Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

The paper claims that routing LLM-generated robot programs through a small, compiler-checked Robot Skill Language with error feedback yields executable correctness guarantees and lifts success rates by 53.6% over the ProgPrompt baseline.

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

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

NRTrans uses a small Robot Skill Language with a compiler and iterative error feedback to improve the success rate of LLM-generated robot control programs.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A useful DSL+feedback integration for light-weight LLM robot control, but the 'correctness guarantees' are only syntactic and the evaluation is too small to support the deployment claim. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.19074 v1 pith:BTI4BVXF submitted 2025-08-26 cs.RO cs.AIcs.PL

An LLM-powered Natural-to-Robotic Language Translation Framework with Correctness Guarantees

ZhenDong Chen , ZhanShang Nie , ShiXing Wan , JunYi Li , YongTian Cheng , Shuai Zhao This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AIcs.PL
keywords LLM-powered roboticsRobot Skill Languagecompiler-verified program generationfeedback-based fine-tuninglightweight LLMsnatural language task translationrobot control programsROS interfaces
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that LLM inconsistency in robot code generation can be tamed by interposing a deliberately small Robot Skill Language (RSL) between natural-language tasks and executable control programs. Generated RSL programs must pass a compiler before becoming robot control programs, and compiler error messages are fed back to the LLM for refinement, forming a closed debug loop. On a 25-task evaluation across five LLMs, NRTrans improves success rate by 53.6% on average over the Pythonic ProgPrompt baseline and reaches 92% success with a 2B-parameter model. The paper frames the compiler pass as a correctness guarantee; the reported accuracy is lower than success, so that guarantee is about program form and interface binding, not full semantic task achievement.

Core claim

The central claim is that a compiler-verified intermediate language for robot skills can absorb the variability of LLM output before it reaches hardware. NRTrans defines RSL, a small command-based language whose keywords correspond one-to-one to robot capabilities such as forward, turn, grasp, and perceive. The LLM is prompted to emit RSL, the RSL compiler validates the program lexically and syntactically, compiles it into a Python control program that invokes the robot's interfaces, and, on failure, the debugger converts errors into short natural-language messages that are appended to the prompt for another generation attempt. The paper reports that this refine-until-verified loop lifts com

What carries the argument

The Robot Skill Language (RSL) and its compiler-debugger loop. RSL is a minimal command-based DSL: each statement is a keyword plus parameters ending with a semicolon, mapping directly to predefined robot interfaces, with lexical and syntactic rules written as regular expressions. The compiler parses RSL into an abstract syntax tree with an LL(1) parser and generates executable Python control code; the debugger turns compiler errors into concise natural-language feedback that is concatenated into the LLM prompt. This loop is what carries the argument: it replaces unrestricted code generation with constrained generation whose outputs are machine-checkable before execution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that passing the RSL compiler's checks is enough to call a generated robot program correct, even though a program can pass and still fail the user task because the tasks are built from RSL's own vocabulary and measured accuracy is lower than measured success.

What would settle it

Run NRTrans on a held-out set of user tasks whose objects, locations, and action words fall outside the RSL keyword table, and record how many compiler-verified programs actually complete the task on the robot. If most verified programs fail semantically while still compiling, the claimed correctness guarantee is syntactic only; likewise, if the 53.6% success advantage over ProgPrompt disappears on such tasks, the advantage is tied to the evaluation vocabulary rather than the translation mechanism.

