Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 49 references

A vision-language model can pre-filter cluttered scenes to improve planners, controllers, and learned policies.

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 ↗

A vision-language-model-based prune-and-merge abstraction improves success and runtime for TAMP, contact-implicit MPC, and a VLA policy in cluttered tabletop manipulation.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful VLM prune/merge front-end for manipulation, but the C3+ success-rate comparison is mismatched and the quantitative evidence is thinner than the abstract claims. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19633 v1 pith:CVIK56PU submitted 2026-07-22 cs.RO

LENS: LLM-guided Environment Simplification for Planning and Control in Clutter

Aileen Liao , Rachel Holladay , Dinesh Jayaraman , Michael Posa This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords robot manipulationscene abstractionlarge language modelsvision-language modelstask and motion planningcontact-implicit MPCvision-language-action modelscluttered environments
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

LENS is a plug-and-play front-end that automatically simplifies a cluttered robot scene by pruning task-irrelevant objects and merging coupled ones into single bodies, using a vision-language model (VLM) guided by task descriptions and failure feedback. The paper claims this closed-loop abstraction improves success rates and reduces computation time for three very different downstream systems: classical task-and-motion planning, contact-implicit model-predictive control, and a vision-language-action (VLA) policy. This matters because real-world manipulation scenes with many objects cause all three approaches to degrade sharply in speed and reliability, and manual scene-abstraction engineering does not scale. If LENS works, it offers a general, task-agnostic way to make existing robot stacks viable in clutter without retraining them.

Core claim

The central discovery is that task-relevant scene abstraction, generated by querying a frozen multimodal LLM (GPT-4o) and refined through closed-loop failure feedback, can serve as a universal front-end for robot manipulation. LENS constructs a reduced scene by removing objects that can be ignored and merging objects that are functionally or dynamically coupled into a single rigid body (or image-inpainted region for the VLA). When the downstream planner or controller times out or returns an error, the previous abstraction and a feedback message are appended to the prompt, and the VLM re-queries to produce a corrected scene. Experiments across TAMP, contact-implicit MPC (C3+), and a VLA (π0.5

What carries the argument

The prune-and-merge loop: a VLM is prompted with a task description, a scene representation (object list, poses, masses, or an image with bounding boxes), and a goal; it outputs a list of lists of task-relevant objects. Excluded objects are pruned—removed from decision variables, collision/contact pairs, or visual input—while each sublist's objects are merged into a single composite entity with a fused geometry and co-moving dynamics. Feedback is triggered by downstream timeout or error codes, appending a corrective prompt that encourages broader selection, then re-queries the VLM. This closed loop is what lets the abstraction adapt to hallucinations or evolving scenes.

Load-bearing premise

The main thing that must hold is that a frozen vision-language model can correctly judge, from an image and a text goal, which objects matter for a task, and that any wrong pruning will be caught by a downstream timeout or error code rather than failing silently.

What would settle it

Replace the VLM's object selection with a random baseline (or a nearest-neighbour geometric heuristic) on the same cluttered scenes, keeping every other component identical; if the random baseline achieves comparable success rates, the VLM's semantic reasoning is not the causal mechanism. Alternatively, construct a scene where a critical object is visually similar to a distractor, causing the VLM to prune it, and where the downstream planner completes with a wrong but non-timeout plan—this would expose a silent failure the feedback loop cannot detect.

