Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

AgenticLab shows that a closed-loop robot manipulation pipeline is only as strong as its weakest module, and in practice that module is usually the VLM-based action checker.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 05:34 UTC pith:QZBPG5DZ

load-bearing objection Useful real-robot VLM benchmark and pipeline that deserves review, but the paper's central claim about verification being the bottleneck is undercut by its own module table. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.01662 v4 pith:QZBPG5DZ submitted 2026-02-02 cs.RO

PLanAR: Planning-Language-Grounded Agentic Reasoning for Robot Manipulation

Pengyuan Guo , Zhonghao Mai , Zhengtong Xu , Kaidi Zhang , Quan Khanh Luu , Heng Zhang , Zichen Miao , Arash Ajoudani
show 3 more authors
Zachary Kingston Qiang Qiu Yu She
This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords robot manipulationvision-language modelsclosed-loop reasoningPDDL planningaction verificationembodied AI benchmarkreplanningreal-world robotics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper introduces AgenticLab, a model-agnostic robot agent platform that interleaves perception, planning, execution, and visual verification in a closed loop, and uses it to benchmark vision-language models on real, unstructured manipulation tasks. The core claim is that end-to-end robustness is bounded by the weakest repeatedly invoked module, and in this system that module is action checking: verifying whether a planned action's preconditions and effects actually hold. The paper shows that verification errors compound across a long task, so a checker that is correct 90% of the time on isolated queries yields only about 53% end-to-end success over six checks, and 50% accuracy collapses to near zero. It also finds that offline VQA and simulation benchmarks miss these failure modes because they lack execution and outcome verification. A sympathetic reader would take away that closing the loop with reliable verification matters more than richer open-loop reasoning.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a closed-loop pipeline governed by a PDDL symbolic plan, with a VLM judging preconditions and effects after each action, can complete multi-step real-world manipulation tasks across lab, kitchen, and outdoor settings, and that the decisive determinant of success is the quality of the action checker. The central empirical assertion, stated in Section VI-F, is that the end-to-end robustness of robotic agents like AgenticLab is bounded by the weakest module, and action checking is often that limiting factor. The paper documents action-verification hallucination—models claiming a pick succeeded when it did not, or vice versa—and quantifies how small p

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the planning-language interface: a hand-authored PDDL domain file defines action parameters, preconditions, and effects; the task parser converts a natural-language instruction into a PDDL problem grounded in visual observations; a classical planner produces a symbolic action sequence; and the action checker uses the same PDDL predicates to visually verify, before and after each action, whether the expected conditions hold. This symbolic scaffold turns the VLM's open-ended reasoning into verifiable discrete checks, and failure triggers retry or replanning. The other key component is the grasp planner, which uses a VLM to reject collision-prone or mis-targeted gr

Load-bearing premise

The whole approach assumes that the hand-written PDDL domain and the fixed set of action primitives (pick, place, open/close drawer) cover every state and action a task can require; if a task needs a predicate or skill not in the domain, the planner cannot represent it and the checker cannot verify it, breaking the open-vocabulary promise.

What would settle it

Run the full AgenticLab pipeline on the sorting task with the action checker replaced by a simulated oracle that always returns the true state (e.g., via motion-capture ground truth), and compare against the best VLM checker. If end-to-end success does not rise substantially, the claim that action checking is the limiting bottleneck would be falsified; conversely, if oracle checking drives success near 100%, the bottleneck claim is confirmed. A cheaper test: measure end-to-end success when per-check accuracy is artificially varied and check it tracks the predicted compounding curve.

