Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 44 references

3D-Grounded Vision-Language Framework for Robotic Task Planning: Automated Prompt Synthesis and Supervised Reasoning

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A frozen 2D vision-language model can drive fine-grained 3D robotic tasks when images carry annotated 3D coordinate markers and a small language model validates the command output.

desk verdict A legitimate incremental idea—confidence-selected 3D points drawn onto 2D images for a frozen VLM—but the SLM training set overlaps the evaluation domain and the ablation numbers contradict themselves, so the 96% TSR claim is not yet believable. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08903 v1 pith:M2PL7RHX submitted 2025-02-13 cs.RO cs.AI

Guoqin Tang , Qingxuan Jia , Zeyuan Huang , Gang Chen , Ning Ji , Zhipeng Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords vision-languagemodelsrobotictaskplanning2Dpromptsynthesis3Dgroundingconfidence-basedregistrationsmalllanguagemodelsupervisionsuccessrate
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 tries to establish that a vision-language model trained only on 2D images and text can plan and execute precise 3D robotic manipulation, provided the scene image is annotated with reliable 3D coordinates and a small language model supervises the generated commands. The authors claim this two-part wrapper—automated prompt synthesis in front, SLM supervision in back—lets the system reach a 96.0% task success rate on headphone manipulation tasks without retraining the VLM. If true, it would remove the need for task-specific 3D training and make VLM-based robot planning cheaper and more transferable. The paper reports that removing the prompt-synthesis module drops success to 0%, and that removing the SLM supervision causes a 67% TSR drop on one task, which is their evidence that both modules carry the result.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the 2D prompt synthesis module: a confidence-based registration step that assigns each candidate 3D point a score from an exponential of weighted entropies, selects the best point per segmentation mask via nearest-neighbor search, annotates that point onto the image with its 3D coordinate, and thereby constrains the VLM's decoding distribution. The second mechanism is the back-end SLM supervision loop, which catches hallucinated commands by checking parameters, logic, and constraints and iteratively feeds corrective prompts back to the VLM.

What would settle it

Take the same pipeline and perturb the marker text by offsetting every annotated coordinate by, say, 5 cm while leaving the image otherwise unchanged; if the robot's planned grasp positions do not shift by roughly 5 cm, or if task success remains high, the model is not using the marker values metrically, and the claimed spatial grounding is an artifact of the scene layout. Alternatively, rerun with markers removed and check whether TSR collapses to the near-zero level the ablation reports.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that 3D grounding can be shifted out of the model and into the prompt. The framework projects LiDAR points into the camera image, rates each point by a confidence score built from four entropy terms—spatial consistency, geometric consistency, depth reliability, and temporal stability—picks the most reliable point near each object's segmentation centroid, and draws it as a red marker carrying its 3D coordinate. The frozen VLM is told to treat these markers as ground truth and to output structured robot commands. A low-rank-adapted small language model then validates the commands for parameter ranges, logical order, and safety constraints, feeding corrections back to the VLM until convergence. The authors report that this scheme achieves a 96.0% task success rate across four tasks and, compared with a state-of-the-art 3D multimodal language model, improves 3D recognition accuracy by 31.93%, localization precision by 46.40%, and task execution success by 58.10%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the frozen VLM will actually read the small red markers, parse the printed 3D coordinate text, and treat those numbers as metrically precise ground truth rather than as rough hints, since the entire spatial accuracy of the pipeline depends on this prompt-following behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A frozen, 2D-only VLM can serve as a 3D task planner without retraining, as long as the image contains metrically annotated markers.
  • SLM supervision provides a trainable safety net: parameter-range checks, sequence ordering, and constraint enforcement can be learned from a few hundred curated examples plus augmentations.
  • The framework transfers to new environments by re-running prompt synthesis instead of fine-tuning the VLM, which lowers data and compute costs.
  • Precision tasks with coupled objects—like hanging a headphone on a moved stand—are claimed to reach 100% TSR under the full framework.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I read the central bet as: the VLM's text-image alignment is strong enough that coordinate values written on an image function as a spatial oracle; a natural next test is to vary marker font, color, or position and measure sensitivity, which the paper does not report.
  • The paper itself notes, in its discussion and conclusion, a 0.8-second per-session overhead and sensitivity to rapid motion, occlusion, and registration error, so the headline TSR should be read as a static-scene result rather than real-time dynamic performance.
  • If this approach works, the same prompt-synthesis trick could be applied to other 2D-only multimodal models, turning 3D grounding into an annotation problem rather than a model-capability problem.
  • The single-dimension adjustment strategy and feedback history in the SLM could be tested in isolation: a checker that only validates constraints, without the VLM loop, would reveal how much of the gain comes from supervision versus the prompt module.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a modular framework for robotic task planning that combines (i) a 2D prompt synthesis module which projects 3D point-cloud information onto 2D images as labeled red markers, (ii) a frozen Vision-Language Model (VLM) that reasons from these images and text prompts, and (iii) a fine-tuned Small Language Model (SLM) that supervises and corrects the VLM's output through iterative feedback. The method is evaluated on four headphone manipulation tasks using a Franka arm, reporting a 96.0% Task Success Rate and ablations that are claimed to show the necessity of both the 2D prompt module and the SLM supervision module. The paper also reports improvements in mIoU, ROUGE-L, and executability relative to several baseline model families.

