control. B. Perception Perception is validated in terms of both control and safe op￾eration. The tasks performed include (i) a pick-and-place task and (ii) a grasping task that requires obstacle avoidance. The perception involves validating th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Design of experiments for perception through LLM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Single-view evolution of an executed task within a safe zone, generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Multi-view evolution of a grasping task, generated as a frame stack. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Perception via image-based observations and text descriptions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Perception with far-away (top) and enlarged view (bottom) of a region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Result of a stacking task, shown as a generated image sequence. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Result of the task execution moving an object into a zone. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_13.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spatially-aware task executions via text (scene+URDF) and visual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Result image sequence showing a successful end effector approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ex- plainable ai for safe and trustworthy autonomous driving: A systematic review,

    A. Kuznietsov, B. Gyevnar, C. Wang, S. Peters, and S. V . Albrecht, “Ex- plainable ai for safe and trustworthy autonomous driving: A systematic review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10086 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    The challenges and opportunities of human-centered ai for trustworthy robots and autonomous systems,

    H. He, J. Gray, A. Cangelosi, Q. Meng, T. M. McGinnity, and J. Mehnen, “The challenges and opportunities of human-centered ai for trustworthy robots and autonomous systems,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1398–1412, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Saytap: Lan- guage to quadrupedal locomotion,

    Y . Tang, W. Yu, J. Tan, H. Zen, A. Faust, and T. Harada, “Saytap: Lan- guage to quadrupedal locomotion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07580 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Language models as zero- shot trajectory generators,

    T. Kwon, N. Di Palo, and E. Johns, “Language models as zero- shot trajectory generators,” in 2nd Workshop on Language and Robot Learning: Language as Grounding , 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Formal Synthesis of Controllers for Safety-Critical Autonomous Systems: Developments and Challenges

    X. Yin, B. Gao, and X. Yu, “Formal synthesis of controllers for safety- critical autonomous systems: Developments and challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13075, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Using formal methods for autonomous systems: Five recipes for formal verification,

    M. Luckcuck, “Using formal methods for autonomous systems: Five recipes for formal verification,” Proceedings of the Institution of Me- chanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability , vol. 237, no. 2, pp. 278–292, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

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

    A. Brohan, Y . Chebotar, C. Finn, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, D. Ho, J. Ibarz, A. Irpan, E. Jang, R. Julian et al., “Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” in Conference on robot learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 287–318

    2023

  8. [8]

    Robotgpt: Robot manipulation learning from chatgpt,

    Y . Jin, D. Li, A. Yong, J. Shi, P. Hao, F. Sun, J. Zhang, and B. Fang, “Robotgpt: Robot manipulation learning from chatgpt,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Interactive language: Talking to robots in real time,

    C. Lynch, A. Wahid, J. Tompson, T. Ding, J. Betker, R. Baruch, T. Armstrong, and P. Florence, “Interactive language: Talking to robots in real time,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities,

    S. H. Vemprala, R. Bonatti, A. Bucker, and A. Kapoor, “Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities,” IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    A review of human–machine cooperation in the robotics domain,

    C. Yang, Y . Zhu, and Y . Chen, “A review of human–machine cooperation in the robotics domain,”IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 12–25, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    From gap to synergy: Enhancing contextual understand- ing through human-machine collaboration in personalized systems,

    W. Chen, C. Yu, H. Wang, Z. Wang, L. Yang, Y . Wang, W. Shi, and Y . Shi, “From gap to synergy: Enhancing contextual understand- ing through human-machine collaboration in personalized systems,” in Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Tec...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Inner monologue: Embod- ied reasoning through planning with language models,

    W. Huang, F. Xia, T. Xiao, H. Chan, J. Liang, P. Florence, A. Zeng, J. Tompson, I. Mordatch, Y . Chebotaret al., “Inner monologue: Embod- ied reasoning through planning with language models,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 1769–1782

    2023

  6. [14]

    Copa: General robotic manipulation through spatial constraints of parts with foundation models,

    H. Huang, F. Lin, Y . Hu, S. Wang, and Y . Gao, “Copa: General robotic manipulation through spatial constraints of parts with foundation models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08248 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    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,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 9493–9500

    2023

  8. [16]

    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,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 11 523–11 530

    2023

  9. [17]

    Keypoint action tokens enable in-context imitation learning in robotics,

    N. Di Palo and E. Johns, “Keypoint action tokens enable in-context imitation learning in robotics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19578 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Large language models as general pattern machines,

    S. Mirchandani, F. Xia, P. Florence, B. Ichter, D. Driess, M. G. Arenas, K. Rao, D. Sadigh, and A. Zeng, “Large language models as general pattern machines,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04721 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Understanding urdf: A dataset and analysis,

    D. Tola and P. Corke, “Understanding urdf: A dataset and analysis,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    OpenAI, “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Human-centric autonomous systems with llms for user command reasoning,

    Y . Yang, Q. Zhang, C. Li, D. S. Marta, N. Batool, and J. Folkesson, “Human-centric autonomous systems with llms for user command reasoning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2024, pp. 988–994

    2024

  14. [22]

    From llms to actions: Latent codes as bridges in hierarchical robot control,

    Y . Shentu, P. Wu, A. Rajeswaran, and P. Abbeel, “From llms to actions: Latent codes as bridges in hierarchical robot control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04798, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Toward general-purpose robots via foundation models: A survey and meta-analysis,