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

If this is right

  • If a deployment's action checker is even slightly unreliable, end-to-end success collapses over long horizons, so verification quality should be the first target of optimization.
  • Offline VQA-style and simulation benchmarks can overestimate embodied capability; real-robot closed-loop rollouts expose grounding and verification failures those tests miss.
  • Dense per-step verification is necessary for sequentially dependent tasks like stacking, while sparse verification may suffice for weakly coupled tasks.
  • Compositional pipelines that assign each module to a specialist model can improve robustness without retraining, when the bottleneck is identifiable.
  • Fine-tuned vision-language-action models underperform this modular closed-loop pipeline on tasks requiring instruction grounding and verification.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The emphasis on action-checker hallucination suggests a concrete research target: train small, specialized verifier models that predict PDDL predicates from images, which could replace slow VLM checks and reduce latency while keeping the closed loop.
  • The same benchmarking protocol could be extended to more expressive action primitives and dynamically learned PDDL domains, which would test whether the bottleneck shifts away from checking when the symbolic coverage is richer.
  • The compounding-error argument implies that the relevant metric for robot agents is not per-call accuracy but the reliability of the full verification chain; reporting calibrated confidence on negative checks might help agents know when to ask for human help.
  • If the action checker were made perfect, the paper's own ablations suggest grasp planning would become the next limiting factor in cluttered scenes, so the 'weakest module' finding is a moving bottleneck claim, not a fixed verdict.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes AgenticLab, a model-agnostic closed-loop robot manipulation platform that couples VLM-based perception, PDDL task parsing, classical planning, grasp evaluation, and stepwise action verification, with replanning on failure. The authors benchmark eight VLM backends on a real-robot sorting task (Table I), provide a module-level benchmark of task parsing, action checking, object detection, grasp evaluation, and goal checking (Table II), compare a compositional multi-VLM pipeline against a single-VLM baseline across five tasks and three settings, ablate the action checker and grasp planner, and compare against a fine-tuned pi0.5 VLA. The central takeaway, stated in Section VI-F, is that end-to-end robustness is bounded by the weakest module and that action checking is often the limiting factor, with VLM hallucination during verification as a key failure mode.

Significance. If the empirical claims are supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: a reproducible, modular real-robot platform for evaluating VLMs under closed-loop execution, with evidence that offline VQA and simulation miss failure modes such as verification hallucination and grounding drift. The module-level benchmark and the VLA comparison are valuable because they separate model capability from system engineering. The manuscript also ships no fitted parameters or circular derivations; the empirical claims are based on external VLM APIs, a classical planner, and physical rollouts. However, the central attribution claim about action checking is currently not established by the paper's own data, and several experimental comparisons lack the statistical detail needed to support the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§VI-F, §VI-A, Table II] The claim that 'action checking is often the limiting factor' is not supported by Table II. For Gemini Flash, AC=100% while grasp planning is 74.1%; for Gemini Pro, AC=98.4% while detector point success is 66.7%; for GPT-4o, AC=68.9% while detector success is 14.3%; for Qwen-VL-Max, AC=64.8% while task parser success is 17.3%; for Claude-4.5-Opus, AC=64.8% while detector success is 9.6%. The compounding calculation in §VI-A (0.9^6 ≈ 0.53) assumes six independent Bernoulli action-checker calls and no retries or replanning, but the pipeline explicitly retries and replans after failed checks. The paper needs per-model failure attribution data (e.g., numeric fractions from Figure 5) or a corrected analysis before the takeaway can be accepted.
  2. [Table I, Table II, Appendix B] Statistical support is too weak for the benchmark comparisons. Table I reports 20 trials per model with binary success but no confidence intervals or significance tests; a 75% vs. 70% difference is not interpretable. Module benchmark sizes are small—61 action-checker instances, 50 grasp instances, 21 detector instances, 16 goal-checker instances—with each model evaluated over three runs. Reported differences such as detector success 14.3% vs. 9.6% are within sampling variability. Please provide raw counts, confidence intervals, or significance tests, and clarify how the 20 sorting trials are distributed across the six object setups.
  3. [§VI-C, §VI-D, Fig. 6] The compositional-pipeline experiment is confounded with the verification configuration. §VI-C states that 'We disable action-level verification and retain only task-level completion checks,' yet the single-VLM Gemini Flash baseline in Table I uses the full action checker. Since §VI-D shows that disabling the action checker can reduce stacking success to zero and that dense verification is critical for dependent tasks, it is essential to state which verification mode each arm in Fig. 6 uses, or to hold verification constant across the compared pipelines. As written, the comparison cannot isolate the benefit of model composition.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The metadata title 'PLanAR: Planning-Language-Grounded Agentic Reasoning...' does not match the title in the full text, 'AgenticLab: A Real-World Robot Agent Platform that Can See, Think, and Act.' Please align the title and terminology throughout.
  2. [§IV-B.1, §VII.1] The phrase 'open-vocabulary' in the abstract is too strong. Section VII.1 acknowledges that the PDDL domain is hand-authored and that predicates and action schemas are fixed, so the VLM cannot introduce new predicates or skills. Please qualify the claim, e.g., 'open-vocabulary object and instruction grounding within a predefined symbolic action space.'
  3. [Fig. 5] Figure 5 is the only direct failure-attribution evidence, but the per-component percentages are not reported numerically. Provide a table with the counts and percentages behind this figure.
  4. [§VI-E, Fig. 8(b)] The VLA comparison would benefit from reporting the number of trials and confidence intervals for the fine-tuned pi0.5 results, and from stating whether the VLA uses privileged state or only onboard cameras.
  5. [Appendix B-A] The task progress score formula Score = (N_done − N_extra)/N − 0.1p should include a clarification of how failures that occur before any action are scored, and whether N is always positive.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: AgenticLab's claims are empirical evaluations against external benchmarks, not derivations from fitted or self-referential inputs.