Significance. If the claims were substantiated, the framework would be a valuable plug-and-play approach for giving 2D VLMs 3D grounding without retraining, with potential impact on precision manipulation. The paper has clear strengths: a sensible modular decomposition, detailed prompt templates, an ablation structure, and the use of a frozen VLM for the perception-to-language step. However, the evidence presented does not currently support the central generalization claim, and several reporting inconsistencies undermine confidence in the quantitative results.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV-D and IV-E] The SLM is fine-tuned on data drawn from the same domain used for evaluation. Section IV-D-1 states that the fine-tuning dataset includes 320 custom samples collected in a controlled environment 'featuring a robotic arm, headphone stand, and headset' with coordinates relative to the robot base, and Section IV-D-2 generates 3,000 augmented samples from these same scenarios via GPT-4. The evaluation tasks in Section IV-E are exactly headphone manipulation tasks with a Franka arm and the same objects. Consequently, the SLM has been trained on the target task distribution and output format, so the reported TSR of the full system cannot be attributed to the proposed 2D prompt synthesis alone; the SLM may have memorized valid plans and corrections for this specific task family. The claim in the Abstract and Section IV-G-3-c that the framework 'eliminates the need for retraining in new environments' is therefore untested.
  2. [Abstract and IV-G-2-b vs Table II] The reported ablation drop is inconsistent with Table II. The Abstract and Section IV-G-2-b state that removing the output supervision module causes a 67% TSR drop in Task 2, but Table II shows Ours Task 2 TSR = 0.900 and Ours(-SLM) Task 2 TSR = 0.559, a relative drop of 37.9% (34.1 percentage points), not 67%. The 67% figure is close to the Task 1 relative drop (0.960 to 0.334 = 65.2%) but not to any value in Task 2. This makes the ablation-based evidence for the supervision module unreliable.
  3. [IV-G-1 and III-A] The frozen VLM used in the proposed framework is never named, and baseline implementations are underspecified. Section IV-G-1 gives examples for baseline categories (e.g., GPT-4o, GPT-o1 with COT, 3D-LLM) but does not identify the VLM used in 'Ours', nor the exact prompt templates and coordinate-supply protocol for each baseline. Figure 8 mentions 50 trials per model, but Table II reports single numbers without variance or statistical tests. Without this information the reported 96.0% TSR and the comparisons cannot be reproduced or critically assessed.
  4. [IV-F-1, Eq. (24)] The mIoU metric is not well-defined. Equation (24) defines mIoU as a standard intersection-over-union over predicted and ground-truth point sets but then adds 'constrained by a 3D localization error of less than 0.2' without specifying how the constraint modifies the computation, what distance threshold is used, or how correspondences between predicted and ground-truth points are established. Since mIoU is a headline metric in Table II, this needs to be made precise.
  5. [III-B-1, Eqs. (1)-(8)] The confidence score is presented as an information-theoretic reliability measure, but the components are not proper Shannon entropies. For example, P1(xi) = 1/(1+d2D(xi)) in Eq. (3) is not normalized over the point set, so H1(xi) is not a probability-based entropy; the same issue affects P2, P3, and P4. The exponential weighting in Eq. (1) may still provide a heuristic ranking, but the theoretical motivation ('This formulation draws from information theory') is inaccurate and the choice of λn (task-specific weights) is never determined or ablated.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains grammatical errors, e.g., 'Experimental results that the proposed framework achieved' should be 'Experimental results show that the proposed framework achieved'.
  2. [III-D-3-a] The phrase 'focus each iteration' should be 'focuses each iteration' or 'focus each iteration on refining' for grammatical correctness.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption refers to 'LLAMA3 attention block' but the exact SLM architecture (e.g., parameter count, base model) is not specified in the text.
  4. [III-C-2, Eq. (17)] Equation (17) has typographical issues ('ϵand' and 'F LAG' with a space) and the convergence criterion is not fully specified (e.g., the norm used for |∆ROI(n)|).
  5. [IV-G-2-a] The ablation removing the 2D prompt module yields 0% TSR across all tasks; this is an expected consequence of removing all spatial information and does not isolate the module's contribution relative to the SLM supervision, so it should be discussed as a sanity check rather than an ablation that distinguishes mechanisms.
  6. [IV-G-1] For coordinate-guided models, the paper states that precise object positions were directly provided; the exact implementation (e.g., in the image via markers or in the text prompt) should be described to enable reproducibility.
  7. [I and Table II] The Introduction reports improvements of 31.93%, 46.40%, and 58.10%, but these numbers are not connected to specific rows or columns in Table II; this should be clarified.
  8. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries (e.g., [9] and [28] are the same CLIP-FO3D paper) and some entries have incomplete author lists ('A. Brohan, N. Brown, and J. Carbajal...' [24]) that should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