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

If this is right

  • TAMP success rates improve in heavy clutter and stacked-object scenes because the planner only searches over task-relevant objects, avoiding distractor enumeration.
  • Contact-implicit MPC (C3+) maintains roughly constant execution time as object count increases (40–135 seconds across 2–8 objects), whereas the baseline grows by orders of magnitude (over 4000 seconds at 7 objects).
  • VLA success in cluttered LIBERO scenes rises from 0.5 to 0.69 in simulation, with hardware trials showing gains for each of four fruit-picking tasks.
  • The same abstraction component works across three fundamentally different downstream systems, suggesting it is a general, task-agnostic front-end.
  • Speedups are achieved without changing the downstream algorithms, so LENS can be dropped into existing pipelines.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reliance on timeouts and error codes means tasks that fail silently—where the robot executes a wrong but non-erroneous action—would require richer feedback signals for LENS to correct itself; this is a testable boundary of the method.
  • Because the VLM is frozen and prompts are hand-designed, the prune/merge decisions could be distilled into a small learned model that runs in real time, making the abstraction layer cheaper at deployment.
  • The merging operation, which treats loosely coupled objects as a single dynamic body, may be a useful inductive bias beyond manipulation—for example in navigation or assembly, where piles or groups of objects can be reasoned about as units.
  • The paper's results suggest that 'task relevance' in manipulation is largely recoverable from a general VLM without task-specific training, but it remains to be seen whether this holds for long-horizon tasks where relevance evolves over time.
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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper introduces LENS, a vision-language-model-driven scene abstraction layer that sits in front of existing manipulation planners and controllers. Given a task description and a scene, GPT-4o outputs a list of task-relevant objects and merges them into sublists; LENS prunes the rest and, where appropriate, fuses grouped geometry. When the downstream module times out or errors, LENS re-queries the VLM with failure feedback and revises the abstraction. The authors instantiate LENS for PDDLStream-based TAMP, C3+ contact-implicit MPC, and the pi0.5 vision-language-action model, and report evaluations in simulation and on hardware on cluttered tabletop tasks. The paper claims that LENS improves success rates and runtimes across all three modules.

Significance. If the claims hold, LENS offers an appealingly generic interventional layer that could reduce combinatorial search in TAMP and contact-implicit MPC and reduce distribution shift for VLAs. Its strengths include the breadth of downstream integration, the explicit prompts and implementation details in the appendices, hardware experiments for both C3+ and VLA, and a C3+ comparison against geometric pruning baselines. However, as presented, the quantitative evidence is not yet fully convincing: the C3+ success-rate comparison appears to be computed over mismatched trial sets, and the closed-loop retry structure is not matched across conditions. The hardware VLA results also rest on very small per-condition samples without confidence intervals. These issues need to be addressed before the central claims are fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Figure 5] The text reports 'LENS-C3+ and baseline succeeded on 39/45 and 17/30 trials respectively' and states each object count is averaged over five trials. Thus LENS was evaluated on 9 object-count conditions and baseline on 6. The conditions are not matched; the baseline appears to omit the highest clutter levels (7+ objects), where it is reported to require over 4000 s. Consequently, the aggregate success rates 39/45 vs 17/30 are not comparable and do not support the claim that LENS improves C3+ success. Report per-object-count success counts and compare on the same trial set, or use a valid conditional comparison.
  2. [Algorithm 1, Section 5.2] LENS can retry up to N times and stops at first success. No statement indicates whether Baseline-C3+ was given the same number of attempts; the TAMP section explicitly says 'Baseline is rerun twice for fairness,' but no analogous statement appears for C3+. If the baseline is single-shot per trial, the reported success advantage may reflect the retry budget, not scene abstraction. Report per-attempt LENS success, or run the baseline with an identical retry budget and report cumulative success. Appendix C's Figure 10 should also clarify whether the distance-based baselines receive iterative feedback.
  3. [Section 5.3, Table 1] Hardware VLA results use n=10 per fruit, with baseline success 0.0 for three of four fruits and 0.2 for the fourth. Raw counts and confidence intervals (or an appropriate hypothesis test) are needed to support the statement that LENS 'consistently improves' per task; the aggregate comparison may be significant but the per-fruit values are not demonstrated robust. Please report exact binomial CIs or raw counts and a combined analysis.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 5.1, Fig. 4a] Stacked success contributions by iteration are reported without error bars or raw counts; specify the per-environment number of episodes and variability.
  2. [Section 5.2] Phrase 'Results for each object are averaged across five trials' should read 'for each object count'.
  3. [Appendix B] Typo: 'my have spurious selections' should be 'may have spurious selections'.
  4. [Appendix E] Typo: 'complimentarity' should be 'complementarity'.
  5. [Section 5.3] Ground-truth segmentation in simulation gives LENS privileged perception; state this as an explicit limitation or include an ablation with a detector-based pipeline.
  6. [Section 5] VLM query time (1.76 s) is excluded from runtime comparisons; report end-to-end time including these queries for LENS.
  7. [Appendix C, Fig. 10] Clarify what 'Iteration 0/1/2' means for the distance-based baselines; if they do not receive feedback, label accordingly.
  8. [Appendix E] Prompt constraints such as 'AT MOST 4 SUBLISTS TOTAL' are free parameters; no sensitivity analysis is provided. At least a brief discussion would help assess robustness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: LENS is an empirical closed-loop front-end, not a fitted derivation; self-citations are not load-bearing, and the main concern is a trial-count discrepancy in the C3+ comparison, which is an experimental-validity issue rather than circular reasoning.

