Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

VLM-driven Behavior Tree for Context-aware Task Planning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read VLM-generated behavior trees pass 8 of 10 real robot trials.

desk verdict A capable demo paper: VLM-authored visual conditions as BT branch predicates work on a real robot, and the authors know their limits; the evaluation is too thin to support more than feasibility. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03968 v2 pith:NYHI24R6 submitted 2025-01-07 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CVcs.HC

Naoki Wake , Atsushi Kanehira , Jun Takamatsu , Kazuhiro Sasabuchi , Katsushi Ikeuchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CVcs.HC
keywords behaviortreesvision-languagemodelstaskplanningself-promptedvisualconditionsegocentricvisionrobotmanipulationinteractiveprogrammingcontext-awarerobotics
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 show that a single off-the-shelf vision-language model (VLM) can turn a natural-language instruction into a behavior tree whose branches are decided by what the robot actually sees during execution. The key move is "self-prompted visual conditions": the VLM writes condition nodes as free-form text, and at run time the same kind of VLM interprets that text together with the robot's egocentric image to pick the next action. The authors argue this extends LLM-based behavior-tree generation from static plans to context-aware operation in visually complex environments. They support the claim with a real cafe clean-up task on a humanoid robot, reporting 10/10 valid trees, 8/10 correct liquid-based branching, and 10/10 full trash disposal, with the two failures traceable to the VLM misreading a stained empty cup as containing liquid.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the self-prompted visual condition. A condition node in the generated behavior tree stores a free-form textual description (for example, "cup contains liquid"). At execution time, the system turns that text into a question-answering prompt for the VLM, attaches the robot's current egocentric image, and uses the VLM's yes/no reply to decide which branch to take. Two node types carry this: VisualCheck, invoked right after an action, and GoalCheck, which verifies the overall goal at a specified location. This design lets the same model that wrote the plan also perceive the state, avoiding task-specific vision detectors.

What would settle it

Run the same cup-clearing scenario with cups that contain dried coffee stains but no liquid, under varied lighting and camera angles; if the VLM's branching accuracy falls materially below the reported 8/10, the core feasibility claim would be undermined because the failures would no longer be rare perception slips but systematic misjudgments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that VLM-driven behavior-tree generation with self-prompted visual conditions is a workable route to context-aware robot task planning. Concretely, the VLM (GPT-4o) receives role, environment, output, action, and example prompts; from a user instruction it outputs a JSON behavior tree containing VisualCheck and GoalCheck nodes whose arguments are free-form phrases such as "cup contains liquid." During execution, the system composes a prompt from that phrase and the robot's first-person camera image, asks the VLM for a yes/no judgment, and the next node in the tree is selected accordingly. The paper demonstrates this end-to-end on a physical robot in a cafe scenario, and shows that the same builder, given different action vocabularies, produces plausible trees for making coffee, wiping a table, and retrieving cookies. The authors treat the two observed failures not as a flaw in the planning mechanism but as a limitation of the VLM's perceptual judgment.

Load-bearing premise

The whole branching mechanism depends on the VLM reliably judging the free-form visual conditions it generated, from a single egocentric image at execution time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user who can describe a task and its branching rules in plain language can obtain an executable robot plan without writing perception or control code.
  • The generated behavior tree can be inspected, visualized, and edited through natural-language feedback before deployment, supporting safe human-in-the-loop authoring.
  • Because conditions are free-form text, the framework addresses open-vocabulary visual situations that task-specific detectors would miss, bounded by the VLM's perception quality.
  • Combining the system with dedicated object-recognition models can recover most of the reported misclassification failures without changing the planning pipeline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the same self-prompted-condition mechanism could be ported to other structured plan representations (for example, finite-state machines or PDDL) wherever the planner can emit free-form perceptual conditions.
  • Inference: evaluating each condition over multiple egocentric frames or with an explicit confidence threshold might raise branching accuracy beyond the reported 8/10, a variant the paper does not test.
  • Inference: the wording of the self-prompted condition likely influences evaluation accuracy, so a study varying condition phrasing on the same images would separate planning quality from perception accuracy.
  • Inference: if conditions become compositional, single-image yes/no judgments may need to be decomposed into sub-checks; the current framework offers no such mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework in which a Vision-Language Model (VLM, specifically GPT-4o) generates Behavior Trees (BTs) that include visual condition nodes expressed as free-form text, and then evaluates those conditions against the robot's egocentric images during execution, thereby enabling context-aware branching. The authors also present an interactive BT builder with visualization and editing capabilities. Validation consists of a real-robot cafe scenario in which a humanoid robot clears cups from a table, pouring out liquid contents into a bucket when present and discarding all cups into a trash bin. The end-to-end success rate is reported as 8/10, with two failures caused by the VLM misclassifying stained empty cups as containing liquid. Additional qualitative demonstrations show BT generation for three other cafe tasks, and the code is released.