SLM fine-tuning data overlaps the evaluation domain, so the headline no-retraining TSR is an in-domain fit; reported 67% ablation drop also contradicts Table II.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-D-1 (Positive Data Collection) and Section IV-E (Evaluation Tasks); claim in Abstract and Section IV-G-3-c]
    "Additionally, we collected 320 task samples in a controlled environment featuring a robotic arm, headphone stand, and headset. Object positions were systematically varied to generate scene descriptions with precise 3D coordinates relative to the robot base, along with corresponding task decompositions. ... The proposed framework was evaluated on four manipulation tasks using the FRANKA robotic arm ... Task 1: Hanging a headphone on a stand."

    The SLM is the only trained component (the VLM is frozen; the 2D prompt module is a point-selection and annotation rule). Its LoRA fine-tuning data consists of 320 custom samples from the same headphone-stand scenario family plus 3,000 GPT-4 augmentations built from those scenarios, while the evaluation tasks are the same headphone-stand manipulations on the Franka arm. The reported 96% TSR is therefore a within-training-distribution result, not a prediction for a new environment. The SLM can memorize valid plans and corrective feedback for this exact task family and can compensate for VLM marker-reading failures, so the abstract's claim that the framework 'eliminates the need for retraining in new environments' reduces to an in-domain fit.

