Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 60 cited by

Language models improve robotic planning by maintaining an inner monologue of natural language feedback from the environment.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-05-11 20:04 UTC pith:FDBMD25F

load-bearing objection LLMs improve robot task completion by incorporating language feedback into planning without retraining, but the gains likely depend on clean external modules that aren't stress-tested for errors. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2207.05608 v1 pith:FDBMD25F submitted 2022-07-12 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CLcs.CVcs.LG

Inner Monologue: Embodied Reasoning through Planning with Language Models

Wenlong Huang , Fei Xia , Ted Xiao , Harris Chan , Jacky Liang , Pete Florence , Andy Zeng , Jonathan Tompson
show 9 more authors
Igor Mordatch Yevgen Chebotar Pierre Sermanet Noah Brown Tomas Jackson Linda Luu Sergey Levine Karol Hausman Brian Ichter
This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AIcs.CLcs.CVcs.LG
keywords large language modelsrobot planningembodied reasoninginner monologueclosed-loop feedbacktabletop manipulationkitchen tasks
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 paper investigates whether large language models can plan robot actions in embodied settings by reasoning over feedback expressed in natural language, without any further training. It introduces the idea of an inner monologue in which the model iteratively incorporates signals such as whether a skill succeeded, what the current scene looks like, or instructions from a human. Experiments across simulated tabletop rearrangement, real tabletop rearrangement, and long-horizon kitchen manipulation show that this closed-loop feedback raises the rate at which high-level instructions are completed. A sympathetic reader would care because the result suggests existing language models can be turned into more adaptable robot planners simply by giving them a way to talk to themselves about what they observe.

Core claim

By treating environment feedback as additional natural-language context, large language models can sustain an inner monologue that lets them revise plans in response to the outcomes of their own actions, producing measurably higher success on instruction-following tasks in both simulation and the real world.

What carries the argument

The inner monologue: an iterative loop in which the language model receives and reasons over language descriptions of success detection, scene state, or human input to update its next plan.

Load-bearing premise

Large language models can reliably interpret and act on natural language descriptions of task outcomes and world state without any task-specific training.

What would settle it

Re-run the same tabletop and kitchen tasks while removing or corrupting the language feedback channel and measure whether the reported gains in instruction completion disappear.

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

If this is right

  • Closed-loop language feedback raises completion rates on both simulated and physical tabletop rearrangement.
  • The same feedback loop improves long-horizon mobile manipulation in a real kitchen.
  • Multiple language feedback sources can be combined without retraining the underlying model.
  • Plans adapt dynamically as the world state changes, because the model re-reasons over updated language descriptions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The approach could transfer to other manipulation or navigation domains if their outcomes can be summarized in language.
  • Performance may drop in settings where feedback is noisy or incomplete, suggesting a need for verification steps not tested here.
  • Combining the monologue with direct visual or proprioceptive inputs might increase robustness beyond what language alone provides.
  • The method implies that future robot systems could rely more on general-purpose language models and less on domain-specific fine-tuning.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that Large Language Models can perform embodied reasoning for robotic planning by incorporating natural language feedback from the environment into an 'inner monologue' without any additional training. The approach is evaluated on three domains: simulated and real tabletop rearrangement tasks, and real-world long-horizon mobile manipulation in a kitchen setting. The central finding is that closed-loop language feedback from sources like success detection, scene description, and human interaction significantly improves high-level instruction completion rates compared to open-loop baselines.

Significance. If the empirical results are robust, this work demonstrates a promising direction for using off-the-shelf LLMs in dynamic robotic control scenarios, leveraging their reasoning capabilities over language-based feedback to handle uncertainty and changes in the environment. It provides evidence across both simulation and real hardware, which strengthens the claim for practical applicability in robotics.

major comments (2)
  1. The evaluation does not include ablations or stress tests where the feedback modules (success detection, scene description) are perturbed with realistic error rates or partial information. This is load-bearing because the headline improvement relies on the assumption that these external modules provide accurate and complete language feedback that the LLM can effectively reason over.
  2. Details on the exact prompt construction for integrating multiple feedback sources and how the LLM generates the next action or plan are not sufficiently specified, making it difficult to assess the precise mechanism of the 'inner monologue' or to reproduce the results.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract claims 'significant improvements' but provides no quantitative metrics, baselines, or error bars, which should be summarized even at a high level.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify and strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the paper accordingly to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The evaluation does not include ablations or stress tests where the feedback modules (success detection, scene description) are perturbed with realistic error rates or partial information. This is load-bearing because the headline improvement relies on the assumption that these external modules provide accurate and complete language feedback that the LLM can effectively reason over.