Significance. If validated, the approach would provide a practical path for non-experts to program context-aware, visually conditional robot behaviors using off-the-shelf VLMs, without relying on task-specific perception models. The paper's strengths are its clear system design, the honest reporting of failure cases, and the release of sample code, which supports reproducibility. The main limitation is the thinness of the empirical evidence: a single 10-trial end-to-end experiment and qualitative demonstrations do not yet substantiate the broader claims of enabling 'context-aware robot operations in visually complex environments' or of general applicability across diverse scenarios.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V-B, Table III] The end-to-end evaluation consists of 10 trials in a single scenario with three conjunctive success criteria. Under a binomial model, 8/10 successes give a 95% confidence interval of approximately 44–97%, so the reported 'high success rate' is not statistically precise. There is no baseline or ablation that isolates the contribution of the VLM-driven visual conditions. The abstract's claim of enabling context-aware operations in visually complex environments and the statement in §V-B that the method 'effectively resolved the specified tasks' are broader than this evidence supports. I recommend either tempering these claims or substantially expanding the evaluation (more trials, multiple visual conditions, and a comparison against a non-VLM condition checker).
  2. [Section V-B and Section VI] The two failures both involve the VLM incorrectly judging a stained empty cup as containing liquid, which is precisely the perceptual judgment that drives the branching. The paper acknowledges in Section VI that 'the success rate of visual conditions depends on the performance of the VLM,' but it does not provide an independent, component-level analysis of VisualCheck accuracy, sensitivity to the phrasing of the self-generated condition text, or performance across different lighting/occlusion conditions. Because the same VLM both authors the condition text and evaluates it, the end-to-end result conflates generation quality with perception quality. A labeled evaluation of the VisualCheck node (e.g., accuracy on a set of images with varying condition text) would directly substantiate the central mechanism.
  3. [Section V-C, Figure 10] The claim that the proposed builder 'can adapt to diverse scenarios' is supported only by qualitative inspection of three generated BTs, with no correctness criteria, no execution results, and no expert evaluation of the trees. This evidence is weaker than the end-to-end experiment and does not demonstrate that the generated trees are executable or correct. Either the claim should be scaled back to 'illustrative examples' or the trees should be executed or at least structurally validated against a task specification.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-F] There is a typographical error in the heading: 'F . Customization' has an extra space before the period.
  2. [Reference [34]] The author name is misspelled as 'Y anaokura'; it should be 'Yanokura'.
  3. [Figure 8] The JSON format in the prompt shown in Figure 8 is missing a comma after the 'Yes/No' value in the answer field; this is a minor formatting issue in the figure, not in the actual system.
  4. [Table V] In the PourIntoBucket row, the 'NAVIGATION (optional step to move base away after pouring)' description is ambiguous; it should clarify whether this navigation is conditional or part of the standard sequence.
  5. [Section IV] The discussion of safety and transparency relies on the human-in-the-loop interface, but there is no explicit description of how the system verifies that a user's edit or the VLM's final BT is syntactically and semantically correct before execution; a brief note on validation would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the feasibility claim is established by an independent end-to-end experiment with externally defined success criteria, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an off-the-shelf VLM can generate behavior trees containing free-form visual conditions and evaluate those conditions against egocentric images at runtime. The success criteria in Section V-B (all cups removed, correct branching, and all cups in the trash bin) are defined independently of the system's outputs, and the 10 end-to-end trials provide an external, falsifiable benchmark. The fact that the same VLM both generates and evaluates the visual conditions is an architectural choice and a reliability limitation, not a derivation that assumes its conclusion; indeed, the 2/10 failures in which GPT-4o misread a stained empty cup as containing liquid provide independent evidence that the evaluation is not forced by construction. The only self-citations are to prior work [30] for the pre-prompt structure and [27] for environment recognition, and those are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as proof that the present framework works. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation or construction reduces the reported result to its input. Therefore no specific circular step can be quoted, and the correct finding is no significant circularity.