full rationale

The paper contributes an open hardware/software platform and a real-robot benchmark. Its central empirical assertion, that closed-loop verification is often the limiting factor, is supported by module-level success rates (Table II), end-to-end rollouts (Table I), failure attribution (Fig. 5), and ablations (Figs. 7-8), all measured on physical robots with external VLM APIs, AnyGrasp, and the Fast Downward planner. No parameter is fitted to the target results and then renamed as a prediction. The 0.9^6 example in Section VI-A is an explicit illustrative compounding calculation, not a fitted model, and it does not constitute a result forced by construction. The task-progress rubric in Appendix B-A is a transparent evaluation metric with human or labeled ground truth, not an input that by definition determines the comparative conclusions. The acknowledged limitations (hand-authored PDDL domains and fixed primitives, Section VII) constrain open-vocabulary scope but are stated assumptions, not circular moves. The skeptic objection that Table II does not uniformly identify action checking as the weakest module is a challenge to the strength and interpretation of the empirical attribution, not a circularity in the derivation. Because the results are externally falsifiable and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs or to an author self-citation chain, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on three domain assumptions: the hand-authored PDDL domain covers all states/actions, VLM verification from cameras is trustworthy enough to drive replanning, and the RGB-D perception/grasping stack provides sufficient geometric grounding. No free parameters are fitted to make the results come out; the only hand-chosen numeric is the 0.1 penalty in the task-progress rubric.