    Authors: We agree that controlled stress tests with perturbed feedback would strengthen claims about robustness. Our real-world experiments already use feedback from imperfect perception systems (e.g., object detectors with errors and human-provided scene descriptions), and the inner monologue still yields substantial gains over open-loop baselines in these noisy settings. However, we did not include explicit ablations with injected error rates. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new analysis subsection with simulation results that systematically vary success detection accuracy (0-30% error) and scene description completeness, showing graceful degradation and retained benefits from language-based reasoning up to moderate noise levels. We also discuss failure modes when feedback becomes highly unreliable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Details on the exact prompt construction for integrating multiple feedback sources and how the LLM generates the next action or plan are not sufficiently specified, making it difficult to assess the precise mechanism of the 'inner monologue' or to reproduce the results.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original description of prompt formatting was high-level. The revised manuscript now includes an expanded appendix with the complete prompt templates for each domain and feedback combination. These templates show the exact structure for concatenating success detection outputs, scene descriptions, and human feedback into the LLM context, along with the system instructions and few-shot examples used. We also provide full example inner-monologue traces (input history and LLM-generated plans) for representative episodes, making the closed-loop reasoning process fully reproducible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical evaluation of LLM planning with external feedback

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical study of using frozen LLMs for robotic planning augmented by language feedback from separate modules (success detection, scene description, human input). It reports performance gains on rearrangement and mobile manipulation tasks but contains no derivation chain, equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation load-bearing uniqueness claims. All results are obtained by direct experimentation on simulated and real hardware; the central claim is therefore not equivalent to its inputs by construction and remains falsifiable by the reported baselines and ablations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about LLM reasoning capabilities and the utility of language feedback; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption LLMs possess reasoning capabilities applicable to planning and interaction in embodied environments
    Invoked in the opening sentences as the basis for applying LLMs beyond NLP.
  • domain assumption Natural language feedback from the environment can be effectively processed by LLMs to adjust plans
    Core premise for the inner monologue mechanism and closed-loop improvement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5572 in / 1278 out tokens · 61445 ms · 2026-05-11T20:04:49.265363+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent works have shown how the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) can be applied to domains beyond natural language processing, such as planning and interaction for robots. These embodied problems require an agent to understand many semantic aspects of the world: the repertoire of skills available, how these skills influence the world, and how changes to the world map back to the language. LLMs planning in embodied environments need to consider not just what skills to do, but also how and when to do them - answers that change over time in response to the agent's own choices. In this work, we investigate to what extent LLMs used in such embodied contexts can reason over sources of feedback provided through natural language, without any additional training. We propose that by leveraging environment feedback, LLMs are able to form an inner monologue that allows them to more richly process and plan in robotic control scenarios. We investigate a variety of sources of feedback, such as success detection, scene description, and human interaction. We find that closed-loop language feedback significantly improves high-level instruction completion on three domains, including simulated and real table top rearrangement tasks and long-horizon mobile manipulation tasks in a kitchen environment in the real world.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 60 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2023-05 accept novelty 8.0

    Tree of Thoughts enables language models to solve complex planning tasks by generating, evaluating, and searching over coherent intermediate thoughts in a tree, raising Game of 24 success from 4% to 74% with GPT-4.

  2. Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior

    cs.HC 2023-04 accept novelty 8.0

    Generative agents with memory streams, reflection, and planning using LLMs exhibit believable individual and emergent social behaviors in a simulated town.

  3. Code as Policies: Language Model Programs for Embodied Control

    cs.RO 2022-09 accept novelty 8.0

    Language models generate robot policy code from natural language commands via few-shot prompting, enabling spatial-geometric reasoning, generalization, and precise control on real robots.

  4. Adapting Generalist Robot Policies with Semantic Reinforcement Learning

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SARL optimizes language prompt inputs to generalist vision-language-action policies through online RL to solve complex long-horizon tasks by composing existing skills.

  5. Plans Don't Persist: Why Context Management Is Load Bearing for LLM Agents

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Replay pairing shows LLM agents do not persist plans in hidden states but rely on plans remaining in context, with rapid signal decay and task performance drops when plans are evicted.

  6. When are LLMs Sufficient Policy Optimizers for Sequential RL Tasks?

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PromptPO shows LLMs can act as black-box policy optimizers for sequential RL when leveraging prior knowledge, matching baselines in exploration and robotics but underperforming in MuJoCo.

  7. When are LLMs Sufficient Policy Optimizers for Sequential RL Tasks?

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PromptPO shows LLMs can act as black-box policy optimizers for sequential RL, matching or exceeding standard baselines with fewer interactions in exploration and robotics tasks when leveraging prior knowledge, but und...

  8. State-Centric Decision Process

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SDP constructs a task-induced state space from raw text by having agents commit to and certify natural-language predicates as states, enabling structured planning and analysis in unstructured language environments.