full rationale

LENS does not derive a mathematical prediction from fitted parameters; it proposes a closed-loop VLM front-end (Algorithm 1) whose output is an abstracted scene fed to TAMP, C3+, or π0.5, and the paper's support is empirical comparison against baselines on external benchmarks. The VLM prompt caps ('AT MOST 4 SUBLISTS TOTAL', 'CHOOSE AT MOST 4 objects!') are hand-written constraints, not constants fitted to the evaluation, so there is no fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction. Self-citations such as [22] (Jayaraman co-author) and [2,3] (Posa group) appear in related work and as the downstream stacks being integrated, but the load-bearing evidence is the benchmark results, not those citations; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work. The most concrete threat is the C3+ reporting: 'LENS-C3+ and baseline succeeded on 39/45 and 17/30 trials respectively' with 'Results for each object are averaged across five trials,' implying mismatched trial sets (45 vs 30) and making the success-rate comparison hard to interpret. That is an experimental-validity issue, not circularity, because the success criterion is not defined in terms of the method's own outputs. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the quote-and-reduction standard was found; the score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation and this evaluation caveat.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or forces are introduced; merged bodies and inpainted images are computational abstractions with no independent falsifiable handle outside the paper.

free parameters (4)
  • C3+ prompt cap on selected objects/sublists = AT MOST 4 objects / AT MOST 4 SUBLISTS
    Hand-set constraint in Appendix E to control LCP size; not derived and likely tuned to keep C3+ tractable.
  • Feedback trigger thresholds = 120 s (TAMP), 250 control iterations (C3+)
    These thresholds determine when VLM re-queries occur and how much time/iteration budget is used; chosen by authors.
  • Maximum feedback iterations N = 2 (TAMP, VLA sim), 3 (hardware C3+)
    Hand-set retry budget; higher N would inflate success probabilities relative to single-shot baselines.
  • VLM temperature/model snapshot = not reported
    GPT-4o is mentioned, but no version or decoding parameters are given; affects reproducibility.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o can correctly identify task-relevant objects from object names, poses, and images under the given prompts.
    Entire pipeline depends on VLM relevance judgments (Sec 3, Appendix E).
  • domain assumption Merged bodies as single rigid/composite objects preserve enough physical fidelity for planning/control to succeed.
    Sec 3 states 'conservative envelope'; A.2 admits the controller does not model internal shape changes.
  • domain assumption Pruned objects can be safely ignored/fixed without affecting task feasibility, or remain collision-checked in TAMP.
    Pruning is the core operation; if a pruned object blocks a path, the plan fails (Sec 3, 4.1).
  • domain assumption Inpainted VLA observations remain within the policy's training distribution and preserve the goal object.
    VLA success depends on the filtered image being actionable (Sec 4.3, Appendix D).
  • domain assumption Timeout/error-code signals are sufficient feedback for correcting bad abstractions.
    Feedback loop relies on coarse failure signals; Sec 6 lists this as a limitation.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LENS: LLM-guided Environment Simplification for Planning and Control in Clutter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CVIK56PU

