Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 6 cited by

From Foresight to Forethought: VLM-In-the-Loop Policy Steering via Latent Alignment

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A latent world model plus a language-aligned VLM can steer a robot's action selection at run time, lifting success rates by over 30 percent even for task descriptions never seen during training.

desk verdict A genuinely useful decoupling of prediction from verification, with real-robot evidence that is promising but still thin in places; worth serious review. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01828 v3 pith:FMCY7FHY submitted 2025-02-03 cs.RO cs.LG

Yilin Wu , Ran Tian , Gokul Swamy , Andrea Bajcsy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.LG
keywords policysteeringvision-languagemodellatentworldimitationlearningrobotmanipulationlatent-textalignmentruntimeverification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a vision-language model (VLM) can act as an open-vocabulary verifier for robot action plans, provided it is not asked to predict outcomes itself. The proposed FOREWARN framework splits the job: a latent world model imagines the future that each candidate action plan would produce, and a VLM fine-tuned to read those latent states as short behavior narrations then ranks the plans against the user's task description. The authors show this decoupling raises the success rate of a base diffusion policy on real manipulation tasks by over 30 percent, and that it keeps working when the task description is changed to something not seen in training. The practical payoff is runtime steering without retraining the policy, with the VLM supplying human-readable justifications for its choice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a latent-text alignment: a Recurrent State Space Model (RSSM) world model encodes the current observation and forward-simulates future latent states for each action plan, and a single linear projection maps those latent states into the text-token space of the Llama-3.2 VLM. The VLM is then LoRA-fine-tuned on a small VQA dataset to translate a latent rollout into a behavior narration, and finally re-queried (as a multiple-choice question) to rank the narrated plans against the task description. The same pretrained world-model encoder replaces the VLM's image encoder, so prediction stays in the latent space while evaluation happens in natural language.

What would settle it

Run the Cup task with FOREWARN while perturbing the world model's latent predictions so that an imagined handle-grasp is replaced by a rim-grasp, and check whether the VLM's selection and the executed outcome diverge. If the VLM still picks the originally intended plan despite the corrupted narration, the paper's claim that latent-aligned narration is the cause of the success would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FOREWARN's central claim is that the bottleneck in using VLMs for policy steering is representational, not reasoning: off-the-shelf VLMs fail because low-level action commands and raw images do not expose the fine-grained contact and object-state details that determine success. By replacing the VLM's image tokenizer with a pretrained world-model encoder and dynamics model, and fine-tuning the language model with LoRA to narrate the resulting latent sequences (e.g., 'the robot grasps the cup by the rim'), the same VLM can then be re-queried to select the best of K candidate plans. In the paper's experiments this latent-aligned verifier improves base-policy task success from 0.30, 0.20, and 0.10 to 0.80, 0.70, and 0.70 on Cup, Bag, and Fork tasks respectively, and retains 0.60-0.80 success under novel task descriptions, outperforming VLM baselines that do not decouple prediction from evaluation by roughly 40 percent.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme rests on the latent world model's imagined rollouts preserving the fine-grained interaction details (grasp location, contact, object state) that the narration and ranking depend on; if the imagination is wrong, the VLM's critique is wrong and steering fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The base diffusion policy's success rate on the three real-robot tasks rises from 0.10-0.30 to 0.70-0.80 once FOREWARN selects among its sampled plans.
  • The steering remains effective when the task description is swapped for a novel one (e.g., the cup handle is oily), where end-to-end latent classifiers and category-predicting VLMs collapse.
  • FOREWARN's behavior-narration step alone acts as a preemptive failure monitor, catching failures before execution with balanced true-positive and true-negative rates above 0.75.
  • Because the VLM never sees low-level actions or reconstructed images, the system runs in 3.7 seconds per steering decision, nearly six times faster than a VLM that must predict outcomes directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the relationship holds, the approach should transfer to stronger VLM backbones and larger world models, with steering quality tracking world-model rollout fidelity rather than VLM commonsense.
  • Editorial inference: the same latent-narration trick could be applied to other verification tasks beyond manipulation, such as judging safety or social appropriateness, since it only requires narrating imagined futures.
  • Editorial inference: a testable prediction is that deliberately corrupting the world model's predicted contact details (e.g., swapping the imagined grasp location) would degrade steering exactly when the narration changes, which would isolate how much of the gain comes from latent alignment versus the VLM's prior knowledge.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. FOREWARN proposes a runtime policy-steering framework that decouples outcome prediction from outcome evaluation. A DreamerV3-style latent world model (foresight) imagines future latent states for K candidate action plans sampled from a base generative policy, and a LoRA-fine-tuned Llama-3.2-11B-Vision VLM, aligned to those latent states through a linear projection, narrates each imagined rollout in text and then selects the plan that best satisfies the task description (forethought). The paper formalizes steering as a stochastic model-predictive control problem (Eqs. 1-3) and validates the system on three real Franka manipulation tasks (Cup, Bag, and a two-phase Fork-to-Bowl task) with a Diffusion Policy base policy, comparing against VLM-Act, VLM-Img(-Oracle), VLM-DynLat-Category, and Classifier-Dyn-Latent. Reported results include narration GT accuracy of 0.82 (Table I), steering success rates of 0.60-0.80 versus 0.10-0.50 for the base policy under both training and novel task descriptions (Table II), a component-level breakdown (Table X), a failure-monitoring application, and inference-time measurements (Table III). The Limitations section transparently attributes the primary failures to the world model's imprecise imagination.