  9. Action Agent: Agentic Video Generation Meets Flow-Constrained Diffusion

    cs.RO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Action Agent pairs LLM-driven video generation with a flow-constrained diffusion transformer to produce velocity commands, raising video success to 86% and delivering 64.7% real-world navigation on a Unitree G1 humanoid.

  10. Using large language models for embodied planning introduces systematic safety risks

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLM planners for robots often produce dangerous plans even when planning succeeds, with safety awareness staying flat as model scale improves planning ability.

  11. ADAPT: Benchmarking Commonsense Planning under Unspecified Affordance Constraints

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    ADAPT augments planners with affordance reasoning to raise task success in environments with unspecified and time-varying object affordances, and a LoRA-finetuned VLM backend beats GPT-4o on the new DynAfford benchmark.

  12. Governed Capability Evolution: Lifecycle-Time Compatibility Checking and Rollback for AI-Component-Based Systems, with Embodied Agents as Case Study

    cs.RO 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    A governed capability evolution framework with interface, policy, behavioral, and recovery checks reduces unsafe activations to zero in embodied agent upgrades while preserving task success rates.

  13. A Full-Stack Performance Evaluation Infrastructure for 3D-DRAM-based LLM Accelerators

    cs.AR 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    ATLAS is the first silicon-validated simulation framework for 3D-DRAM LLM accelerators, achieving under 8.57% error and over 97% correlation with real hardware while supporting design exploration.

  14. Harnessing Embodied Agents: Runtime Governance for Policy-Constrained Execution

    cs.RO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A runtime governance framework for embodied agents achieves 96.2% interception of unauthorized actions and 91.4% recovery success in 1000 simulation trials by externalizing policy enforcement.

  15. ST-BiBench: Benchmarking Multi-Stream Multimodal Coordination in Bimanual Embodied Tasks for MLLMs

    cs.RO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    ST-BiBench reveals a coordination paradox in which MLLMs show strong high-level strategic reasoning yet fail at fine-grained 16-dimensional bimanual action synthesis and multi-stream fusion.

  16. From Standalone LLMs to Integrated Intelligence: A Survey of Compound Al Systems

    cs.MA 2025-06 accept novelty 7.0

    A survey that defines Compound AI Systems, proposes a multi-dimensional taxonomy based on component roles and orchestration strategies, reviews four foundational paradigms, and identifies key challenges for future research.

  17. Orak: A Foundational Benchmark for Training and Evaluating LLM Agents on Diverse Video Games

    cs.AI 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Orak is a foundational benchmark providing training data, interfaces, and evaluation tools for LLM agents across diverse video game genres.

  18. Zero-Shot Robotic Manipulation with Pretrained Image-Editing Diffusion Models

    cs.RO 2023-10 conditional novelty 7.0

    SuSIE uses a finetuned InstructPix2Pix diffusion model to propose subgoal images that guide a low-level goal-conditioned policy, achieving SOTA zero-shot performance on CALVIN and real-world manipulation.

  19. Learning Interactive Real-World Simulators

    cs.AI 2023-10 conditional novelty 7.0

    UniSim learns a universal real-world simulator from orchestrated diverse datasets, enabling zero-shot deployment of policies trained purely in simulation.

  20. VoxPoser: Composable 3D Value Maps for Robotic Manipulation with Language Models

    cs.RO 2023-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    VoxPoser uses LLMs to compose 3D value maps via VLM interaction for model-based synthesis of robust robot trajectories on open-set language-specified manipulation tasks.

  21. Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2023-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Voyager achieves superior lifelong learning in Minecraft by combining an automatic exploration curriculum, a library of executable skills, and iterative LLM prompting with environment feedback, yielding 3.3x more uniq...

  22. LLM+P: Empowering Large Language Models with Optimal Planning Proficiency

    cs.AI 2023-04 accept novelty 7.0

    LLM+P lets LLMs solve planning problems optimally by converting them to PDDL for classical planners and back to natural language.

  23. Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordances

    cs.RO 2022-04 accept novelty 7.0

    SayCan combines an LLM's high-level semantic knowledge with robot skill value functions to select only feasible actions, enabling completion of abstract natural-language instructions on a real mobile manipulator.

  24. Harness VLA: Steering Frozen VLAs into Reliable Manipulation Primitives via Memory-Guided Agents

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A memory-guided LLM planner composes a frozen VLA as a contact-rich primitive with fixed analytic controllers, lifting perturbed manipulation success without VLA finetuning.

  25. APIVOT: Adaptive Planning with Interleaved Vision-Language Thoughts

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A VLM planner that adaptively inserts latent visual thoughts of future states into its reasoning trace beats language-only and prior VLM planners on long-horizon kitchen tasks, especially under tight free space.