@misc{pith2026260719633,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LENS: LLM-guided Environment Simplification for Planning and Control in Clutter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CVIK56PU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19633}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Despite recent advances in general-purpose robotic manipulation, real-world multi-object clutter remains challenging to handle for today's prevalent approaches. The problem scales in complexity due to more objects and collisions, more unpredictable contact physics, distractors, and task ambiguity. Bridging this gap to real-world deployment requires effective scene abstractions; yet today, producing such abstractions requires extensive task-specific manual engineering, which does not scale. These abstractions are costly to generate and difficult to adjust or fine-tune. We instead propose a plug-and-play fix to automatically generate scene-specific, task-specific, adaptively updating abstractions on top of existing planning and control stacks. LLM-guided Environment Simplification (LENS) produces a de-cluttered abstracted scene representation by merging (e.g., stacked objects) or pruning (e.g., distant objects) scene entities in a closed loop in response to task progress. These dynamic, task-relevant abstractions are versatile and easy to use. In our experiments, we show that LENS improves classical planning, model-based control, and a vision-language-action model, across a diverse set of highly cluttered manipulation scenes. Project website: https://lens-2026.github.io/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19633 by Aileen Liao, Dinesh Jayaraman, Michael Posa, Rachel Holladay.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Scene complexity is reduced via pruning and merging. (Left) The control task is to move [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: System overview of LENS. Given a task description via the full scene and prompt infor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: LENS was evaluated on three TAMP environments: (a) a lightly cluttered tabletop, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TAMP Results. (a) shows Baseline-TAMP and LENS-TAMP success rates in three en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LENS’s task outcomes are shown for Merging and Pruning experiments on hardware. Task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Object Count Ablation. As the object count increases, the baseline execution time in￾creases drastically. LENS remains constant. Simulation Experiments: We varied the num￾ber of objects present in the environment and compared against the baseline controller C3+ that operates over the full scene. Baseline-C3+ does not perform any relevance estimation and reasons over all objects uniformly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Three iterations of (a) pruned and (b) merged scene graph at various times during an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Real hardware VLA experiment. LENS is applied directly on hand image (b) without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example TAMP scene where a distance-based baseline fails. The set of nearest objects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: C3+ distance-based pruning baseline (n=30). Nearest-3 objects or nearest objects in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.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

49 extracted references · 16 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    C. R. Garrett, T. Lozano-P´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling. Pddlstream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning. InProceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling, volume 30, pages 440–448, 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    Aydinoglu, A

    A. Aydinoglu, A. Wei, W.-C. Huang, and M. Posa. Consensus complementarity control for multi-contact mpc.IEEE Transactions on Robotics (TRO), July 2024. doi:10.1109/TRO.2024. 3435423. URLhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10614849

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    H. Bui*, Y . Gao*, H. Yang*, E. Cui, S. Mody, B. Acosta, T. S. Felix, B. Bianchini, and M. Posa. Push anything: Single- and multi-object pushing from first sight with contact-implicit mpc. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19974, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Intelligence, K

    P. Intelligence, K. Black, N. Brown, J. Darpinian, K. Dhabalia, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, et al.π 0.5: a vision-language-action model with open-world generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16054, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Huang, Y .-H

    C.-P. Huang, Y .-H. Wu, M.-H. Chen, Y .-C. F. Wang, and F.-E. Yang. Thinkact: Vision-language-action reasoning via reinforced visual latent planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.16815, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Y . Yang, J. Sun, S. Kou, Y . Wang, and Z. Deng. Lohovla: A unified vision-language-action model for long-horizon embodied tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00411, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Y . Feng, J. Han, Z. Yang, X. Yue, S. Levine, and J. Luo. Reflective planning: Vision-language models for multi-stage long-horizon robotic manipulation. In J. Lim, S. Song, and H.-W. Park, editors,Proceedings of The 9th Conference on Robot Learning, volume 305 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2038–2062. PMLR, 27–30 Sep 2025. URLhttps: //p...