full rationale

The central circularity is the SLM supervision module: it is fine-tuned on 320 custom headphone-stand samples and 3,000 GPT-4-augmented samples generated from the same scenario, and then evaluated on Franka headphone-stand tasks. Because the VLM is frozen and the 2D prompt module is a geometric selection rule (Equations 9-12), the trained SLM is the only component that can absorb task-specific knowledge. Its training distribution matches the evaluation distribution, so the headline no-retraining claim is untested and the measured TSR gain may be an in-domain fit rather than evidence for the 2D prompt module. The 2D prompt module itself is not fitted, which provides some independent content, but its contribution cannot be separated from SLM memorization in the reported end-to-end results. Separately, the paper's load-bearing ablation claim is numerically unsupported: the abstract and Section IV-G-2-b state a 67% TSR drop when the SLM is removed, but Table II shows Task 2 TSR falling from 0.900 to 0.559, a 34.1 percentage-point drop (37.9% relative). This internal inconsistency further weakens the causal claim that SLM supervision drives the improvement. No self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is involved. Overall, one central prediction reduces to an in-domain fit, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a trained SLM and hand-chosen confidence weights. The free parameters are not reported, and the axioms are assumptions about VLM marker reading, sensor calibration, and in-domain generalization. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Task-specific entropy weights lambda_n = not reported
    Equation (1) weights four entropy terms; Section III-B-3 says weights are tailored to tasks, but no values or fitting procedure are given. They affect which points are annotated onto the image.
  • Nearest neighbor count NN4 = 4
    Equation (10) fixes the number of candidate 3D points per segmentation mask to 4; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • SLM acceptance confidence threshold tau = not reported
    Algorithm 2 terminates only when confidence C(n+1) exceeds tau and flag is 1; the threshold value is not given and directly affects reported TSR.
  • Convergence threshold epsilon and max iterations N_max = not reported
    Equation (17) and Algorithm 2 use epsilon and N_max as stopping conditions for the VLM-SLM loop; values are not reported and affect success and latency.
  • LoRA rank and learning rate for SLM fine-tuning = not reported
    Section III-D-1-b states LoRA rank and learning rate are empirically optimized but does not report them; these govern how well the SLM learns the supervision task.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A frozen 2D-trained VLM can read red markers annotated with 3D coordinate text and convert them into metrically accurate robot commands.
    Invoked in Section III-C-1 and the VLM prompt in Appendix A; this is the mechanism that replaces 3D training data, and no isolated validation of marker-reading accuracy is provided.
  • domain assumption Camera-LiDAR extrinsic calibration and point cloud preprocessing are accurate enough for sub-centimeter manipulation.
    Section IV-A-1 uses a precomputed transformation T_Camera_Lidar and filtered point clouds; the authors acknowledge in Section IV-G that ICP-based alignment degrades under motion, occlusion, and noise.
  • ad hoc to paper The confidence score in Equation (1) is a valid reliability measure for selecting 3D points.
    The exponential weighting of four entropy terms is introduced without derivation, calibration, or comparison to alternative selection rules; it directly determines which coordinates the VLM sees.
  • domain assumption The SLM fine-tuned on headphone-domain samples generalizes to the evaluation tasks.
    Section IV-D builds the SLM dataset from BridgeData V2, 320 custom headphone samples, and 3,000 augmented samples; the evaluation uses the same headphone tasks, so generalization to other domains is untested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D-Grounded Vision-Language Framework for Robotic Task Planning: Automated Prompt Synthesis and Supervised Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M2PL7RHX

@misc{pith2026250208903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D-Grounded Vision-Language Framework for Robotic Task Planning: Automated Prompt Synthesis and Supervised Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M2PL7RHX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08903}
}
read the original abstract

Vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable success in scene understanding and perception tasks, enabling robots to plan and execute actions adaptively in dynamic environments. However, most multimodal large language models lack robust 3D scene localization capabilities, limiting their effectiveness in fine-grained robotic operations. Additionally, challenges such as low recognition accuracy, inefficiency, poor transferability, and reliability hinder their use in precision tasks. To address these limitations, we propose a novel framework that integrates a 2D prompt synthesis module by mapping 2D images to point clouds, and incorporates a small language model (SLM) for supervising VLM outputs. The 2D prompt synthesis module enables VLMs, trained on 2D images and text, to autonomously extract precise 3D spatial information without manual intervention, significantly enhancing 3D scene understanding. Meanwhile, the SLM supervises VLM outputs, mitigating hallucinations and ensuring reliable, executable robotic control code generation. Our framework eliminates the need for retraining in new environments, thereby improving cost efficiency and operational robustness. Experimental results that the proposed framework achieved a 96.0\% Task Success Rate (TSR), outperforming other methods. Ablation studies demonstrated the critical role of both the 2D prompt synthesis module and the output supervision module (which, when removed, caused a 67\% TSR drop). These findings validate the framework's effectiveness in improving 3D recognition, task planning, and robotic task execution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08903 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the robotic task execution process using a Franka robotic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall architecture of the proposed framework. The framework consists of three main components: 2D Prompt Synthesis Module (orange), including Process & Alignment (light yellow) for multimodal data preprocessing and alignment, and Registration & Synthesis (light yellow) for credit-based prompt generation. A red arrow indicates data flow between these submodules. The Frozen Vision-Language Model (VLM, gray) serv… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The architecture of the Vision-Language Model (VLM). Inputs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The figure illustrates the process of computing confidence scores using filtered point cloud data and corresponding paired image data. The central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The figure illustrates confidence-driven strategies for task-specific prompting: The left section represents time-sensitive tasks, employing a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The architecture of the Small Language Model (SLM) supervision module. Inputs (left) are processed by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The complete data preprocessing pipeline and experiment results. Inputs (left) include point cloud data, RGB images, and depth maps. The central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Multi-Dimensional Performance Evaluation of Robotic Headphone Manipulation Tasks. The figure is divided into four quadrants, each representing a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Embodied intelligence toward future smart manufacturing in the era of ai foundation model,