  26. AgentTether: Graph-Guided Diagnosis and Runtime Intervention for Reliable LLM Agent Operation

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    AgentTether repairs 69% of initially failed LLM agent tasks on τ-bench by combining graph-guided root-cause diagnosis, cross-iteration repair memory, and guarded runtime intervention, improving over blind retry by 26 ...

  27. AutoMem: Automated Learning of Memory as a Cognitive Skill

    cs.AI 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AutoMem automates memory structure revision and proficiency training in LLMs, delivering 2x-4x performance gains on long-horizon games without altering task-action behavior.

  28. Sequential Planning via Anchored Robotic Keypoints

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SPARK reaches 43.7% success on six LIBERO-PRO cells by LLM-generated typed behavior trees plus multi-prompt perception and recovery, more than doubling CaP-Agent0 and VLA baselines.

  29. Stop Hand-Holding Your Coding Agent: Engineering the Loops that Replace Step-by-Step Prompting

    cs.SE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces loop engineering as a distinct practice layer for coding agents, supplies a taxonomy and verification ladder, and analyzes a hand-coded corpus of fifty real loops.

  30. SCOPE: Evolving Symbolic World for Planning in Open-Ended Environments

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SCOPE is a self-adaptive symbolic planning framework that refines plans and evolves symbolic world models via simulator feedback and distilled knowledge to improve long-horizon planning in open-ended embodied environments.

  31. Vesta: A Generalist Embodied Reasoning Model

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Vesta is a unified embodied generalist model that outperforms specialist baselines by over 20% on average and improves real-world robotic task success by over 35%.

  32. Efficient Skill Grounding via Code Refactoring with Small Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RECENT decouples skill semantics from embodiment-specific bindings via code refactoring to let small language models achieve skill grounding performance matching large language model baselines.

  33. See Less, Specify More: Visual Evidence Budgets for Generalizable VLAs

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    S2 improves generalization in vision-language-action models by using goal-preserving refined language guidance and explicit visual evidence budgets, raising mean subtask success from 54.2% to 79.0% on eight real-robot...

  34. InfoAtlas: A Foundation Model for Zero-Shot Statistical Dependence Estimate

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    InfoAtlas is a pretrained neural model for zero-shot mutual information estimation that matches state-of-the-art accuracy with 100x speedup and handles varying dimensions via a single model.

  35. Continuous Reasoning for Vision-Language-Action

    cs.RO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Continuous Reasoning for VLA introduces a shared Gaussian latent for continuous thoughts, trained with self-verification to improve action prediction on LIBERO-PRO and real robots.

  36. The Sword, Shield, and Achilles' Heel: Characterizing the Linguistic Inductive Bias of Large Language Models for Spatial Reasoning in Navigation Planning

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Experiments reveal that topological cues robustly support LLM navigation planning while incorrect semantic cues derail it, with linguistic format effects varying by model size and compression.

  37. Any-ttach: Quick End-effector Swapping Enables Manipulation Dexterity with Simplicity

    cs.RO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Any-ttach shows that rapid end-effector swapping combined with demonstration collection and task planning enables reliable multi-tool skills in long-horizon tasks such as sandwich making.

  38. A Systematic Study of Behavioral Cloning for Scientific Data Annotation

    cs.HC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces 9 synthetic annotation tasks and benchmarks for behavioral cloning, finding hierarchical skill learning, scaling benefits, effective multi-task pretraining, and shared internal representations of task phase...

  39. Personalizing Embodied Multimodal Large Language Model Agents over Long-term User Interactions

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    POLAR organizes prior interactions into a multimodal knowledge graph with semantic and episodic memory to improve personalized embodied task execution across multiple MLLM backbones.

  40. SPIKE: An Adaptive Dual Controller Framework for Cost-Efficient Long-Horizon Game Agents

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SPIKE dual-controller framework raises success rates 5-9 points and cuts tokens 55% in StarDojo agents by reusing strategic plans across stable segments and escalating only at detected events.

  41. How to Instruct Your Robot: Dense Language Annotations Power Robot Policy Learning

    cs.RO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    DeMiAn re-annotates robot and egocentric videos with VLM-generated dense labels across motion, scene, pose, and reasoning aspects, then uses a learned instructor to boost policy success by 5 points on RoboCasa over ta...

  42. Ada-Diffuser: Latent-Aware Adaptive Diffusion for Decision-Making

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Ada-Diffuser is a causal diffusion model that jointly learns observed interaction structure and underlying latent dynamics from minimal observations for adaptive planning and policy learning.

  43. Towards Long-horizon Embodied Agents with Tool-Aligned Vision-Language-Action Models

    cs.RO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    VLAs-as-Tools pairs a VLM planner with specialized VLA executors via a new interface and Tool-Aligned Post-Training to raise long-horizon robot success rates on LIBERO-Long and RoboTwin benchmarks.