    2038

  8. [8]

    F. Lin, R. Nai, Y . Hu, J. You, J. Zhao, and Y . Gao. Onetwovla: A unified vision-language-action model with adaptive reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11917, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    M. Ahn, A. Brohan, N. Brown, Y . Chebotar, O. Cortes, B. David, C. Finn, C. Fu, K. Gopalakr- ishnan, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, D. Ho, J. Hsu, J. Ibarz, B. Ichter, A. Irpan, E. Jang, R. J. Ruano, K. Jeffrey, S. Jesmonth, N. Joshi, R. Julian, D. Kalashnikov, Y . Kuang, K.-H. Lee, S. Levine, Y . Lu, L. Luu, C. Parada, P. Pastor, J. Quiambao, K. Rao, J. Rettingh...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Liang, W

    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. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07753, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    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. In2024 IEEE/RSJ In- ternational Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 12086–12092. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Z. Yang, C. Garrett, D. Fox, T. Lozano-P ´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling. Guiding long-horizon task and motion planning with vision language models, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2410.02193

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Kumar, W

    N. Kumar, W. Shen, F. Ramos, D. Fox, T. Lozano-P ´erez, L. P. Kaelbling, and C. R. Garrett. Open-world task and motion planning via vision-language model inferred constraints.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08253, 2024. 10

    arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    D. Lee, S. Joo, K. Lee, and B. Kim. Prime the search: Using large language models for guiding geometric task and motion planning by warm-starting tree search.The International Journal of Robotics Research, page 02783649251347307, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Huang, F

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    M. Yan, M. Mengdibayev, A. Floros, W. Guo, L. E. Kavraki, and Z. Kingston. Using vlm reasoning to constrain task and motion planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25548, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Nguyen, O

    S. Nguyen, O. Oguz, V . Hartmann, and M. Toussaint. Self-supervised learning of scene- graph representations for robotic sequential manipulation planning. In J. Kober, F. Ramos, and C. Tomlin, editors,Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Robot Learning, volume 155 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2104–2119. PMLR, 16–18 Nov 2021. URLhttps...

    2020

  18. [18]

    Y . Zhu, J. Tremblay, S. Birchfield, and Y . Zhu. Hierarchical planning for long-horizon manip- ulation with geometric and symbolic scene graphs. In2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 6541–6548. Ieee, 2021

    2021

  19. [19]

    Silver, R

    T. Silver, R. Chitnis, A. Curtis, J. B. Tenenbaum, T. Lozano-P ´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling. Plan- ning with learned object importance in large problem instances using graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, number 13, pages 11962–11971, 2021

    2021

  20. [20]

    Zhang, T

    Y . Zhang, T. Xue, A. Razmjoo, and S. Calinon. Learn2decompose: Learning problem decomposition for efficient sequential multi-object manipulation planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06843, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    C. V . Braun, J. Ortiz-Haro, M. Toussaint, and O. S. Oguz. Rhh-lgp: Receding horizon and heuristics-based logic-geometric programming for task and motion planning. In2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 13761– 13768. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  22. [22]

    J. Qian, Y . Li, B. Bucher, and D. Jayaraman. Task-oriented hierarchical object decomposition for visuomotor control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01284, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Bui and M

    H. Bui and M. Posa. Enhancing task performance of learned simplified models via reinforce- ment learning. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9212–9219. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  24. [24]

    Nechyporenko, Y

    N. Nechyporenko, Y . Zhang, S. Campbell, and A. Roncone. Morphit: Flexible spheri- cal approximation of robot morphology for representation-driven adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.14061, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Y . Wang, Y . Li, K. Driggs-Campbell, L. Fei-Fei, and J. Wu. Dynamic-resolution model learn- ing for object pile manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16700, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Shridhar, L

    M. Shridhar, L. Manuelli, and D. Fox. Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipu- lation. InProceedings of the 5th Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2021

    2021

  27. [27]

    Mirjalili, T

    R. Mirjalili, T. J ¨ulg, F. Walter, and W. Burgard. Augmented reality for robots (arro): Pointing visuomotor policies towards visual robustness.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2026

    2026

  28. [28]

    Zhang, M

    J. Zhang, M. Memmel, K. Kim, D. Fox, J. Thomason, F. Ramos, E. Bıyık, A. Gupta, and A. Li. Peek: Guiding and minimal image representations for zero-shot generalization of robot manipulation policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18282, 2025. 11