Significance. If the central results hold, FOREWARN is a practical and transferable recipe: a frozen latent world model combined with a lightly fine-tuned VLM can serve as an open-vocabulary verifier for generative manipulation policies without reward engineering or additional robot data collection, while returning natural-language justifications for the selected plan. The three-task hardware study with several ablations (Tables I, II, X), the component-level bottleneck analysis, the inference-time measurements, and the explicit disclosure of the world-model failure source are genuine strengths: the headline claims are falsifiable success rates measured on real robots, and the main failure mode is identified rather than hidden. The main weaknesses are in the strength of the comparisons (unmatched fine-tuning setups for VLM-Act, no Oracle steering condition, small trial counts, and author-adjudicated narration labels) rather than in internal inconsistency or circularity; with those comparisons tightened, the framework would be a solid contribution to test-time policy improvement for multimodal generative policies.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; §V-B, Table II] The abstract's headline comparison - that FOREWARN 'outperforms (by ~40%) alternative VLM approaches that do not decouple the prediction of outcomes from verification' - is not reproducible from Table II as an aggregate: averaged over the six conditions, FOREWARN is about 59% better (relative success rate) than VLM-DynLat-Category and about 139% better than VLM-Act, and the only cell that yields approximately 40% is the Bag-task novel-description comparison against VLM-Act (0.70 vs 0.50). Please state exactly which comparison the 40% figure refers to, or replace it with an aggregate computed from Table II. The same section claims that 'FOREWARN outperforms all the baselines in both training and novel task contexts,' but Table II shows Classifier-Dyn-Latent matching FOREWARN on all three training-description cells (Cup 0.80, Bag 0.70, Fork 0.70) and VLM-DynLat-Category matching on Cup-training (0.80); this sentence should be revised to acknowledge the ties, which the following paragraph partially does.
  2. [§V-A, §V-B; Tables VI and VII] The central claim that decoupling prediction from verification drives FOREWARN's gains rests primarily on the comparison with VLM-Act, but the two systems are fine-tuned under different optimization protocols: FOREWARN uses bf16 precision, batch size 10, and learning rate 1e-4 (Table VI), while VLM-Act uses 4-bit quantization, batch size 1, and learning rate 1e-5 (Table VII). Because the learning rate and batch size differ by an order of magnitude, the large reported gaps (e.g., narration GT accuracy 0.82 vs 0.37 in Table I) cannot be cleanly attributed to architectural decoupling versus the possibility that VLM-Act is undertrained. Please match the fine-tuning protocols, or report a sweep over learning rate and batch size for VLM-Act (with comparable total step counts), to show that the gap is not an artifact of optimization.
  3. [§V-B, Table II; Eq. (3); §VI] Eq. (3) conditions the verifier on predicted latent rollouts z_{t:t+T} from f_phi, and the Limitations section - supported by the component accuracies in Table X (world model 0.78 average, the weakest stage) - asserts that the system's primary failures stem from the world model's imprecise imagination. Given that assertion, the steering experiments in Table II should include a FOREWARN-Oracle condition that feeds posterior latents (computed from ground-truth future observations) instead of predicted ones. Table I provides the Oracle only for the narration stage, where the gap is small (0.85 vs 0.82 GT accuracy), but that does not settle the steering question because the VLM ranks six candidates and the prompt in Fig. 9 instructs it to assume each narration is executed exactly as described, so narration errors from the world model propagate directly into selection. An Oracle steering condition would separate world-model-induced failures from VLM/narration failures and would directly test the paper's bottleneck attribution; without it, that attribution is an extrapolation from component metrics. If the Oracle condition cannot be run, the paper should argue explicitly why the small narration-stage gap bounds the steering-stage effect.
  4. [§V-B; Tables I and II] All success-rate claims rest on 20 trials per condition (Table II) and on narration evaluations whose sample count is reported inconsistently (Section V-A says 30 test rollouts; the Table I caption says 50 rollouts), and no significance tests, confidence intervals, or explanation of what the +/- values represent are provided. Several comparisons that the text treats as meaningful are within the noise of a 20-trial experiment, for example FOREWARN vs Classifier-Dyn-Latent on the three training-description cells (0.80/0.70/0.70 in both rows) and FOREWARN vs VLM-Act on Bag-novel (0.70 vs 0.50, each with a standard error of roughly 0.10-0.15 under the stated trial count); the 'over 30%' improvement over the base policy is, however, comfortably larger than this noise. Please report exact tests or bootstrap confidence intervals at least for the comparisons underlying the headline claims, and state precisely how the means and +/- values in Tables I and II were computed (across fine-tuning seeds, across trials, or both).
  5. [§V-A; Table I] The GT Accuracy metric in Table I is adjudicated by a human labeler who, the paper states, is one of the authors, and the same authors produced the narration labels used to fine-tune FOREWARN and VLM-Act; no inter-annotator agreement, second labeler, or blinded protocol is reported. Because the narration labels must discriminate fine-grained details (grasp by handle vs rim vs interior), which are precisely the distinctions on which the compared methods differ, the Table I comparisons (e.g., FOREWARN 0.82 vs VLM-Img-Oracle 0.52 GT accuracy) are vulnerable to labeler bias in favor of the authors' own system. Please add an independent labeler with reported agreement (e.g., Cohen's kappa) or a pre-registered labeling rubric, and state explicitly that the novel task descriptions used in Table II were excluded from all fine-tuning and classifier-training data for every method.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§V-A; Table I] Section V-A reports that the Table I results are 'averaged across 30 test rollouts for each task,' while the Table I caption states 'We use 50 rollouts to evaluate the performance'; please make the evaluation count consistent and state it clearly.
  2. [§V-B] The paragraph on out-of-distribution generalization claims that the method 'can generalize to those variations with small performance drop' across the six scenarios of Fig. 5, but no success rates, trial counts, or error bars are reported for those scenarios; please add quantitative results or temper the claim.
  3. [§V-B, Table II] The base policy's success rate is higher under novel descriptions than under training descriptions for every task (Cup 0.50 vs 0.30, Bag 0.40 vs 0.20, Fork 0.30 vs 0.10), a pattern the paper does not discuss even though the novel conditions are framed as more demanding; an explanation (e.g., that the novel preferences align with the policy's dominant mode) would clarify the robustness result.
  4. [§IV-B; §V] Eqs. (2) and (3) write an expectation over the stochastic latent dynamics, while the implementation uses only the most likely latent prediction ('we use only the most likely prediction as the outcome'); please state this approximation explicitly in the formulation and comment on whether the stochasticity of f_phi affects the steering result.
  5. [Table X] The component accuracies and the overall system accuracy in Table X are not obviously commensurable (for example, the Cup overall system accuracy of 0.90 exceeds the Cup world-model accuracy of 0.80), so the component analysis should state the metric and sample used for each column to support its interpretation as a bottleneck analysis.
  6. [Abstract; §I; References] The abstract and Section I contain the typo 'altnerative' (should be 'alternative'), and reference [2] is listed as 'anonymous authors. Anonymous title,' which must be completed or replaced before publication.
  7. [§V-A] The claim that FOREWARN 'outperforms VLM-Act by over 50% on every task' holds for GT Accuracy but not for the LLM Score on the Bag task (0.72 vs 0.50, an improvement of about 44%); please qualify the claim by metric.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FOREWARN's central claims are grounded in real-robot trials and supervised component evaluations, with self-citations used only as background motivation.