  44. From Reaction to Anticipation: Proactive Failure Recovery through Agentic Task Graph for Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AgentChord models manipulation tasks as directed graphs enriched with anticipatory recovery branches, using specialized agents to enable immediate, low-latency failure responses and improve success on long-horizon bim...

  45. From Controlled to the Wild: Evaluation of Pentesting Agents for the Real-World

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A practical evaluation protocol for AI pentesting agents that uses validated vulnerability discovery, LLM semantic matching, and bipartite scoring to assess performance in realistic, complex targets.

  46. RePO-VLA: Recovery-Driven Policy Optimization for Vision-Language-Action Models

    cs.RO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RePO-VLA raises average adversarial success rates in VLA manipulation from 20% to 75% by using recovery-aware initialization, a progress-aware semantic value function, and value-conditioned refinement on success and c...

  47. OPT-BENCH: Evaluating the Iterative Self-Optimization of LLM Agents in Large-Scale Search Spaces

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    OPT-BENCH and OPT-Agent evaluate LLM self-optimization in large search spaces, showing stronger models improve via feedback but stay constrained by base capacity and below human performance.

  48. 2.5-D Decomposition for LLM-Based Spatial Construction

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A neuro-symbolic 2.5-D decomposition pipeline separates LLM horizontal planning from deterministic vertical execution, achieving 94.6% structural accuracy on the Build What I Mean benchmark.

  49. 2.5-D Decomposition for LLM-Based Spatial Construction

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    2.5-D decomposition lets LLMs achieve 94.6% structural accuracy on a building benchmark by handling only horizontal planning while a symbolic system manages vertical placements from occupancy.

  50. 2.5-D Decomposition for LLM-Based Spatial Construction

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A neuro-symbolic 2.5-D decomposition lets LLMs plan in 2D while deterministic rules compute vertical placements, raising structural accuracy to 94.6% on the Build What I Mean benchmark.

  51. Milestone-Guided Policy Learning for Long-Horizon Language Agents

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    BEACON uses milestone partitioning, temporal reward shaping, and dual-scale advantage estimation to nearly double success rates on long-horizon ALFWorld tasks while raising effective sample use from 23.7% to 82%.

  52. LoopTrap: Termination Poisoning Attacks on LLM Agents

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LoopTrap is an automated red-teaming framework that crafts termination-poisoning prompts to amplify LLM agent steps by 3.57x on average (up to 25x) across 8 agents.

  53. How Far Are VLMs from Privacy Awareness in the Physical World? An Empirical Study

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    VLMs show consistent deficits in identifying sensitive items in cluttered scenes, adapting to social contexts, and resolving conflicts between commands and privacy constraints in a new physical simulator benchmark.

  54. How Far Are VLMs from Privacy Awareness in the Physical World? An Empirical Study

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Vision-language models exhibit perceptual fragility and fail to consistently respect privacy constraints when operating in simulated physical environments, with performance declining in cluttered scenes and under conf...

  55. Stable Agentic Control: Tool-Mediated LLM Architecture for Autonomous Cyber Defense

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 partial

    Tool-mediated LLM agents with deterministic tools and a machine-checked Lyapunov certificate achieve stable control in cyber defense, reducing attacker game value by 59% on real attack graphs.

  56. FlexSQL: Flexible Exploration and Execution Make Better Text-to-SQL Agents

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    FlexSQL reaches 65.4% on Spider2-Snow by allowing agents to flexibly explore schemas, generate diverse plans, choose SQL or Python execution, and apply two-tiered repair.

  57. Efficient Rationale-based Retrieval: On-policy Distillation from Generative Rerankers based on JEPA

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Rabtriever distills a generative reranker into an efficient bi-encoder using on-policy JEPA to achieve near-reranker accuracy with linear complexity on rationale-based retrieval.

  58. Efficient Rationale-based Retrieval: On-policy Distillation from Generative Rerankers based on JEPA

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Rabtriever distills a generative reranker into an efficient independent encoder using JEPA and auxiliary reverse KL loss to achieve linear complexity and strong performance on rationale-based retrieval tasks.

  59. Long-Horizon Manipulation via Trace-Conditioned VLA Planning

    cs.RO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LoHo-Manip enables robust long-horizon robot manipulation by using a receding-horizon VLM manager to output progress-aware subtask sequences and 2D visual traces that condition a VLA executor for automatic replanning.