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

If this is right

  • Lightweight LLMs, including a 2B-parameter model, can become useful for robot control generation when output is constrained to a small skill language with compiler feedback.
  • A robot platform can be supported by redefining the RSL keyword-to-interface table and regenerating the compact compiler and code generator, without retraining the model.
  • Semantic-intuitive error messages improve both success rate and accuracy while reducing the average number of generation passes compared with raw parser errors.
  • Zero-shot prompting still benefits substantially from feedback-based refinement, with success rising 91.6% over one-pass generation in the tested setting.
  • The measured gap between success and accuracy means the guaranteed property is executable well-formedness; semantically faithful task completion remains a separate, harder goal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same compiler-feedback pattern could be extended to semantic checking: after syntactic acceptance, simulate the compiled program and feed runtime outcome back into the loop, turning well-formedness into observed task-achieving behavior.
  • Because RSL deliberately excludes loops and conditionals, the reported gains likely generalize only to tasks expressible as sequential skill lists; adding state-dependent branching would require extending the grammar and error taxonomy and may change the success-accuracy balance.
  • The zero-shot result suggests prompt shots mainly supply semantic grounding rather than format compliance, so a well-designed system message plus error feedback may suffice for many deployment scenarios.
  • A testable prediction is that on tasks whose objects, locations, or verbs fall outside the RSL vocabulary, compiler-verified programs will fail semantically at a rate close to the observed accuracy-success gap, since the language cannot express what is not in its lexicon.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents NRTrans, a framework for translating natural-language user tasks into robot control programs. The core idea is to define a restricted Robot Skill Language (RSL) whose keywords correspond to robot capabilities, and to use an RSL compiler that performs lexical/syntactic analysis and translates accepted RSL programs into Python control code. A debugger provides error feedback so the LLM can revise its output until the program passes compilation. Experiments compare NRTrans against ProgPrompt on 25 hand-designed tasks across five LLMs, reporting success rate, accuracy, and number of compilation passes. The paper claims that this pipeline provides "correctness guarantees" for generated control programs and reports large improvements in success rate, especially for lightweight LLMs.

Significance. If the correctness guarantee were semantic—i.e., if compiler-verified programs were guaranteed to fulfill the user's task—the contribution would be significant, since it would address a real obstacle to LLM-generated robot control. The feedback-based fine-tuning loop, where a compiler's error messages are fed back to the LLM, is a sensible and potentially useful technique, particularly for small models. However, the manuscript's headline claim is not supported as stated: the compiler only checks RSL grammar, not task semantics, and the paper's own accuracy numbers are consistently below success rates. The evaluation is further weakened by a task set constructed from the RSL vocabulary, a vaguely defined accuracy metric, and the absence of any statistical analysis. The core mechanism is still worth reporting, but the claims and evaluation need substantial revision before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. III-B Stage 2; Sec. V-A] The claim of "correctness guarantees for the LLM-generated programs before being offloaded to the robots" is not supported. Stage 2 describes only regular-expression tokenization and LL(1) parsing, i.e., syntactic well-formedness. Success rate is defined as passing the compiler and conforming to a uniform format, not as task completion. Fig. 7 shows that accuracy is lower than success for every LLM, e.g., Gemma2-2b success 22 vs. accuracy 15, GPT-4o success 24 vs. accuracy 21. Thus a substantial fraction of compiler-verified programs do not satisfy the user request. The guarantee should be described as syntax verification / DSL conformance, not correctness relative to task intent. This is a load-bearing overstatement and must be corrected throughout the paper.
  2. [Sec. V-A, Tab. III] The evaluation tasks are "designed based on the skills of the Tiago robot," and RSL keywords are derived from the same skill vocabulary. Since success is defined as compiler acceptance, the primary metric effectively measures how often the LLM produces a well-formed program in a language whose grammar and vocabulary were authored for these tasks. This creates a circular relationship between the test set and the proposed method, making the reported 53.6% improvement over ProgPrompt hard to interpret. At minimum, the authors should evaluate on a held-out or independently authored task set, and report generalization to tasks whose vocabulary and structure are not derived from the RSL keyword list.
  3. [Sec. V-A and Fig. 7] The accuracy metric is defined only as "whether the program completes the requested task without the consideration of robot location and pose." It is unclear who or what determines completion, whether this is automated or human-annotated, and what the inter-rater agreement is. The results are reported as counts out of 25 without variance, confidence intervals, or per-task breakdowns. Several nearby counts (e.g., 23/25 vs. 24/25 in Tab. V) are treated as meaningful differences. The paper should provide a precise accuracy rubric, statistical significance or effect-size measures, and error analysis. Without this, the comparative claims are not robust.
  4. [Sec. III-A, P3; Sec. V] P3 explicitly defers conditional/loop statements and dynamic environment monitoring, yet the complex task group in Tab. III includes "Repeat forward 1 meter and turn right 1.57 rads 4 times" and "repeat this pattern until a full circle." It is unclear how these tasks are represented in RSL given the stated limitations; the paper does not explain whether repeated actions are unrolled or whether some loop mechanism exists outside the documented grammar. This ambiguity affects the reproducibility of the evaluation. The authors should either clarify the RSL constructs used for repetition or remove such tasks from the evaluation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] There are numerous typos and formatting errors, e.g., "T HE S TATE-OF-ART" in the Section II heading, and inconsistent spacing in Theorem-like numbered assertions. A thorough proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Sec. IV-A, Fig. 3] The Regular Expression example in Fig. 3 is unrelated to robotics and RSL. While it is presented as an illustration of prompt design, it may confuse the reader; consider using an RSL-related example throughout.
  3. [Sec. V-D, Tab. V] The zero-shot experiment is only run with GPT-4o. The text claims "success rate significantly increases by 91.6%" relative to one-pass zero-shot, but this is a single point comparison on 25 tasks with no variance; the claim should be softened.
  4. [Sec. II] The related-work discussion for task-decomposition methods is brief and states they are excluded because of "lack of open-source implementations." This is acceptable, but the statement that NRTrans is "the first" to provide correctness guarantees should be qualified, since prior work has used compilers or static checks in code-generation pipelines.
  5. [Sec. IV-B] The description of the RSL compiler says the lexer/parser are generated by ANTLR, but the paper does not provide the grammar or a reference to a repository. Including the grammar in an appendix or a public artifact link would greatly improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Compiler acceptance is defined as success, so the headline correctness guarantee reduces to the authors' own syntactic check; independent accuracy data expose the gap.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. III-B Stage 2; Sec. IV-B RSL Compiler; Sec. V-A Metric]
    "The RSL compiler verifies the syntax correctness of RSL programs, binds RSL rules to robot control interfaces, and generates executable robot control programs. ... success rate, verifying whether generated programs pass their compiler and conform to a uniform format that can be automatically executed; (ii) accuracy, assessing whether the program completes the requested task. ... The compiler ensures the correctness of the RSL program and compiles it into an executable program for the underlying robot in Stage 4, thereby providing compiler-verified correctness guarantees for the generated robot"