full rationale

FOREWARN's derivation chain is not circular. The world model is pretrained with dynamics/reconstruction losses on offline rollouts, the VLM is LoRA-finetuned to narrate the frozen world model's latent rollouts using manually annotated behavior narrations, and policy steering is evaluated as real-robot success rates against human-defined task preferences; none of the headline numbers in Table II is a fitted constant or a renaming of the training objective. The self-citations to [32,42] (Hybrid IRL / IRL without RL) are used only to motivate collecting both successful and failed rollouts and to frame local search; the paper does not derive its 30%/40% claims from these theorems, and the real-robot experiments stand independently. Section VI's admission that the world model's imprecise imagination is the primary failure source identifies a performance bottleneck—and the absence of a FOREWARN-Oracle steering condition is a missing control—but neither makes the prediction equal to its input by construction. The VQA fine-tuning set does reuse DWM, but labels are human annotations of observed behavior and the world model is frozen, so the VLM's narration is supervised rather than self-consistent. Hence no reduction of a claimed result to its own inputs is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on several learned components rather than a closed-form derivation. The central empirical claims depend on the base policy proposing good modes, on the world model predicting contact-level outcomes, and on the VLM transferring its reasoning to paraphrased instructions. None of these are derived; they are assumed and validated on a small real-robot benchmark. The actual fitted scalars are modest (number of modes, downsampling), and the paper introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of candidate modes K = 6
    Chosen by authors via NMS and trajectory clustering; no ablation across K. The steering outcome depends on the candidate set containing a good mode.
  • Latent state downsampling factor = T/4 = 16 tokens
    Chosen to avoid semantically repetitive latent states; no ablation reported. It determines the temporal granularity of narrations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The base policy's distribution contains at least one action plan that satisfies the task description.
    Section VI states 'it assumes base policy is sufficiently competent, i.e., already containing the correct behavior.' If no candidate mode is good, no verifier can steer successfully.
  • domain assumption The latent world model rollouts preserve fine-grained contact and outcome information needed for narration.
    Eq. 3 conditions the VLM on predicted latent states zt:t+T; App. B2 and Section VI identify imprecise world-model imagination as the primary failure source.
  • domain assumption VLM commonsense reasoning over text narrations transfers to novel task descriptions.
    The method's advantage over latent classifiers depends on this transfer, tested only on three tasks and three paraphrased descriptions.
  • domain assumption The offline dataset DWM, with 250 rollouts plus 100 demonstrations per task, covers enough successes and failures to train a useful world model.
    Section V-A describes the data collection; no coverage or diversity analysis is provided, yet the world model's ability to imagine both good and bad plans is load-bearing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Foresight to Forethought: VLM-In-the-Loop Policy Steering via Latent Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FMCY7FHY