free parameters (1)
  • Task-progress-score penalty coefficient = 0.1
    In Appendix B-A, Score = (Ndone - Nextra)/N - 0.1p. The 0.1 weighting is hand-chosen and affects reported progress scores and ablation comparisons; small sample sizes mean this metric is not independently calibrated.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Hand-authored PDDL domain files are sufficient to express all task-relevant states and goals.
    Task Parser (Sec IV-B.1) uses a predefined PDDL domain; if a predicate/action is missing, the planner and checker cannot represent it. The paper lists this as a limitation in Sec VII.1.
  • domain assumption VLM judgments from onboard cameras are reliable enough to verify PDDL predicates and drive replanning.
    Action Checker and Goal Checker (Sec IV-B.2, Algorithm 1 lines 4, 17, 21) trust VLM success/failure outputs; the paper itself shows hallucination failures in Qwen-VL-Max and GPT-5.2 (Sec VI-A).
  • domain assumption The two-camera RGB-D setup plus AnyGrasp provides sufficient geometric grounding for pick/place primitives.
    See and Grasp modules (Sec IV-A, IV-B.3) assume 6-DoF grasp poses from shoulder and wrist views; cluttered scenes degrade this, and grasp planning is shown to be critical in the ablation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23091 in / 12496 out tokens · 122677 ms · 2026-08-03T05:34:03.854408+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advances in vision-language models (VLMs) have enabled increasing progress in real-world robot manipulation. However, long-horizon manipulation in unstructured environments requires VLMs to reason about changing scene states, action constraints, and execution outcomes, which remains difficult with natural language reasoning alone. We present PLanAR, a planning-language-grounded robot agent framework for open-vocabulary, long-horizon manipulation. PLanAR uses a planning-language interface to define the VLM reasoning space: object predicates represent scene states, action schemas specify robot skills with preconditions and effects, and symbolic plans provide executable intermediate representations. This interface enables stepwise verification: after each action, PLanAR uses onboard observations to check whether the expected symbolic effects have been achieved, allowing the VLM-based agent to update task states, detect failures, and replan when execution deviates from expectation. Across robot embodiments, VLM backends, and tasks including stacking, crossword solving, and long-horizon kitchen workflows, PLanAR demonstrates strong real-world capability while revealing key limitations of current VLMs in embodied reasoning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.01662 by Arash Ajoudani, Heng Zhang, Kaidi Zhang, Pengyuan Guo, Qiang Qiu, Quan Khanh Luu, Yu She, Zachary Kingston, Zhengtong Xu, Zhonghao Mai, Zichen Miao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: AgenticLab is a model-agnostic real-world robot agent platform that uses onboard cameras and open-vocabulary language [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The AgenticLab Manipulation Platform: a fully re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pipeline of AgenticLab. AgenticLab executes a closed-loop agentic reasoning pipeline for manipulation that integrates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Manipulation tasks used for real-world evaluation and benchmark. These tasks are selected to cover a range of challenges, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Failure mode breakdown for single-VLM pipelines on the sorting task. Results show which pipeline components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance comparison across environments. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Action checker ablation across disturbance scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Ablation study on the grasp planner. We compare performance and execution time with grasp evaluation enabled and disabled. Enabling grasp evaluation improves performance in cluttered scenes, at the cost of increased execution time. (b) Performance comparison between a fine-tuned VLA and AgenticLab. We compare a π0.5 VLA fine-tuned with 40 demonstrations for sorting and 30 demonstrations for stacking ag… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The defined PDDL domain of stacking task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Action sequence obtained by solving the updated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The PDDL Problem File Generated by Gemini 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Precondition/effect checks for pick actions across objects. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Precondition check for picking can (success, GPT-5.2). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Effect check for picking can (fail, GPT-5.2). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Effect check for picking can (fail, Qwen-VL-Plus). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Effect check for picking oreo pack (fail, GPT-5.2). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Evaluation of proposed grasp poses. Ground-truth labels are provided below each example. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Gemini 3 Flash output for example a in Fig. 17, planning the pick lemon-1 action. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Gemini 3 Flash output for example b in Fig. 17, planning the pick lemon-1 action. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Gemini 3 Flash output for example c in Fig. 17, planning the pick block-a-1 action. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: GPT-5.2 output for example d in Fig. 17, planning the pick block-a-1 action. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Gemini 3 Pro output for example e in Fig. 17, planning the pick blue-snack-pack-1 action. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Modular benchmark radar chart. Normalized per-module performance across the pipeline (higher is better). Each axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Latency comparison across VLMs. Average runtime per module benchmark query. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Token usage comparison across VLMs. Average token consumption per module benchmark query. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Human evaluation UI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_26.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Closing the Loop in Humanoid VLA: Persistent 3D Object Tokens for Verifiable Loco-Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Persistent role-indexed 3D object tokens that condition both action generation and geometric verification improved a GR00T-N1.7 humanoid's loco-manipulation success from 39/80 to 71/80 across eight real-world task families.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 23 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision- language models.Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 37:135062–135093, 2024

    An-Chieh Cheng, Hongxu Yin, Yang Fu, Qiushan Guo, Ruihan Yang, Jan Kautz, Xiaolong Wang, and Sifei Liu. Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision- language models.Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 37:135062–135093, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Mobility vla: Multimodal instruction navigation with long-context vlms and topo- logical graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07775, 2024

    Hao-Tien Lewis Chiang, Zhuo Xu, Zipeng Fu, Mithun George Jacob, Tingnan Zhang, Tsang-Wei Ed- ward Lee, Wenhao Yu, Connor Schenck, David Rendle- man, Dhruv Shah, et al. Mobility vla: Multimodal instruction navigation with long-context vlms and topo- logical graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07775, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Lota-bench: Benchmarking language-oriented task planners for embodied agents

    Jae-Woo Choi, Youngwoo Yoon, Hyobin Ong, Jaehong Kim, and Minsu Jang. Lota-bench: Benchmarking language-oriented task planners for embodied agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08178, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Gem- ini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261, 2025

    Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, et al. Gem- ini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Manipulate-anything: Automating real-world robots using vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18915, 2024

    Jiafei Duan, Wentao Yuan, Wilbert Pumacay, Yi Ru Wang, Kiana Ehsani, Dieter Fox, and Ranjay Kr- ishna. Manipulate-anything: Automating real-world robots using vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18915, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Robust grasping across diverse sensor qualities: The graspnet-1billion dataset.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2023