  60. Navigating the Clutter: Waypoint-Based Bi-Level Planning for Multi-Robot Systems

    cs.RO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Waypoint-based bi-level planning with curriculum RLVR improves multi-robot task success rates in dense-obstacle benchmarks over motion-agnostic and VLA baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

190 extracted references · 190 canonical work pages · cited by 101 Pith papers · 17 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L. P . Kaelbling and T. Lozano-P´erez. Integrated task and motion planning in belief space. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 32(9-10):1194–1227, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    A. G. Barto and S. Mahadevan. Recent advances in hierarchical reinforcement learning.Discrete event dynamic systems, 13(1):41–77, 2003

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Language Models as Knowledge Bases?

    F. Petroni, T. Rockt¨aschel, P . Lewis, A. Bakhtin, Y . Wu, A. H. Miller, and S. Riedel. Language models as knowledge bases?arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01066, 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1909

  4. [4]

    Jiang, F

    Z. Jiang, F. F. Xu, J. Araki, and G. Neubig. How can we know what language models know? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:423–438, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Davison, J

    J. Davison, J. Feldman, and A. M. Rush. Commonsense knowledge mining from pretrained models. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and the 9th in- ternational joint conference on natural language processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1173–1178, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Talmor, Y

    A. Talmor, Y . Elazar, Y . Goldberg, and J. Berant. olmpics-on what language model pre-training captures. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:743–758, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    How Much Knowledge Can You Pack Into the Parameters of a Language Model?

    A. Roberts, C. Raffel, and N. Shazeer. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08910, 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways

    A. Chowdhery, S. Narang, J. Devlin, M. Bosma, G. Mishra, A. Roberts, P . Barham, H. W. Chung, C. Sutton, S. Gehrmann, et al. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Brown, B

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P . Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P . Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    work page 1901

  10. [10]

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, E. Chi, Q. Le, and D. Zhou. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners

    T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y . Matsuo, and Y . Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11916, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    A. K. Lampinen, I. Dasgupta, S. C. Chan, K. Matthewson, M. H. Tessler, A. Creswell, J. L. McClelland, J. X. Wang, and F. Hill. Can language models learn from explanations in context?arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02329, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    M. Nye, A. J. Andreassen, G. Gur-Ari, H. Michalewski, J. Austin, D. Bieber, D. Dohan, A. Lewkowycz, M. Bosma, D. Luan, et al. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00114, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    L. S. Vygotsky. Thought and language. MIT press, 2012

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    Carruthers

    P . Carruthers. Thinking in language?: evolution and a modularist possibility. Cambridge University Press, 1998

    work page 1998

  16. [16]

    Vygotsky

    L. Vygotsky. Tool and symbol in child development.The vygotsky reader, 1994

    work page 1994

  17. [17]

    L. S. Vygotsky. Play and its role in the mental development of the child.Soviet psychology, 5(3): 6–18, 1967

    work page 1967

  18. [18]

    Colas, T

    C. Colas, T. Karch, C. Moulin-Frier, and P .-Y . Oudeyer. Vygotskian autotelic artificial intelligence: Language and culture internalization for human-like ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01134, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    A. Zeng, A. Wong, S. Welker, K. Choromanski, F. Tombari, A. Purohit, M. Ryoo, V . Sindhwani, J. Lee, V . V anhoucke, et al. Socratic models: Composing zero-shot multimodal reasoning with language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00598, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Huang, P

    W . Huang, P . Abbeel, D. Pathak, and I. Mordatch. Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2022. 10

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    M. Ahn, A. Brohan, N. Brown, Y . Chebotar, O. Cortes, B. David, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, 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. Rettinghouse, D....

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    L. P . Kaelbling and T. Lozano-P´erez. Hierarchical planning in the now. In W orkshops at the T wenty-F ourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2010

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    Srivastava, E

    S. Srivastava, E. Fang, L. Riano, R. Chitnis, S. Russell, and P . Abbeel. Combined task and motion planning through an extensible planner-independent interface layer. In2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 2014

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson. Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial intelligence, 1971

    work page 1971

  25. [25]

    E. D. Sacerdoti. A structure for plans and behavior. Technical report, SRI International, Menlo Park California Artificial Intelligence Center, 1975

    work page 1975

  26. [26]

    D. Nau, Y . Cao, A. Lotem, and H. Munoz-Avila. Shop: Simple hierarchical ordered planner. In Proceedings of the 16th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, 1999

    work page 1999

  27. [27]

    S. M. LaV alle.Planning algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2006

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    Toussaint

    M. Toussaint. Logic-geometric programming: An optimization-based approach to combined task and motion planning. InT wenty-F ourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2015

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    M. A. Toussaint, K. R. Allen, K. A. Smith, and J. B. Tenenbaum. Differentiable physics and stable modes for tool-use and manipulation planning.Robotics: Science and Systems F oundation, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Eysenbach, R