    The paper's 'correctness guarantee' is defined as acceptance by the RSL compiler, and the compiler's verification is purely lexical/syntactic (regex tokenization and LL(1) parsing). The primary success metric is defined identically: a generated program counts as a success iff it passes the RSL compiler and has uniform formatting. Therefore the headline claims of 'success rate' and 'correctness guarantees before execution' are equivalent by construction to the authors' own grammar check, not to task fulfillment. The paper's own accuracy metric is the independent measure of task completion, and the paper reports 'the success rate of NRTrans is consistently higher than its accuracy for each LLM,' so a nontrivial fraction of compiler-verified programs do not achieve the user's task. Thus the c

full rationale

NRTrans does not rely on self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems; its RSL grammar, compiler, and debugger are presented as new components, and the comparison to ProgPrompt is external. The circularity is narrower and definitional. Sec. III-B Stage 2 describes compiler verification as 'correctness guarantees,' Sec. IV-B says the RSL compiler 'verifies the syntax correctness of RSL programs,' and Sec. V-A defines the headline metric 'success rate' as passing that same compiler. Hence the claim that a program is correct before execution is true by definition of the authors' checker. The accuracy metric supplies an independent check of task completion, and its systematically lower values (acknowledged in Sec. V-B) show compiler acceptance is not task correctness. The evaluation task set is also constructed from Tiago robot capabilities, which are the same capabilities encoded as RSL keywords, further aligning the benchmark with the proposed DSL. Because the paper itself exposes the success/accuracy gap yet still frames compiler acceptance as 'correctness guarantees,' the central claim partially reduces to its own metric. A score of 6 rather than higher reflects that an independent accuracy comparison and an external baseline are reported; the framework is not purely tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework depends on the ROS/Python discrete-function interface model, the limited expressiveness of RSL, and the representativeness of the 25 hand-picked tasks. No numeric free parameters are fitted; the central empirical claim rests on these domain assumptions.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Robots are built on ROS with Python interfaces encapsulated as discrete functions without self-decision-making (P2, Sec. III-A).
    The entire compilation from RSL to control programs assumes this interface model; robots with continuous or decision-making APIs would break the mapping.
  • domain assumption Advanced language mechanisms (conditionals, loops) and dynamic environment monitoring are deferred (P3, Sec. III-A).
    Limits task expressiveness; evaluation tasks involving repetition must be unrolled manually by the LLM, and arbitrary tasks cannot be represented.
  • domain assumption A uniform prompt format from OpenAI's API and existing inference tools is used (P1, Sec. III-A).
    Results may depend on this prompt format; other prompt styles are not tested.
  • ad hoc to paper The 25 hand-designed tasks are representative of real user tasks (Sec. V-A, Tab. III).
    Tasks were designed based on the Tiago robot's skills and the RSL vocabulary, so the evaluation does not sample real-world task distributions.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An LLM-powered Natural-to-Robotic Language Translation Framework with Correctness Guarantees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BTI4BVXF