@misc{pith2026250201828,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Foresight to Forethought: VLM-In-the-Loop Policy Steering via Latent Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FMCY7FHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01828}
}
read the original abstract

While generative robot policies have demonstrated significant potential in learning complex, multimodal behaviors from demonstrations, they still exhibit diverse failures at deployment-time. Policy steering offers an elegant solution to reducing the chance of failure by using an external verifier to select from low-level actions proposed by an imperfect generative policy. Here, one might hope to use a Vision Language Model (VLM) as a verifier, leveraging its open-world reasoning capabilities. However, off-the-shelf VLMs struggle to understand the consequences of low-level robot actions as they are represented fundamentally differently than the text and images the VLM was trained on. In response, we propose FOREWARN, a novel framework to unlock the potential of VLMs as open-vocabulary verifiers for runtime policy steering. Our key idea is to decouple the VLM's burden of predicting action outcomes (foresight) from evaluation (forethought). For foresight, we leverage a latent world model to imagine future latent states given diverse low-level action plans. For forethought, we align the VLM with these predicted latent states to reason about the consequences of actions in its native representation--natural language--and effectively filter proposed plans. We validate our framework across diverse robotic manipulation tasks, demonstrating its ability to bridge representational gaps and provide robust, generalizable policy steering. Videos can be found on the project website: https://yilin-wu98.github.io/forewarn/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01828 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We present FOREWARN, an VLM-in-the-loop policy steering algorithm for multi-modal generative robot policies. Our key idea is to decouple the VLM’s burden of predicting action outcomes from evaluation. By predicting action outcomes with a pre-trained latent dynamics model and aligning a VLM to reason about these latent states in text, FOREWARN can select action plans at runtime that are most appropriate for new task … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Training FOREWARN. In part A (Sec. IV-A), a Recurrent State Space Model (RSSM) is pretrained to learn good latent embeddings of the dynamics conditioned on the observations and actions. In part B (Sec. IV-B), the sequence of learned latent embeddings is projected through a linear layer to the text embedding space, similar to the original vision token processing in the Llama-3.2 Model. The projection layer and Llama … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of Behavior Narrations Predicted by Each Approach. The top row displays the ground-truth robot observations and the prompt used for querying VLMs. Only FOREWARN and FOREWARN-Oracle consistently produce accurate outcome narrations, effectively capturing nuanced motion details. In contrast, the baselines frequently hallucinate or fail to capture critical contact details between the gripper and objects. For in… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Policy Steering: Fork Task. We visualize the steering process for the Fork task including two phases (Pick and Place). For each phase, we visualize the imagined T-step rollouts decoded from the world model for the 3 out of 6 action plans sampled from the base policy on…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Generalization to Environmental Changes. For each task, we test our method against similar objects of different colors and sizes and also change the table cover to test the system against background variations. Results: Policy Steering Speed. Our system queries the VLM…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Multimodality in Demonstration Datasets. Training dataset. For each task, we collect 100 multimodal demonstrations and train the policy on an NVIDIA A6000 GPU following the procedure in [6]. In Cup Task,the training dataset consists of 50 demonstrations where the robot…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Prompt Template for Behavior Narration in FORE￾WARN. 3) Vision Language Model: Architecture. We use Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct model as our VLM backbone. We modify the original Llama Model to incorporate the explicit world model to predict outcomes of the action pla…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Prompt Template for Policy Steering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Prompt Template for Failure Monitoring. Prompt. The modified VLM is finetuned to generate behavior narration with the prompt template in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Prompt Template for Behavior Narration for GPT￾4o in Cup Task. Hyperparameter Value Embedding Dimension 64 Number of Head 1 Attention Dropout 0.05 Embedding Dropout 0.05 Block Output Dropout 0.05 Context Length 16 Sinusoidal Embedding True Learning Rate 1e-4 Gradient …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prompt Template for Behavior Narration for VLM-Act in Cup Task 4) Additional Details of Baselines: VLM-Act. This baseline is an ablated version of FORE￾WARN without the explicit world model. It uses the original Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct model as shown in right pa…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: demonstrates the setup of our real-world experiments. We employ two cameras, a RealSense D435 camera on the Franka hand and a Zed mini 2i camera placed in front of the robot. In order to increase the contact region and compilancy, we replace the original Franka grippe…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Policy Steering for Cup and Bag Task. We visualize the steering process for the Cup task on the top and the Bag task on the bottom. For each task, we visualize the imagined T-step rollouts decoded from the world model for the 3 out of 6 action plans sampled from the b…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Policy Monitoring. In the top (pink) and medium (green) row, the robot imagines correctly about the robot behaviors but only FOREWARN describes the behavior correctly and generates correct monitoring results with adequate explanations. In the bottom row (blue), all of…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Distribution of ROUGE-L Score shows that intra￾category scores are overlapped with inter-category ones [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Distribution of Cosine Similarity Score shows that intra-category scores are overlapped with inter-category ones [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Distribution of LLM Score shows inter-category and inter-category scores can be roughly separated at 0.7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. DREAMSTEER: Latent World Models Can Steer VLA Policies During Deployment Without Any Finetuning