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    C. R. Garrett, R. Chitnis, R. Holladay, B. Kim, T. Silver, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-P´erez. Integrated task and motion planning.Annual review of control, robotics, and autonomous systems, 4(1):265–293, 2021

    2021

  30. [30]

    McDermott, M

    D. McDermott, M. Ghallab, A. Howe, C. Knoblock, A. Ram, M. Veloso, D. Weld, and D. Wilkins. PDDL-the planning domain definition language, 1998

    1998

  31. [31]

    Le Cleac’h, T

    S. Le Cleac’h, T. A. Howell, S. Yang, C.-Y . Lee, J. Zhang, A. Bishop, M. Schwager, and Z. Manchester. Fast contact-implicit model predictive control.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 40:1617–1629, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    S. Liu, Z. Zeng, T. Ren, F. Li, H. Zhang, J. Yang, Q. Jiang, C. Li, J. Yang, H. Su, et al. Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. In European conference on computer vision, pages 38–55. Springer, 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    Kirillov, E

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, P. Doll´ar, and R. Girshick. Segment anything.arXiv:2304.02643, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Suvorov, E

    R. Suvorov, E. Logacheva, A. Mashikhin, A. Remizova, A. Ashukha, A. Silvestrov, N. Kong, H. Goka, K. Park, and V . Lempitsky. Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07161, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Rasouli, M

    A. Rasouli, M. Alban, S. Pakdamansavoji, Z. Li, Z. Zhang, A. Wu, and X. Zhao. Distracted robot: How visual clutter undermine robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.22780, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    S. Fei, S. Wang, J. Shi, Z. Dai, J. Cai, P. Qian, L. Ji, X. He, S. Zhang, Z. Fei, et al. Libero-plus: In-depth robustness analysis of vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13626, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Zhang, J

    B. Zhang, J. Li, J. Shen, Y . Cai, Y . Zhang, Y . Chen, J. Dai, J. Ji, and Y . Yang. Vla-arena: An open-source framework for benchmarking vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.22539, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    B. Liu, Y . Zhu, C. Gao, Y . Feng, Q. Liu, Y . Zhu, and P. Stone. Libero: Benchmarking knowl- edge transfer for lifelong robot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03310, 2023. 12 A Background Details The abstraction formatting and rules vary across integrations to match the physical and represen- tational requirements of each downstream system. The core LE...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Do NOT omit objects between robot and goal

    Include ALL goal objects and any clutter obstructing or near them. Do NOT omit objects between robot and goal

  40. [40]

    Each sublist groups objects that can be stably moved together (not just spatial clusters)

  41. [41]

    Objects sharing the same base must be combined into one sublist — base object listed first

  42. [42]

    Standalone relevant objects with no group are listed as singletons: [obj]

  43. [43]

    ### REASONING STEPS

    Order sublists by task importance. ### REASONING STEPS

  44. [44]

    **Goals:** Which objects are part of ’goal’?

  45. [45]

    **Obstructions:** Which objects are stacked on, supporting, or blocking a goal object?

  46. [46]

    **Grouping:** Which objects can move together? Merge any that share a base

  47. [47]

    Most important sublist first overall

    **Order:** Base first within each sublist. Most important sublist first overall. ### OUTPUT FORMAT Reasoning: one line, 30 tokens Result: [[base, obj, ...], [obj], [base, obj, ...], ...] ### FINAL OUTPUT Reasoning: Result: TAMP Cluttered Tabletop You are filtering the scene for a TAMP planner. The robot is a PR2 movable base robot located at pos = [2.5, 0...

  48. [48]

    Objects RELEV ANT to the task (to be PROTECTED from removal)

  49. [49]

    relevant_objects

    DISTRACTOR objects on the workspace (to be REMOVED from the image) Rules for RELEV ANT objects (protect): - ALW AYS include: the robot arm, gripper, and end effector (if visible). The gripper/end effector is the most critical — it includes the finger pads, gripper jaws, and anything the robot is currently grasping. NEVER remove it. - ALW AYS include: any ...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.