    Hao-Shu Fang, Minghao Gou, Chenxi Wang, and Cewu Lu. Robust grasping across diverse sensor qualities: The graspnet-1billion dataset.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Saga: Open-world mobile manipulation via structured affordance ground- ing.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2512, 2025

    Kuan Fang, Yuxin Chen, Xinghao Zhu, Farzad Niroui, Lingfeng Sun, and Jiuguang Wang. Saga: Open-world mobile manipulation via structured affordance ground- ing.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2512, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Libero-plus: In-depth robustness analysis of vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13626, 2025

    Senyu Fei, Siyin Wang, Junhao Shi, Zihao Dai, Jikun Cai, Pengfang Qian, Li Ji, Xinzhe He, Shiduo Zhang, Zhaoye Fei, et al. Libero-plus: In-depth robustness analysis of vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13626, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    The fast downward planning system

    Malte Helmert. The fast downward planning system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 26:191–246, 2006

    2006

  11. [11]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973, 2023

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Rekep: Spatio-temporal reasoning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Yunzhu Li, Ruohan Zhang, and Li Fei-Fei. Rekep: Spatio-temporal reasoning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01652, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    pi0.5: a vision-language-action model with open-world generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16054, 2025

    Physical Intelligence, Kevin Black, Noah Brown, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Danny Driess, Adnan Es- mail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, et al. pi0.5: a vision-language-action model with open-world generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16054, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Goat-bench: A benchmark for multi-modal lifelong navigation

    Mukul Khanna, Ram Ramrakhya, Gunjan Chhablani, Sriram Yenamandra, Theophile Gervet, Matthew Chang, Zsolt Kira, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Dhruv Batra, and Roozbeh Mottaghi. Goat-bench: A benchmark for multi-modal lifelong navigation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16373–16383, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Segment anything

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment anything. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

    Embodied agent inter- face: Benchmarking llms for embodied decision making

    Manling Li, Shiyu Zhao, Qineng Wang, Kangrui Wang, Yu Zhou, Sanjana Srivastava, Cem Gokmen, Tony Lee, Erran Li Li, Ruohan Zhang, et al. Embodied agent inter- face: Benchmarking llms for embodied decision making. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 100428–100534, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Llm+p: Em- powering large language models with optimal planning proficiency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11477, 2023

    Bo Liu, Yuqian Jiang, Xiaohan Zhang, Qiang Liu, Shiqi Zhang, Joydeep Biswas, and Peter Stone. Llm+p: Em- powering large language models with optimal planning proficiency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11477, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Moka: Open-world robotic manipulation through mark-based visual prompting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03174, 2024

    Fangchen Liu, Kuan Fang, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Moka: Open-world robotic manipulation through mark-based visual prompting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03174, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Ok- robot: What really matters in integrating open-knowledge models for robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12202, 2024

    Peiqi Liu, Yaswanth Orru, Jay Vakil, Chris Paxton, Nur Muhammad Mahi Shafiullah, and Lerrel Pinto. Ok- robot: What really matters in integrating open-knowledge models for robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12202, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Agentbench: Evaluating llms as agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03688, 2023

    Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, et al. Agentbench: Evaluating llms as agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03688, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Visualagentbench: Towards large multimodal models as visual foundation agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06327, 2024

    Xiao Liu, Tianjie Zhang, Yu Gu, Iat Long Iong, Yifan Xu, Xixuan Song, Shudan Zhang, Hanyu Lai, Xinyi Liu, Hanlin Zhao, et al. Visualagentbench: Towards large multimodal models as visual foundation agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06327, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Openeqa: Embodied question answering in the era of foundation models

    Arjun Majumdar, Anurag Ajay, Xiaohan Zhang, Pranav Putta, Sriram Yenamandra, Mikael Henaff, Sneha Silwal, Paul Mcvay, Oleksandr Maksymets, Sergio Arnaud, et al. Openeqa: Embodied question answering in the era of foundation models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16488–16498, 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

    Language segment-anything

    Luca Medeiros. Language segment-anything. https:// github.com/luca-medeiros/lang-segment-anything, 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    A real-to-sim-to-real approach to robotic manipulation with vlm-generated iterative keypoint re- wards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08643, 2025