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A frozen VLA plus latent world-model rollouts and a value model can raise real-robot OOD manipulation success from 23.75% to 66.25% without any target-environment finetuning.

  2. EVE: A Generator-Verifier System for Generative Policies

    cs.RO 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Zero-shot VLM verifiers, ensembled and fused via guided diffusion, improve frozen generative robot policies' success rates by 1-2 percentage points on simulated manipulation tasks.

  3. Learn from What We HAVE: History-Aware VErifier that Reasons about Past Interactions Online

    cs.RO 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A history-aware verifier that scores candidate actions using past interactions cuts failure rates in ambiguous robot manipulation tasks compared to using the generator alone.

  4. Latent Policy Barrier: Learning Robust Visuomotor Policies by Staying In-Distribution

    cs.RO 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Latent Policy Barrier improves behavior-cloned visuomotor policies by using a latent dynamics model trained on expert and rollout data to guide actions back toward in-distribution expert states.

  5. Adapting by Analogy: OOD Generalization of Visuomotor Policies via Functional Correspondence

    cs.RO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A test-time method uses expert-provided functional correspondences to map out-of-distribution scenes to similar training scenes, letting a visuomotor policy reuse old behaviors without retraining.

  6. Cross from Left to Right Brain: Adaptive Text Dreamer for Vision-and-Language Navigation

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A dual-branch text-imagination system, with one LLM branch for state estimation and one for candidate-direction description, improves R2R navigation success over prior LLM-based VLN methods.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Unpacking failure modes of generative policies: Runtime monitoring of consistency and progress

    Christopher Agia, Rohan Sinha, Jingyun Yang, Ziang Cao, Rika Antonova, Marco Pavone, and Jeannette Bohg. Unpacking failure modes of generative policies: Runtime monitoring of consistency and progress. In 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Anonymous title

    anonymous authors. Anonymous title. In Robotics: Science and Systems , 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Policy search by dynamic programming

    James Bagnell, Sham M Kakade, Jeff Schneider, and Andrew Ng. Policy search by dynamic programming. Advances in neural information processing systems , 16, 2003

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

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

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yev- gen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Tomas Jackson, Sally Jesmonth, Nikhil Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Yuheng Kuang, Isabel Leal, Kuang- Huei Lee, Sergey Levine, Yao Lu, Utsav Malla,...

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choromanski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, Pete Flo- rence, Chuyuan Fu, Montse Gonzalez Arenas, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Kehang Han, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Nikhil Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Y...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion

    Cheng Chi, Zhenjia Xu, Siyuan Feng, Eric Cousineau, Yilun Du, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, and Shuran Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Universal manipulation interface: In- the-wild robot teaching without in-the-wild robots

    Cheng Chi, Zhenjia Xu, Chuer Pan, Eric Cousineau, Benjamin Burchfiel, Siyuan Feng, Russ Tedrake, and Shuran Song. Universal manipulation interface: In- the-wild robot teaching without in-the-wild robots. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Agibot world colosseum

    AgiBot World Colosseum contributors. Agibot world colosseum. https://github.com/OpenDriveLab/ AgiBot-World, 2024

    2024

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    The complexity of theorem-proving procedures

    Stephen A Cook. The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In Logic, automata, and computational complexity: The works of Stephen A. Cook , pages 143–

  2. [10]

    Aha: A vision- language-model for detecting and reasoning over failures in robotic manipulation

    Jiafei Duan, Wilbert Pumacay, Nishanth Kumar, Yi Ru Wang, Shulin Tian, Wentao Yuan, Ranjay Krishna, Dieter Fox, Ajay Mandlekar, and Yijie Guo. Aha: A vision- language-model for detecting and reasoning over failures in robotic manipulation. In International Conference on Learni...