@misc{pith2026250819074,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An LLM-powered Natural-to-Robotic Language Translation Framework with Correctness Guarantees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BTI4BVXF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19074}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The Large Language Models (LLM) are increasingly being deployed in robotics to generate robot control programs for specific user tasks, enabling embodied intelligence. Existing methods primarily focus on LLM training and prompt design that utilize LLMs to generate executable programs directly from user tasks in natural language. However, due to the inconsistency of the LLMs and the high complexity of the tasks, such best-effort approaches often lead to tremendous programming errors in the generated code, which significantly undermines the effectiveness especially when the light-weight LLMs are applied. This paper introduces a natural-robotic language translation framework that (i) provides correctness verification for generated control programs and (ii) enhances the performance of LLMs in program generation via feedback-based fine-tuning for the programs. To achieve this, a Robot Skill Language (RSL) is proposed to abstract away from the intricate details of the control programs, bridging the natural language tasks with the underlying robot skills. Then, the RSL compiler and debugger are constructed to verify RSL programs generated by the LLM and provide error feedback to the LLM for refining the outputs until being verified by the compiler. This provides correctness guarantees for the LLM-generated programs before being offloaded to the robots for execution, significantly enhancing the effectiveness of LLM-powered robotic applications. Experiments demonstrate NRTrans outperforms the existing method under a range of LLMs and tasks, and achieves a high success rate for light-weight LLMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19074 by Junyi Li, ShiXing Wan, Shuai Zhao, YongTian Cheng, ZhanShang Nie, Zhendong Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three paradigms of LLM-powered control program [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The overall structure and workflow of NRTrans framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustrative example of the input prompt ((a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A prompt for Regex Generation. IV. RATIONALE AND DETAIL FOR NRTRANS As discussed in Sec. III-C, the design and implementation of the NRTrans need to satisfy requirements that affect the effectiveness and efficiency of translation from user tasks to robot control programs. In this section, we present design rationales and implementation details about each component of NRTrans to illustrate how to meet the r… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A translation from a user task to a robotic program. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of the feedback for fine-tuning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Success Rate and Accuracy of Methods (Bars without markers – ProgPrompt; Bars with markers - NRTrans;). B. Overall Performance Comparison under Varied LLMs The NRTrans is evaluated against the ProgPrompt [13], which constructs a Python-structured prompt to import avail￾able objects and Tiago’s interfaces for control program gen￾eration. The ProgPrompt can integrate with different LLMs, allowing us to evalu… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Average passes for feedback-based fine-tuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Autonomous navigation of mobile robots in factory environment,

    S. Harapanahalli, N. O. Mahony, G. V . Hernandez, S. Campbell et al., “Autonomous navigation of mobile robots in factory environment,” Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 38, pp. 1524–1531, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    A survey of robots in healthcare,

    M. Kyrarini, F. Lygerakis et al. , “A survey of robots in healthcare,” Technologies, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 8, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Household robotics: autonomous devices for vacuuming and lawn mowing [applications of control],

    H. Sahin and L. Guvenc, “Household robotics: autonomous devices for vacuuming and lawn mowing [applications of control],” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 20–96, 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan et al. , “Language models are few-shot learners,” 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard et al. , “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology,

    G. Team, T. Mesnard, C. Hardin, R. Dadashi, S. Bhupatiraju, S. Pathak, L. Sifre, M. Rivi `ere, M. S. Kale, J. Love et al. , “Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

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

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal et al., “Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817 , 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable task planning,

    K. Rana, J. Haviland, S. Garg, J. Abou-Chakra, I. Reid, and N. Suender- hauf, “Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable task planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06135 , 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    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

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model,

    D. Driess, F. Xia, M. S. Sajjadi, C. Lynch et al., “Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378 , 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Transferring foundation models for generalizable robotic manipulation,

    J. Yang, W. Tan, C. Jin, K. Yao, B. Liu, J. Fu et al. , “Transferring foundation models for generalizable robotic manipulation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05716