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

No numeric constants are fit to data in this paper. The central design choices are the hand-authored prompt templates (Section III), the fixed set of action nodes (Tables I and IV), and the mapping of nodes to low-level robot actions (Table V). These are engineering decisions, not fitted parameters, but they constrain the system's generality.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o can reliably answer free-form visual condition text about egocentric images.
    The runtime branch decisions in every generated BT depend on this perceptual judgment; the 8/10 success rate and the two stained-cup failures in Section V-B show this assumption is only partially met.
  • domain assumption The predefined action vocabulary and its mapping to low-level robot motions are sufficient for the tested tasks.
    The planner cannot create new skills; if a task requires an action outside Tables I and IV, the generated BT cannot execute, regardless of VLM planning quality. This limitation is acknowledged in Section VI.
  • domain assumption The environment information (semantic map, object metadata, asset-object relations) accurately represents the real scene at planning time.
    The VLM plans from this text representation rather than from raw perception, so stale or incorrect scene data would produce incorrect plans. The paper states that collecting this data is outside its scope (Section III-B).
  • domain assumption The behavior tree semantics defined in the output prompt are correctly implemented by the BT executor and the interface.
    The validity of the generated BT as a plan relies on the runtime engine following the sequence, selector, and retry semantics described in Section III-C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VLM-driven Behavior Tree for Context-aware Task Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NYHI24R6

@misc{pith2026250103968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VLM-driven Behavior Tree for Context-aware Task Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NYHI24R6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03968}
}
read the original abstract

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for generating Behavior Trees (BTs) has recently gained attention in the robotics community, yet remains in its early stages of development. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that leverages Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to interactively generate and edit BTs that address visual conditions, enabling context-aware robot operations in visually complex environments. A key feature of our approach lies in the conditional control through self-prompted visual conditions. Specifically, the VLM generates BTs with visual condition nodes, where conditions are expressed as free-form text. Another VLM process integrates the text into its prompt and evaluates the conditions against real-world images during robot execution. We validated our framework in a real-world cafe scenario, demonstrating both its feasibility and limitations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We propose a user-friendly robot system that enables domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows an example. You are an excellent interpreter of human instructions for operating a robot. Given instructions, information about the working environment, and details of the actions the robot can perform, you will break them down into a sequence of robot actions represented as a Behavior Tree [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of an environment prompt. templates or visually-conditioned final goals is not necessar￾ily applicable in general. The key role of the output prompt lies in clarifying the use of the BT method and specifying the information the VLM should include in its output. D. Action prompt This prompt describes a list of robot actions defined at the granularity of BT nodes and their corresponding arguments [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example of an action prompt. TABLE I DEFINED ACTION AND CONDITION NODES FOR THE PROPOSED BT GENERATOR Node Name Description PickUp Navigate the robot to @location, look at @object, and grasp it from @asset. PourIntoBucket Navigate the robot to @location, then tilt @…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Our developed interactive BT builder. Left panel: A chat window [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Interactive editing of BT. The red dashed lines represent the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual check using VLMs through self-prompting. During the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Generated BT and the end-to-end performance of the real robot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Generation of diverse BTs given a set of action nodes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example of environment information including semantic map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Generative Partially Specified Finite State Machine Approach to Complex Behaviour Planning

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Generative FSM planning (GPSFSM/Fabric) lets LLMs write XML state-machine behaviour plans for ROS2 robots and outperforms BTGenBot on GPT models, but not on local models.