    2025

  3. [11]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Efficient imitation under misspecifi- cation

    Nicolas Espinosa-Dice, Sanjiban Choudhury, Wen Sun, and Gokul Swamy. Efficient imitation under misspecifi- cation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13162 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Rh20t: A robotic dataset for learning diverse skills in one-shot

    Hao-Shu Fang, Hongjie Fang, Zhenyu Tang, Jirong Liu, Junbo Wang, Haoyi Zhu, and Cewu Lu. Rh20t: A robotic dataset for learning diverse skills in one-shot. In RSS 2023 Workshop on Learning for Task and Motion Planning, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Zhao, and Chelsea Finn

    Zipeng Fu, Tony Z. Zhao, and Chelsea Finn. Mobile aloha: Learning bimanual mobile manipulation with low- cost whole-body teleoperation. In Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Letter to john von neumann, 1956

    Kurt Godel. Letter to john von neumann, 1956. URL https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/ 46aef9c4-288b-457d-ab3e-bb6cb1a4b88e/content

    1956

  8. [16]

    Task success is not enough: Investigating the use of video-language models as behavior critics for catching undesirable agent behav- iors

    Lin Guan, Yifan Zhou, Denis Liu, Yantian Zha, Heni Ben Amor, and Subbarao Kambhampati. Task success is not enough: Investigating the use of video-language models as behavior critics for catching undesirable agent behav- iors. In First Conference on Language Modeling , 2024. UR...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Inverse reward design

    Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Smitha Milli, Pieter Abbeel, Stu- art J Russell, and Anca Dragan. Inverse reward design. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Mastering diverse domains through world models

    Danijar Hafner, Jurgis Pasukonis, Jimmy Ba, and Timo- thy Lillicrap. Mastering diverse domains through world models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Run-time observation interventions make vision- language-action models more visually robust

    Asher J Hancock, Allen Z Ren, and Anirudha Majum- dar. Run-time observation interventions make vision- language-action models more visually robust. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01971, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= nZeVKeeFYf9

    2022

  13. [21]

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

    Yafei Hu, Quanting Xie, Vidhi Jain, Jonathan Francis, Jay Patrikar, Nikhil Keetha, Seungchan Kim, Yaqi Xie, Tianyi Zhang, Hao-Shu Fang, et al. Toward general- purpose robots via foundation models: A survey and meta-analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08782 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Future success prediction in open-vocabulary object manipulation tasks based on end-effector trajectories, 2025

    Motonari Kambara and Komei Sugiura. Future success prediction in open-vocabulary object manipulation tasks based on end-effector trajectories, 2025. URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2412.19112

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Behavior generation with latent actions

    Seungjae Lee, Yibin Wang, Haritheja Etukuru, H Jin Kim, Nur Muhammad Mahi Shafiullah, and Lerrel Pinto. Behavior generation with latent actions. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Model-based runtime monitoring with interac- tive imitation learning

    Huihan Liu, Shivin Dass, Roberto Mart ´ın-Mart´ın, and Yuke Zhu. Model-based runtime monitoring with interac- tive imitation learning. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Multi-task interactive robot fleet learning with visual world models

    Huihan Liu, Yu Zhang, Vaarij Betala, Evan Zhang, James Liu, Crystal Ding, and Yuke Zhu. Multi-task interactive robot fleet learning with visual world models. In 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Reflect: Summarizing robot experiences for failure explanation and correction

    Zeyi Liu, Arpit Bahety, and Shuran Song. Reflect: Summarizing robot experiences for failure explanation and correction. In Conference on Robot Learning , pages 3468–3484. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Steering your generalists: Improving robotic foundation models via value guidance

    Mitsuhiko Nakamoto, Oier Mees, Aviral Kumar, and Sergey Levine. Steering your generalists: Improving robotic foundation models via value guidance. Confer- ence on Robot Learning (CoRL) , 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning

    Andrew Y Ng et al. Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning

  21. [29]

    OpenAI, Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agar- wal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Ale- man, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, Red Avila, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Valerie Balcom, Paul Baltescu, Haiming Bao, Mohammad Bavarian, J...

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel HAZIZA, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Learning to search: Functional gradient techniques for imitation learning

    Nathan D Ratliff, David Silver, and J Andrew Bagnell. Learning to search: Functional gradient techniques for imitation learning. Autonomous Robots, 27:25–53, 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    Hybrid inverse rein- forcement learning

    Juntao Ren, Gokul Swamy, Zhiwei Steven Wu, J Andrew Bagnell, and Sanjiban Choudhury. Hybrid inverse rein- forcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08848 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Multimodal diffusion transformer: Learning versatile behavior from multimodal goals

    Moritz Reuss, ¨Omer Erdinc ¸ Ya˘gmurlu, Fabian Wenzel, and Rudolf Lioutikov. Multimodal diffusion transformer: Learning versatile behavior from multimodal goals. In Robotics: Science and Systems , 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Efficient reductions for imitation learning

    St ´ephane Ross and Drew Bagnell. Efficient reductions for imitation learning. In Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 661–668. JMLR Workshop and Confer- ence Proceedings, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning

    St ´ephane Ross, Geoffrey Gordon, and Drew Bagnell. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelli- gence and statistics , pages 627–635. JMLR Workshop an...