    Y . Hu, Q. Xie, V . Jain, J. Francis, J. Patrikar, N. Keetha, S. Kim, Y . Xie, T. Zhang, Z. Zhao et al., “Toward general-purpose robots via foundation models: A survey and meta-analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08782, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Awesome-llm-robotics,

    Z. Kira, “Awesome-llm-robotics,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //github.com/GT-RIPL/Awesome-LLM-Robotics

    2022

  17. [25]

    Kambara, C

    M. Kambara, C. Hori, K. Sugiura, K. Ota, D. K. Jha, S. Khurana, S. Jain, R. Corcodel, D. Romeres, and J. Le Roux

  18. [26]

    Lifelong robot learning with human assisted language planners,

    M. Parakh, A. Fong, A. Simeonov, T. Chen, A. Gupta, and P. Agrawal, “Lifelong robot learning with human assisted language planners,” in CoRL 2023 Workshop on Learning Effective Abstractions for Planning (LEAP), 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Plan diffuser: Grounding llm planners with diffusion models for robotic manipulation,

    S. Sharan, R. Zhao, Z. Wang, S. P. Chinchali et al. , “Plan diffuser: Grounding llm planners with diffusion models for robotic manipulation,” in Bridging the Gap between Cognitive Science and Robot Learning in the Real World: Progresses and New Directions , 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Alphablock: Embodied finetuning for vision-language reasoning in robot manipulation,

    C. Jin, W. Tan, J. Yang, B. Liu, R. Song, L. Wang, and J. Fu, “Alphablock: Embodied finetuning for vision-language reasoning in robot manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18898 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

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

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

    2023

  22. [30]

    Look before you leap: Unveiling the power of gpt-4v in robotic vision-language planning,

    Y . Hu, F. Lin, T. Zhang, L. Yi, and Y . Gao, “Look before you leap: Unveiling the power of gpt-4v in robotic vision-language planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17842 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation,

    M. Shridhar, L. Manuelli, and D. Fox, “Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation,” in Conference on robot learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 894–906

    2022

  24. [32]

    Generation of robot manipulation plans using generative large language models,

    J.-P. T ¨oberg and P. Cimiano, “Generation of robot manipulation plans using generative large language models,” in 2023 Seventh IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 190–197

    2023

  25. [33]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,

    S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y . Cao, “React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,

    W. Huang, C. Wang, R. Zhang, Y . Li, J. Wu, and L. Fei-Fei, “V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    On the measure of intelligence,

    F. Chollet, “On the measure of intelligence,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01547, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Gymnasium,

    M. Towers, J. K. Terry, A. Kwiatkowski, J. U. Balis, G. d. Cola, T. Deleu, M. Goul ˜ao, A. Kallinteris, A. KG, M. Krimmel, R. Perez-Vicente, A. Pierr ´e, S. Schulhoff, J. J. Tai, A. T. J. Shen, and O. G. Younis, “Gymnasium,” Mar. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://zenodo.org/r...

    2023

  29. [37]

    sydney.py: Python client for copilot (formerly bing chat),

    V . Sakkas et al. , “sydney.py: Python client for copilot (formerly bing chat),” May 2024, version 0.21.0. [Online]. Available: https: //github.com/vsakkas/sydney.py

    2024

  30. [38]

    Ros-industrial repositories,

    ROS-Industrial, “Ros-industrial repositories,” May 2024, accessed: 2024-05-30. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ros-industrial

    2024

  31. [39]

    Gazebo classic: A dynamic multi-robot simulator,

    O. S. R. Foundation, “Gazebo classic: A dynamic multi-robot simulator,” May 2024, version 11.14.0. [Online]. Available: https: //github.com/gazebosim/gazebo-classic

    2024

  32. [40]

    Mermaid,

    mermaid js, “Mermaid,” https://github.com/mermaid-js/mermaid, 2024, accessed: 2024-06-12. APPENDIX A. Baseline Pattern Rule # Role You are a robot control pattern manipulation expert. Your job is to give an end effector position control pattern in the format of multiples as wi...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Moving left or right is represented as moving in the positive or negative X direction for 1mm or -1mm, respectively

  34. [42]

    Moving forward or backward is represented as moving in the positive or negative Y direction for 1mm or -1mm, respectively

  35. [43]

    # General Pattern Rules The following are rules for describing the robot movement patterns:

    Moving up or down is represented as moving in the positive or negative Z direction for 1mm or -1mm, respectively. # General Pattern Rules The following are rules for describing the robot movement patterns:

  36. [44]

    You should output the movement patterns in X, Y, and Z format and the gripper binary control in G format

  37. [45]

    There are only three values to choose from for each of the axes: [-1, 0, 1], which represents movement along that axis

  38. [46]

    There are only two values to choose from for gripper control [0, 1], which represents the gripper closed or open

  39. [47]

    A pattern has four lines, each of which represents the robot movement pattern of the end effector and gripper control

  40. [48]

    X" for the movement in the left or right direction,

    Each line has a label. "X" for the movement in the left or right direction, "Y" for the movement in the forward or backward direction, and "Z" for the movement in the up or down direction. "G" represents gripper open or close

  41. [49]

    0" represents no movement in that direction,

    For the first three lines (X, Y, and Z), "0" represents no movement in that direction, "1" represents positive movement in that direction for 1mm, and "-1" represents negative movement in that direction for -1mm. For the fourth line (G), "0" represents the gripper opened, and ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.