  2. Automatic Robot Task Planning by Integrating Large Language Model with Genetic Programming

    cs.RO 2025-02 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    An LLM generates robot behavior trees that are filtered by fitness and then evolved by genetic programming, reaching good task plans in fewer generations than starting from random trees.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A survey of behavior trees in robotics and ai.Robotics and Autonomous Systems , 154:104096, 2022

    Matteo Iovino, Edvards Scukins, Jonathan Styrud, Petter Ögren, and Christian Smith. A survey of behavior trees in robotics and ai.Robotics and Autonomous Systems , 154:104096, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    On the implementation of behavior trees in robotics

    Michele Colledanchise and Lorenzo Natale. On the implementation of behavior trees in robotics. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 6(3):5929–5936, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Behavior trees in robot control systems

    Petter Ögren and Christopher I Sprague. Behavior trees in robot control systems. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 5(1):81–107, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Combining planning and learning of behavior trees for robotic assembly

    Jonathan Styrud, Matteo Iovino, Mikael Norrlöf, Mårten Björkman, and Christian Smith. Combining planning and learning of behavior trees for robotic assembly. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 11511–11517. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Learning of behavior trees for autonomous agents

    Michele Colledanchise, Ramviyas Parasuraman, and Petter Ögren. Learning of behavior trees for autonomous agents. IEEE Transactions on Games, 11(2):183–189, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Mosaic: A modular system for assistive and interactive cooking

    Huaxiaoyue Wang, Kushal Kedia, Juntao Ren, Rahma Abdullah, Atiksh Bhardwaj, Angela Chao, Kelly Y Chen, Nathaniel Chin, Prithwish Dan, Xinyi Fan, et al. Mosaic: A modular system for assistive and interactive cooking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18796 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

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

    Haotian Zhou, Yunhan Lin, Longwu Yan, Jihong Zhu, and Huasong Min. Llm-bt: Performing robotic adaptive tasks based on large language models and behavior trees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05134, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Boosting robot behavior generation with large language models and genetic programming

    Aaron Verdaguer Gonzalez, Luis Merino Cabañas, Magí Dalmau- Moreno, and Nestor Garcia. Boosting robot behavior generation with large language models and genetic programming. In 2nd Workshop on Mobile Manipulation and Embodied Intelligence at ICRA 2024 , 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Integrating intent understanding and optimal behavior planning for behavior tree generation from human instructions

    Xinglin Chen, Yishuai Cai, Yunxin Mao, Minglong Li, Wenjing Yang, Weixia Xu, and Ji Wang. Integrating intent understanding and optimal behavior planning for behavior tree generation from human instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07474 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Efficient behavior tree planning with commonsense pruning and heuristic

    Xinglin Chen, Yishuai Cai, Yunxin Mao, Minglong Li, Zhou Yang, Wen Shanghua, Wenjing Yang, Weixia Xu, and Ji Wang. Efficient behavior tree planning with commonsense pruning and heuristic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00965, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Btgenbot: Behavior tree generation for robotic tasks with lightweight llms

    Riccardo Andrea Izzo, Gianluca Bardaro, and Matteo Matteucci. Btgenbot: Behavior tree generation for robotic tasks with lightweight llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12761 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A study on training and developing large language models for behavior tree generation

    Fu Li, Xueying Wang, Bin Li, Yunlong Wu, Yanzhen Wang, and Xiaodong Yi. A study on training and developing large language models for behavior tree generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08089, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Llm-brain: Ai-driven fast generation of robot behaviour tree based on large language model

    Artem Lykov and Dzmitry Tsetserukou. Llm-brain: Ai-driven fast generation of robot behaviour tree based on large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19352 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Llm as bt-planner: Leveraging llms for behavior tree generation in robot task planning

    Jicong Ao, Fan Wu, Yansong Wu, Abdalla Swikir, and Sami Haddadin. Llm as bt-planner: Leveraging llms for behavior tree generation in robot task planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10444 , 2024. Make coffee and place it on the table. Take the cookies out of the oven and place t...

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Robot behavior-tree-based task generation with large language models

    Yue Cao and CS Lee. Robot behavior-tree-based task generation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12927 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Llm-mars: Large language model for behavior tree generation and nlp-enhanced dialogue in multi-agent robot systems

    Artem Lykov, Maria Dronova, Nikolay Naglov, Mikhail Litvi- nov, Sergei Satsevich, Artem Bazhenov, Vladimir Berman, Aleksei Shcherbak, and Dzmitry Tsetserukou. Llm-mars: Large language model for behavior tree generation and nlp-enhanced dialogue in multi-agent robot systems. ar...