    2011

  28. [36]

    Motionlm: Multi-agent mo- tion forecasting as language modeling

    Ari Seff, Brian Cera, Dian Chen, Mason Ng, Aurick Zhou, Nigamaa Nayakanti, Khaled S Refaat, Rami Al- Rfou, and Benjamin Sapp. Motionlm: Multi-agent mo- tion forecasting as language modeling. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 8579...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Shafiullah, Siyuan

    Nur Muhammad Mahi. Shafiullah, Siyuan. Feng, Ler- rel. Pinto, and Russ. Tedrake. Supervised policy learning for real robots, July 2024. URL https:// supervised-robot-learning.github.io. Tutorial presented at the Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), Delft

    2024

  30. [38]

    On the sample complexity of end-to-end training vs

    Shai Shalev-Shwartz and Amnon Shashua. On the sample complexity of end-to-end training vs. semantic abstraction training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.06915 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Real-time anomaly detection and reactive planning with large lan- guage models

    Rohan Sinha, Amine Elhafsi, Christopher Agia, Matthew Foutter, Ed Schmerling, and Marco Pavone. Real-time anomaly detection and reactive planning with large lan- guage models. In Robotics: Science and Systems , 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Hybrid rl: Using both offline and online data can make rl efficient

    Yuda Song, Yifei Zhou, Ayush Sekhari, J Andrew Bag- nell, Akshay Krishnamurthy, and Wen Sun. Hybrid rl: Using both offline and online data can make rl efficient. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06718 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Of moments and matching: A game- theoretic framework for closing the imitation gap

    Gokul Swamy, Sanjiban Choudhury, J Andrew Bagnell, and Steven Wu. Of moments and matching: A game- theoretic framework for closing the imitation gap. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 10022–10032. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Inverse reinforcement learning without reinforcement learning

    Gokul Swamy, David Wu, Sanjiban Choudhury, Drew Bagnell, and Steven Wu. Inverse reinforcement learning without reinforcement learning. In International Confer- ence on Machine Learning , pages 33299–33318. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    All roads lead to likelihood: The value of reinforcement learning in fine- tuning

    Gokul Swamy, Sanjiban Choudhury, Wen Sun, Zhi- wei Steven Wu, and J Andrew Bagnell. All roads lead to likelihood: The value of reinforcement learning in fine- tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01067 , 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Open X-Embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and RT-X models

    Open X-Embodiment Team. Open X-Embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and RT-X models. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    The virtues of laziness in model-based rl: A unified objective and algorithms

    Anirudh Vemula, Yuda Song, Aarti Singh, Drew Bagnell, and Sanjiban Choudhury. The virtues of laziness in model-based rl: A unified objective and algorithms. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 34978–35005. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Vincent, Haruki Nishimura, Masha Itkina, Paarth Shah, Mac Schwager, and Thomas Kollar

    Joseph A. Vincent, Haruki Nishimura, Masha Itkina, Paarth Shah, Mac Schwager, and Thomas Kollar. How generalizable is my behavior cloning policy? a statis- tical approach to trustworthy performance evaluation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 9(10):8619– 8626, 2024. doi:...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Inference- time policy steering through human interactions

    Yanwei Wang, Lirui Wang, Yilun Du, Balakumar Sun- daralingam, Xuning Yang, Yu-Wei Chao, Claudia Perez- D’Arpino, Dieter Fox, and Julie Shah. Inference- time policy steering through human interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16627, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    I can tell what i am doing: Toward real-world natural language grounding of robot experiences

    Zihan Wang, Brian Liang, Varad Dhat, Zander Brum- baugh, Nick Walker, Ranjay Krishna, and Maya Cakmak. I can tell what i am doing: Toward real-world natural language grounding of robot experiences. In 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    ivideogpt: Inter- active videogpts are scalable world models

    Jialong Wu, Shaofeng Yin, Ningya Feng, Xu He, Dong Li, Jianye Hao, and Mingsheng Long. ivideogpt: Inter- active videogpts are scalable world models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Daydreamer: World models for physical robot learning

    Philipp Wu, Alejandro Escontrela, Danijar Hafner, Pieter Abbeel, and Ken Goldberg. Daydreamer: World models for physical robot learning. In Conference on robot learning, pages 2226–2240. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Zhao, Vikash Kumar, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn

    Tony Z. Zhao, Vikash Kumar, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Learning fine-grained bimanual manip- ulation with low-cost hardware, 2023. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2304.13705

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning

    Brian D Ziebart, J Andrew Bagnell, Anind K Dey, et al. Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning. 2008. APPENDIX A. Algorithm & Implementation Details

    2008

  45. [53]

    Rollouts from Demonstration Dataset Cup Task Bag Task Fork Task Fig

    Base Policy: We use Diffusion Policy [6] as our robot action generation model due to its strong ability to capture multimodal and complex robot behaviors. Rollouts from Demonstration Dataset Cup Task Bag Task Fork Task Fig. 6: Multimodality in Demonstration Datasets. Training ...