    L. Ren, J. Dong, S. Liu, L. Zhang, and L. Wang, “Embodied intelligence toward future smart manufacturing in the era of ai foundation model,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , pp. 1–11, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Navigating industry 5.0: A survey of key enabling technologies, trends, challenges, and opportunities,

    R. Tallat, A. Hawbani, X. Wang, A. Al-Dubai, L. Zhao, Z. Liu, G. Min, A. Y . Zomaya, and S. Hamood Alsamhi, “Navigating industry 5.0: A survey of key enabling technologies, trends, challenges, and opportunities,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1080–1126, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Advanced manufacturing in industry 5.0: A survey of key enabling technologies and future trends,

    W. Xiang, K. Yu, F. Han, L. Fang, D. He, and Q.-L. Han, “Advanced manufacturing in industry 5.0: A survey of key enabling technologies and future trends,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1055–1068, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Large language models for human-robot interaction: A review,

    C. Zhang, J. Chen, J. Li, Y . Peng, and Z. bing Mao, “Large language models for human-robot interaction: A review,” Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:264564300

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    A survey of optimization-based task and motion planning: From classical to learning approaches,

    Z. Zhao, S. Cheng, Y . Ding, Z. Zhou, S. Zhang, D. Xu, and Y . Zhao, “A survey of optimization-based task and motion planning: From classical to learning approaches,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, pp. 1–27, 2024

    2024

  6. [7]

    Computer vision techniques in manufacturing,

    L. Zhou, L. Zhang, and N. Konz, “Computer vision techniques in manufacturing,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 105–117, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [8]

    A comprehen- sive study of 3-d vision-based robot manipulation,

    Y . Cong, R. Chen, B. Ma, H. Liu, D. Hou, and C. Yang, “A comprehen- sive study of 3-d vision-based robot manipulation,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1682–1698, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [9]

    Multi-modal 3d object detection in autonomous driving: A survey and taxonomy,

    L. Wang, X. Zhang, Z. Song, J. Bi, G. Zhang, H. Wei, L. Tang, L. Yang, J. Li, C. Jia, and L. Zhao, “Multi-modal 3d object detection in autonomous driving: A survey and taxonomy,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 3781–3798, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [10]

    Human–robot object handover: Recent progress and future direction,

    H. Duan, Y . Yang, D. Li, and P. Wang, “Human–robot object handover: Recent progress and future direction,” Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 100145, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667379724000032

    2024

  2. [11]

    Cmx: Cross-modal fusion for rgb-x semantic segmentation with transformers,

    J. Zhang, H. Liu, K. Yang, X. Hu, R. Liu, and R. Stiefelhagen, “Cmx: Cross-modal fusion for rgb-x semantic segmentation with transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 14 679–14 694, 2023

    2023

  3. [12]

    Multi-modal feature constraint based tightly coupled monocular visual-lidar odometry and mapping,

    C. Shu and Y . Luo, “Multi-modal feature constraint based tightly coupled monocular visual-lidar odometry and mapping,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 3384–3393, 2023

    2023

  4. [13]

    Llm-bt: Performing robotic adaptive tasks based on large language models and behavior trees,

    H. Zhou, Y . Lin, L. Yan, J. Zhu, and H. Min, “Llm-bt: Performing robotic adaptive tasks based on large language models and behavior trees,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 16 655–16 661