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities,

    S. Vemprala, R. Bonatti, A. Bucker, and A. Kapoor, “Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.17582

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

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

    I. Singh, V . Blukis, A. Mousavian, A. Goyal, D. Xu et al., “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

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    An embodied generalist agent in 3d world,

    J. Huang, S. Yong, X. Ma et al., “An embodied generalist agent in 3d world,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12871 , 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,

    W. Huang, P. Abbeel et al. , “Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 9118–9147

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

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

    M. Ahn, A. Brohan, N. Brown, Y . Chebotar et al. , “Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Saycanpay: Heuristic planning with large language models using learnable domain knowl- edge,

    R. Hazra, P. Z. Dos Martires, and L. De Raedt, “Saycanpay: Heuristic planning with large language models using learnable domain knowl- edge,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 18, 2024, pp. 20 123–20 133

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models,

    W. Huang, F. Xia, T. Xiao, H. Chan, J. Liang, P. Florence, A. Zeng et al. , “Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608 , 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

    Language-grounded dynamic scene graphs for interactive object search with mobile manipulation,

    D. Honerkamp, M. Buchner, F. Despinoy, T. Welschehold et al. , “Language-grounded dynamic scene graphs for interactive object search with mobile manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08605 , 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans,

    K. Lin, C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, M. Pavone, and J. Bohg, “Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1345–1365, 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    To Help or Not to Help: LLM-based Attentive Support for Human-Robot Group Interactions

    D. Tanneberg, F. Ocker, S. Hasler, J. Deigmoeller, A. Belardinelli, C. Wang, H. Wersing, B. Sendhoff, and M. Gienger, “To help or not to help: Llm-based attentive support for human-robot group interactions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12533 , 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Llmˆ 3: Large language model-based task and motion planning with motion failure reasoning,

    S. Wang, M. Han, Z. Jiao, Z. Zhang, Y . N. Wu, S.-C. Zhu, and H. Liu, “Llmˆ 3: Large language model-based task and motion planning with motion failure reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11552 , 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Octopus: Embodied vision-language programmer from environmental feedback,

    J. Yang, Y . Dong, S. Liu, B. Li, Z. Wang, C. Jiang, H. Tan et al. , “Octopus: Embodied vision-language programmer from environmental feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08588 , 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    An empirical evaluation of using large language models for automated unit test generation,

    M. Sch ¨afer, S. Nadi, A. Eghbali, and F. Tip, “An empirical evaluation of using large language models for automated unit test generation,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    LecPrompt: A Prompt-based Approach for Logical Error Correction with CodeBERT

    Z. Xu et al. , “Lecprompt: A prompt-based approach for logical error correction with codebert,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08241 , 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Virtualhome: Simulating household activities via programs,

    X. Puig, K. Ra, M. Boben et al. , “Virtualhome: Simulating household activities via programs,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 8494–8502

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    ggerganov/llama.cpp: Port of facebook’s llama model in c/c++,

    G. Gerganov, “ggerganov/llama.cpp: Port of facebook’s llama model in c/c++,” https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp, 2023

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Tiago: the modular robot that adapts to different research needs,

    J. Pages, L. Marchionni, and F. Ferro, “Tiago: the modular robot that adapts to different research needs,” in International workshop on robot modularity, IROS, vol. 290, 2016

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    Ros: an open-source robot operating system,

    M. Quigley, “Ros: an open-source robot operating system,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2009. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6324125

    work page 2009

  31. [31]

    Copal: corrective planning of robot actions with large language models,

    F. Joublin, A. Ceravola, P. Smirnov, F. Ocker, J. Deigmoeller, A. Be- lardinelli et al., “Copal: corrective planning of robot actions with large language models,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 8664–8670

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Antlr: A predicated-ll (k) parser generator,

    T. J. Parr and R. W. Quong, “Antlr: A predicated-ll (k) parser generator,” Software: Practice and Experience , vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 789–810, 1995

    work page 1995

  33. [33]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,

    G. Team, R. Anil, S. Borgeaud et al. , “Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805 , 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, S. Ahmad, S. Anadkat et al., “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Gpt-4 — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,

    Wikipedia contributors, “Gpt-4 — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,” 2024, [Online; accessed 20-September-2024]. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPT-4&oldid=1246495302

    work page 2024

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.