    B. Eysenbach, R. R. Salakhutdinov, and S. Levine. Search on the replay buffer: Bridging planning and reinforcement learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    D. Xu, S. Nair, Y . Zhu, J. Gao, A. Garg, L. Fei-Fei, and S. Savarese. Neural task programming: Learning to generalize across hierarchical tasks. In2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2018

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    D. Xu, R. Mart´ın-Mart´ın, D.-A. Huang, Y . Zhu, S. Savarese, and L. F. Fei-Fei. Regression planning networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09634 , year =

    T. Silver, R. Chitnis, N. Kumar, W. McClinton, T. Lozano-Perez, L. P . Kaelbling, and J. Tenenbaum. Inventing relational state and action abstractions for effective and efficient bilevel planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09634, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    D. Shah, P . Xu, Y . Lu, T. Xiao, A. Toshev, S. Levine, and B. Ichter. V alue function spaces: Skill-centric state abstractions for long-horizon reasoning. ICLR, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/pdf?id=vgqS1vkkCbE

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Srinivas, A

    A. Srinivas, A. Jabri, P . Abbeel, S. Levine, and C. Finn. Universal planning networks: Learning generalizable representations for visuomotor control. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4732–4741. PMLR, 2018

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    Kurutach, A

    T. Kurutach, A. Tamar, G. Y ang, S. J. Russell, and P . Abbeel. Learning plannable representations with causal infogan. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Akakzia, C

    A. Akakzia, C. Colas, P .-Y . Oudeyer, M. Chetouani, and O. Sigaud. Grounding language to autonomously-acquired skills via goal generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=chPjI5KMHG

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    S. Pirk, K. Hausman, A. Toshev, and M. Khansari. Modeling long-horizon tasks as sequential interaction landscapes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04843, 2020

    work page arXiv 2006

  39. [39]

    Kollar, S

    T. Kollar, S. Tellex, D. Roy, and N. Roy. Toward understanding natural language directions. In2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pages 259–266. IEEE, 2010. 11

    work page 2010

  40. [40]

    Tellex, T

    S. Tellex, T. Kollar, S. Dickerson, M. Walter, A. Banerjee, S. Teller, and N. Roy. Understanding natural language commands for robotic navigation and mobile manipulation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 25, pages 1507–1514, 2011

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    Bollini, S

    M. Bollini, S. Tellex, T. Thompson, N. Roy, and D. Rus. Interpreting and executing recipes with a cooking robot. InExperimental Robotics, pages 481–495. Springer, 2013

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Tellex, R

    S. Tellex, R. Knepper, A. Li, D. Rus, and N. Roy. Asking for help using inverse semantics. 2014

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    Kollar, S

    T. Kollar, S. Tellex, D. Roy, and N. Roy. Grounding verbs of motion in natural language commands to robots. InExperimental robotics, pages 31–47. Springer, 2014

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    Blukis, Y

    V . Blukis, Y . Terme, E. Niklasson, R. A. Knepper, and Y . Artzi. Learning to map natural language in- structions to physical quadcopter control using simulated flight.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09664, 2019

    work page arXiv 1910

  45. [45]

    and Finn, C

    S. Nair and C. Finn. Hierarchical foresight: Self-supervised learning of long-horizon tasks via visual subgoal generation.ArXiv, abs/1909.05829, 2020

    work page arXiv 1909

  46. [46]

    F. Xia, C. Li, R. Mart´ın-Mart´ın, O. Litany, A. Toshev, and S. Savarese. Relmogen: Integrating motion generation in reinforcement learning for mobile manipulation. In2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2021

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    C. Li, F. Xia, R. Martin-Martin, and S. Savarese. Hrl4in: Hierarchical reinforcement learning for interactive navigation with mobile manipulators. InConference on Robot Learning, 2020

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    Jiang, S

    Y . Jiang, S. Gu, K. Murphy, and C. Finn. Language as an abstraction for hierarchical deep reinforcement learning. InNeurIPS, 2019

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Deep hierarchical planning from pixels

    D. Hafner, K.-H. Lee, I. Fischer, and P . Abbeel. Deep hierarchical planning from pixels.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04114, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Mirchandani, S

    S. Mirchandani, S. Karamcheti, and D. Sadigh. Ella: Exploration through learned language abstraction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:29529–29540, 2021

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    P . A. Jansen. Visually-grounded planning without vision: Language models infer detailed plans from high-level instructions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14259, 2020

    work page arXiv 2009

  52. [52]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.01517 (2021) 3 20 Xiangye Lin, Hongxin Zhang, et al