    2024

  5. [14]

    Ll3da: Visual interactive instruction tuning for omni-3d understanding, reasoning, and planning,

    S. Chen, X. Chen, C. Zhang, M. Li, G. Yu, H. Fei, H. Zhu, J. Fan, and T. Chen, “Ll3da: Visual interactive instruction tuning for omni-3d understanding, reasoning, and planning,” in 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 26 418– 26 428

    2024

  6. [16]

    Drivegpt4: Interpretable end-to-end autonomous driving via large language model,

    Z. Xu, Y . Zhang, E. Xie, Z. Zhao, Y . Guo, K.-Y . K. Wong, Z. Li, and H. Zhao, “Drivegpt4: Interpretable end-to-end autonomous driving via large language model,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 8186–8193, 2024

    2024

  7. [17]

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

    I. Singh, V . Blukis, A. Mousavian, A. Goyal, D. Xu, J. Tremblay, D. Fox, J. Thomason, and A. Garg, “Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 11 523– 11 530

    2023

  8. [18]

    3d- llm: injecting the 3d world into large language models,

    Y . Hong, H. Zhen, P. Chen, S. Zheng, Y . Du, Z. Chen, and C. Gan, “3d- llm: injecting the 3d world into large language models,” in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, ser. NIPS ’23. Red Hook, NY , USA: Curran Associates I...

    2024

  9. [19]

    Llmi3d: Empowering llm with 3d perception from a single 2d image,

    F. Yang, S. Zhao, Y . Zhang, H. Chen, H. Chen, W. Tang, H. Lu, P. Xu, Z. Yang, J. Han, and G. Ding, “Llmi3d: Empowering llm with 3d perception from a single 2d image,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.07422

    2024 arXiv

  10. [20]

    Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation,

    S. Liu, L. Wu, B. Li, H. Tan, H. Chen, Z. Wang, K. Xu, H. Su, and J. Zhu, “Rdt-1b: a diffusion foundation model for bimanual manipulation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410. 07864

    2024

  11. [21]

    Efficient prompting for llm-based generative internet of things,

    B. Xiao, B. Kantarci, J. Kang, D. Niyato, and M. Guizani, “Efficient prompting for llm-based generative internet of things,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 778–791, 2025

    2025

  12. [22]

    Ha and S

    H. Ha and S. Song, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2207.11514

    2022 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Mope: Parameter-efficient and scalable multimodal fusion via mixture of prompt experts,

    R. Jiang, L. Liu, and C. Chen, “Mope: Parameter-efficient and scalable multimodal fusion via mixture of prompt experts,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.10568

    2024 arXiv

  14. [24]

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

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, and J. Carbajal..., “Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2212.06817

    2023 arXiv

  15. [25]

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

    ——, “Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307. 15818

    2023

  16. [26]

    Vision-language foundation models as effective robot imitators,

    X. Li, M. Liu, H. Zhang, C. Yu, J. Xu, H. Wu, C. Cheang, Y . Jing, W. Zhang, H. Liu, H. Li, and T. Kong, “Vision-language foundation models as effective robot imitators,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01378

    2024 arXiv

  17. [27]

    Language-guided robot grasping: Clip-based referring grasp synthesis in clutter,

    G. Tziafas, Y . Xu, A. Goel, M. Kasaei, Z. Li, and H. Kasaei, “Language-guided robot grasping: Clip-based referring grasp synthesis in clutter,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.05779

    2023 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Clip-fo3d: Learning free open-world 3d scene representations from 2d dense clip,

    J. Zhang, R. Dong, and K. Ma, “Clip-fo3d: Learning free open-world 3d scene representations from 2d dense clip,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW) , 2023, pp. 2040–2051

    2023

  19. [29]

    Survey on large language model-enhanced reinforce- ment learning: Concept, taxonomy, and methods,

    Y . Cao, H. Zhao, Y . Cheng, T. Shu, Y . Chen, G. Liu, G. Liang, J. Zhao, J. Yan, and Y . Li, “Survey on large language model-enhanced reinforce- ment learning: Concept, taxonomy, and methods,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , pp. 1–21, 2024

    2024

  20. [30]