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Robot behavior tree manipulation using language models

    Zhuo Yang and Zhizhou Jia. Robot behavior tree manipulation using language models. In 2023 IEEE 11th Joint International Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence Conference (ITAIC), volume 11, pages 1342–1345. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Automatic behavior tree expansion with llms for robotic manipulation

    Jonathan Styrud, Matteo Iovino, Mikael Norrlöf, Mårten Björkman, and Christian Smith. Automatic behavior tree expansion with llms for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13356 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ros-llm: A ros framework for embodied ai with task feedback and structured reasoning

    Christopher E Mower, Yuhui Wan, Hongzhan Yu, Antoine Grosnit, Jonas Gonzalez-Billandon, Matthieu Zimmer, Jinlong Wang, Xinyu Zhang, Yao Zhao, Anbang Zhai, et al. Ros-llm: A ros framework for embodied ai with task feedback and structured reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19741, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Addressing failures in robotics using vision-based language models (vlms) and behavior trees (bt)

    Faseeh Ahmad, Jonathan Styrud, and V olker Krueger. Addressing failures in robotics using vision-based language models (vlms) and behavior trees (bt). arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01568 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Behavior trees in robotics and AI: An introduction

    Michele Colledanchise and Petter Ögren. Behavior trees in robotics and AI: An introduction . CRC Press, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    The marathon 2: A navigation system

    Steve Macenski, Francisco Martín, Ruffin White, and Jonatan Ginés Clavero. The marathon 2: A navigation system. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 2718–2725. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Kovalev and Aleksandr I

    Alexey K. Kovalev and Aleksandr I. Panov. Application of pretrained large language models in embodied artificial intelligence. Doklady Mathematics, 106:S85 – S90, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Explainable and interpretable multimodal large language models: A comprehensive survey

    Yunkai Dang, Kaichen Huang, Jiahao Huo, Yibo Yan, Sirui Huang, Dongrui Liu, Mengxi Gao, Jie Zhang, Chen Qian, Kun Wang, et al. Explainable and interpretable multimodal large language models: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02104 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy

    Octo Model Team, Dibya Ghosh, Homer Walke, Karl Pertsch, Kevin Black, Oier Mees, Sudeep Dasari, Joey Hejna, Tobias Kreiman, Charles Xu, et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gpt-4v (ision) for robotics: Multimodal task planning from human demonstration

    Naoki Wake, Atsushi Kanehira, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Jun Takamatsu, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Gpt-4v (ision) for robotics: Multimodal task planning from human demonstration. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Open-vocabulary action localization with iterative visual prompting

    Naoki Wake, Atsushi Kanehira, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Jun Takamatsu, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Open-vocabulary action localization with iterative visual prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.17422 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Pivot: Iterative visual prompting elicits actionable knowledge for vlms

    Soroush Nasiriany, Fei Xia, Wenhao Yu, Ted Xiao, Jacky Liang, Ishita Dasgupta, Annie Xie, Danny Driess, Ayzaan Wahid, Zhuo Xu, et al. Pivot: Iterative visual prompting elicits actionable knowledge for vlms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07872 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chatgpt empowered long-step robot control in various environments: A case application

    Naoki Wake, Atsushi Kanehira, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Jun Takamatsu, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Chatgpt empowered long-step robot control in various environments: A case application. IEEE Access , 11:95060– 95078, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Verbal focus-of-attention system for learning-from- demonstration

    Naoki Wake, Iori Yanokura, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Verbal focus-of-attention system for learning-from- demonstration. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 10377–10384. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Grasp-type recognition leveraging object affordance

    Naoki Wake, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Grasp-type recognition leveraging object affordance. HOBI–RO-MAN Workshop, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Task-grasping from a demonstrated human strategy

    Daichi Saito, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Naoki Wake, Jun Takamatsu, Hideki Koike, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. Task-grasping from a demonstrated human strategy. In 2022 IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids) , pages 880–887. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    semantic_map_locations

    Iori Yanaokura, Naoki Wake, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Riku Arakawa, Kei Okada, Jun Takamatsu, Masayuki Inaba, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. A multimodal learning-from-observation towards all-at-once robot teaching using task cohesion. In 2022 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Inte...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.