    P . Sharma, A. Torralba, and J. Andreas. Skill induction and planning with latent language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.01517, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    S. Li, X. Puig, Y . Du, C. Wang, E. Akyurek, A. Torralba, J. Andreas, and I. Mordatch. Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01771, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    M. Chen, J. Tworek, H. Jun, Q. Y uan, H. P . d. O. Pinto, J. Kaplan, H. Edwards, Y . Burda, N. Joseph, G. Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Y . Liu, M. Ott, N. Goyal, J. Du, M. Joshi, D. Chen, O. Levy, M. Lewis, L. Zettlemoyer, and V . Stoyanov. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692, 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  56. [56]

    Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks

    N. Reimers and I. Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084, 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1908

  57. [57]

    J. Wei, M. Bosma, V . Y . Zhao, K. Guu, A. W . Y u, B. Lester, N. Du, A. M. Dai, and Q. V . Le. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Paxton, Y

    C. Paxton, Y . Bisk, J. Thomason, A. Byravan, and D. Foxl. Prospection: Interpretable plans from language by predicting the future. In2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 6942–6948. IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    Stepputtis, J

    S. Stepputtis, J. Campbell, M. Phielipp, S. Lee, C. Baral, and H. Ben Amor. Language-conditioned imitation learning for robot manipulation tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:13139–13150, 2020

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Blukis, R

    V . Blukis, R. A. Knepper, and Y . Artzi. Few-shot object grounding and mapping for natural language robot instruction following.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.07384, 2020. 12

    work page arXiv 2011

  61. [61]

    Lynch and P

    C. Lynch and P . Sermanet. Language conditioned imitation learning over unstructured data.Robotics: Science and Systems, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07648

    work page arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Y . Chen, R. Xu, Y . Lin, and P . A. V ela. A joint network for grasp detection conditioned on natural language commands. In2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 4576–4582. IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    O. Mees, L. Hermann, and W . Burgard. What matters in language conditioned robotic imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06252, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    C. Y an, F. Carnevale, P . Georgiev, A. Santoro, A. Guy, A. Muldal, C.-C. Hung, J. Abramson, T. Lillicrap, and G. Wayne. Intra-agent speech permits zero-shot task acquisition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03139, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W . Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P . Mishkin, J. Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

    J. Devlin, M.-W . Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [67]

    J. Lu, D. Batra, D. Parikh, and S. Lee. Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    Z. Wang, J. Y u, A. W. Y u, Z. Dai, Y . Tsvetkov, and Y . Cao. Simvlm: Simple visual language model pretraining with weak supervision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.10904, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Embodied bert: A trans- 9 former model for embodied, language-guided visual task completion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.04927, 2021

    A. Suglia, Q. Gao, J. Thomason, G. Thattai, and G. Sukhatme. Embodied bert: A transformer model for embodied, language-guided visual task completion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.04927, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, K. Swersky, M. Norouzi, and G. E. Hinton. Big self-supervised models are strong semi-supervised learners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:22243–22255, 2020

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    A. Jain, M. Guo, K. Srinivasan, T. Chen, S. Kudugunta, C. Jia, Y . Y ang, and J. Baldridge. Mural: multimodal, multitask retrieval across languages.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05125, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Sun, D.-A

    J. Sun, D.-A. Huang, B. Lu, Y .-H. Liu, B. Zhou, and A. Garg. Plate: Visually-grounded planning with transformers in procedural tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(2):4924–4930, 2022

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    Sener and A

    F. Sener and A. Y ao. Zero-shot anticipation for instructional activities. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer V ision, pages 862–871, 2019

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    Khandelwal, L

    A. Khandelwal, L. Weihs, R. Mottaghi, and A. Kembhavi. Simple but effective: Clip embeddings for embodied ai. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer V ision and P attern Recognition, pages 14829–14838, 2022

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    A. Zeng, P . Florence, J. Tompson, S. Welker, J. Chien, M. Attarian, T. Armstrong, I. Krasin, D. Duong, V . Sindhwani, and J. Lee. Transporter networks: Rearranging the visual world for robotic manipulation. Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2020

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    Shridhar, L

    M. Shridhar, L. Manuelli, and D. Fox. Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 894–906. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    Open-vocabulary Object Detection via Vision and Language Knowledge Distillation

    X. Gu, T.-Y . Lin, W. Kuo, and Y . Cui. Open-vocabulary object detection via vision and language knowledge distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.13921, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  78. [78]

    I. Lenz, H. Lee, and A. Saxena. Deep learning for detecting robotic grasps.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 34(4-5):705–724, 2015

    work page 2015

  79. [79]

    F.-J. Chu, R. Xu, and P . A. V ela. Real-world multiobject, multigrasp detection.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(4):3355–3362, 2018

    work page 2018

  80. [80]

    Kalashnikov, J

    D. Kalashnikov, J. V arley, Y . Chebotar, B. Swanson, R. Jonschkowski, C. Finn, S. Levine, and K. Hausman. Mt-opt: Continuous multi-task robotic reinforcement learning at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08212, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.