    To boost zero- shot generalization for embodied reasoning with vision-language pre- training,

    K. Su, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Zhu, and B. Zhang, “To boost zero- shot generalization for embodied reasoning with vision-language pre- training,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 33, pp. 5370– 5381, 2024

    2024

  21. [31]

    A survey of visual navigation: From geometry to embodied ai,

    T. Zhang, X. Hu, J. Xiao, and G. Zhang, “A survey of visual navigation: From geometry to embodied ai,” Engineering Applications 18 of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 114, p. 105036, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095219762200207X

    2022

  22. [32]

    Delving into multi-modal multi-task foundation models for road scene understanding: From learning paradigm perspectives,

    S. Luo, W. Chen, W. Tian, R. Liu, L. Hou, X. Zhang, H. Shen, R. Wu, S. Geng, Y . Zhou, L. Shao, Y . Yang, B. Gao, Q. Li, and G. Wu, “Delving into multi-modal multi-task foundation models for road scene understanding: From learning paradigm perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on I...

    2024

  23. [33]

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

    M. Ahn, A. Brohan, and N. Brown..., “Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.01691

    2022 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language- image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models,

    J. Li, D. Li, S. Savarese, and S. Hoi, “Blip-2: Bootstrapping language- image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.12597

    2023 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Llava-next-interleave: Tackling multi-image, video, and 3d in large multimodal models,

    F. Li, R. Zhang, H. Zhang, Y . Zhang, B. Li, W. Li, Z. Ma, and C. Li, “Llava-next-interleave: Tackling multi-image, video, and 3d in large multimodal models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07895

    2024 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Interactive planning using large language models for partially observable robotic tasks,

    L. Sun, D. K. Jha, C. Hori, S. Jain, R. Corcodel, X. Zhu, M. Tomizuka, and D. Romeres, “Interactive planning using large language models for partially observable robotic tasks,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 14 054– 14 061

    2024

  27. [37]

    Internlm-xcomposer-2.5: A versatile large vision language model supporting long-contextual input and output,

    P. Zhang, X. Dong, and Y . Zang..., “Internlm-xcomposer-2.5: A versatile large vision language model supporting long-contextual input and output,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03320

    2024 arXiv

  28. [38]

    Minicpm: Unveiling the potential of small language models with scalable training strategies,

    S. Hu, Y . Tu, and X. Han..., “Minicpm: Unveiling the potential of small language models with scalable training strategies,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06395

    2024 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Visual language maps for robot navigation,

    C. Huang, O. Mees, A. Zeng, and W. Burgard, “Visual language maps for robot navigation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 10 608–10 615

    2023

  30. [40]

    Ving: Learning open-world navigation with visual goals,

    D. Shah, B. Eysenbach, G. Kahn, N. Rhinehart, and S. Levine, “Ving: Learning open-world navigation with visual goals,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, May 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICRA48506. 2021.9561936

    2021

  31. [41]

    Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model,

    D. Driess, F. Xia, M. S. M. Sajjadi, C. Lynch, A. Chowdhery, B. Ichter, A. Wahid, J. Tompson, Q. Vuong, T. Yu, W. Huang, Y . Chebotar, P. Sermanet, D. Duckworth, S. Levine, V . Vanhoucke, K. Hausman, M. Toussaint, K. Greff, A. Zeng, I. Mordatch, and P. Florence, “Palm-e: An em...

    2023 arXiv

  32. [42]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,”

  33. [43]

    Patchwork++: Fast and robust ground segmentation solving partial under-segmentation using 3d point cloud,

    S. Lee, H. Lim, and H. Myung, “Patchwork++: Fast and robust ground segmentation solving partial under-segmentation using 3d point cloud,”

  34. [44]

    Bridgedata v2: A dataset for robot learning at scale,

    H. Walke, K. Black, A. Lee, M. J. Kim, M. Du, C. Zheng, T. Zhao, P. Hansen-Estruch, Q. Vuong, A. He, V . Myers, K. Fang, C. Finn, and S. Levine, “Bridgedata v2: A dataset for robot learning at scale,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.12952

    2024 arXiv

  35. [2021]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685

    arXiv

  36. [2022]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.11919

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.11919

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.