  46. [54]

    Each mode has 25 demonstrations

    picking up the fork by the handle and dropping high; 3) picking up the fork by the tines and dropping low; 4) picking up the fork by the handle and dropping low. Each mode has 25 demonstrations. Figure 6 presents multimodal demonstrations for each task, and Table IV details th...

  47. [55]

    The effectiveness of world models has been demonstrated across various embodied domains [25, 50]

    World Model: Motivation. The effectiveness of world models has been demonstrated across various embodied domains [25, 50]. In our problem setting, it provides several key advantages: 1) it grounds low-level actions, difficult for a VLM to interpret—by predicting future image o...

  48. [56]

    The robot aims to grasp the cup. Describe the behavior

    it compresses information into latent states that not only retain essential details for high-quality image decoding but also effectively predict the next latent state given an action. Architecture. We use DreamerV3, a state-of-the-art recurrent world model from [18]. Our world...

  49. [57]

    We use Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct model as our VLM backbone

    Vision Language Model: Architecture. We use Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct model as our VLM backbone. We modify the original Llama Model to incorporate the explicit world model to predict outcomes of the action plans first and then use VLM to reason about the latent states to g...

  50. [58]

    handle, rim

    Remember to pay attention to the details of grasping part of the object, e.g. handle, rim. If gripper is not contacting the cup or the cup is lying down on the table, describe the behavior and must state it as a failure in the output

  51. [59]

    The first three dimensions are the x, y, z positions of the robot gripper

    Both the robot state and the actions have 8 dimensions. The first three dimensions are the x, y, z positions of the robot gripper. X direction is moving forward and backward in the image and Y is moving left and right. Z is moving up and down. The 4th to 7th values are the qua...

  52. [60]

    Do not include any additional text, explanations, or information

    Your response must strictly align with the image observation. Do not include any additional text, explanations, or information. Action Sequences: {Action Plan} Current State: {proprioceptive states} Input:{general task description} Fig. 11: Prompt Template for Behavior Narrati...

  53. [61]

    This baseline is an ablated version of FORE- W ARNwithout the explicit world model

    Additional Details of Baselines: VLM-Act. This baseline is an ablated version of FORE- W ARNwithout the explicit world model. It uses the original Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct model as shown in right part of Fig. 7 and finetuned with the same labels as in VQA Dataset. Hyperpa...

  54. [62]

    Pay attention to the grasping process as it shows the grip part

  55. [63]

    Do not hallucinate over the contact position

  56. [64]

    handle, inner surface, etc

    If the grasp is achieved, the sentence should focus on which part of the object it grasps and makes contact with, e.g. handle, inner surface, etc

  57. [65]

    If the cup is not grasped in the robot's gripper, the sentence should describe the failure

    4. If the cup is not grasped in the robot's gripper, the sentence should describe the failure. <image token> x 16 Fig. 12: Prompt Template for Behavior Narration for GPT- 4o in Cup Task. Hyperparameter Value Embedding Dimension 64 Number of Head 1 Attention Dropout 0.05 Embedd...

  58. [66]

    15 demonstrates the setup of our real-world experiments

    Real Robot Setup: Fig. 15 demonstrates the setup of our real-world experiments. We employ two cameras, a RealSense D435 camera on the Franka hand and a Zed mini 2i camera placed in front of the robot. In order to increase the contact region and compilancy, we replace the origi...

  59. [67]

    We include additional qualitative examples for Cup and Bag tasks in Fig 16

    Supplementary Experiments & Analyses: More Qualitative Examples for Policy Steering. We include additional qualitative examples for Cup and Bag tasks in Fig 16. These examples further demonstrate the effectiveness of our policy steering system for different tasks. The imagined...

  60. [68]

    V-A and queries the VLM again to decide if the behavior is a success or failure within the context of the task description ℓ

    Classifier-Dyn-Latent takes the predicted latent states as input and trains a transformer-based binary classifier to gen- erate binary output with the same dataset as VLM-DynLat- Binary; 3) VLM-Act uses generated behavior narrations in Sec. V-A and queries the VLM again to dec...

  61. [69]

    grasp- ing the cup

    Metric Ablations: Metrics for Behavior Narration. We investigate four com- mon text-generation metrics proposed in prior work [10]: Cosine Similarity , ROUGE-L, LLM Fuzzy Matching , and Bi- nary Success Rate . To assess each metric’s correlation with ground-truth labels, we sa...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.