    Shivansh Patel, Xinchen Yin, Wenlong Huang, Shubham Garg, Hooshang Nayyeri, Li Fei-Fei, Svetlana Lazebnik, and Yunzhu Li. A real-to-sim-to-real approach to robotic manipulation with vlm-generated iterative keypoint re- wards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08643, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Robospatial: Teaching spatial understanding to 2d and 3d vision- language models for robotics.CoRR, 2024

    Chan Hee Song, Valts Blukis, Jonathan Tremblay, Stephen Tyree, Yu Su, and Stan Birchfield. Robospatial: Teaching spatial understanding to 2d and 3d vision- language models for robotics.CoRR, 2024

    2024

  28. [28]

    Gemini robotics: Bringing ai into the physical world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20020, 2025

    Gemini Robotics Team, Saminda Abeyruwan, Joshua Ainslie, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Montserrat Gonzalez Arenas, Travis Armstrong, Ashwin Balakrishna, Robert Baruch, Maria Bauza, Michiel Blokzijl, et al. Gemini robotics: Bringing ai into the physical world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20020, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Towards open- world grasping with large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18722, 2024

    Georgios Tziafas and Hamidreza Kasaei. Towards open- world grasping with large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18722, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Tidybot: Per- sonalized robot assistance with large language models

    Jimmy Wu, Rika Antonova, Adam Kan, Marion Lep- ert, Andy Zeng, Shuran Song, Jeannette Bohg, Szymon Rusinkiewicz, and Thomas Funkhouser. Tidybot: Per- sonalized robot assistance with large language models. Autonomous Robots, 47(8):1087–1102, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    Qwen3 technical report

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chen- gen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Embodiedbench: Comprehensive benchmarking multi- modal large language models for vision-driven embodied agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09560, 2025

    Rui Yang, Hanyang Chen, Junyu Zhang, Mark Zhao, Cheng Qian, Kangrui Wang, Qineng Wang, Teja Venkat Koripella, Marziyeh Movahedi, Manling Li, et al. Embodiedbench: Comprehensive benchmarking multi- modal large language models for vision-driven embodied agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09560, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Pretraining a unified pddl domain from real-world demonstrations for generalizable robot task planning

    Haoming Ye, Yunxiao Xiao, Cewu Lu, and Panpan Cai. Pretraining a unified pddl domain from real-world demonstrations for generalizable robot task planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21545, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Dkprompt: Domain knowl- edge prompting vision-language models for open-world planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17659, 2024

    Xiaohan Zhang, Zainab Altaweel, Yohei Hayamizu, Yan Ding, Saeid Amiri, Hao Yang, Andy Kaminski, Chad Esselink, and Shiqi Zhang. Dkprompt: Domain knowl- edge prompting vision-language models for open-world planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17659, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Llm-grop: Visually grounded robot task and motion planning with large language models.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2025

    Xiaohan Zhang, Yan Ding, Yohei Hayamizu, Zainab Altaweel, Yifeng Zhu, Yuke Zhu, Peter Stone, Chris Paxton, and Shiqi Zhang. Llm-grop: Visually grounded robot task and motion planning with large language models.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2025

    2025

  36. [36]

    stack the cubes

    Xueyang Zhou, Yangming Xu, Guiyao Tie, Yongchao Chen, Guowen Zhang, Duanfeng Chu, Pan Zhou, and Lichao Sun. Libero-pro: Towards robust and fair eval- uation of vision-language-action models beyond memo- rization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03827, 2025. APPENDIXA IMPLEMENTATIONDETAILS A. Implementation Overview We describe the AgenticLab pipeline in Algorith...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    We collect action-checker evaluation data from real rollouts of the AgenticLab pipeline, resulting in 61 verification instances across 7 different scenes and 5 tasks

    Action Checker. We collect action-checker evaluation data from real rollouts of the AgenticLab pipeline, resulting in 61 verification instances across 7 different scenes and 5 tasks. For each model, we run three trials and report the average success rate, latency, and token usage

  38. [38]

    We curate 50 grasp-planning instances covering diverse objects

    Grasp Planner. We curate 50 grasp-planning instances covering diverse objects. Executability is labeled from real- The input request contains: •A PDDL action to be executed (e.g.,(pick apple-1)). •The preconditions for the action in PDDL format (e.g.,(and (hand-empty) (clear apple-1))). •An image of the current scene captured from a shoulder camera showin...

  39. [39]

    We collect 21 real-world camera inputs and annotate object regions using SAM masks [17] and corresponding bounding boxes

    Object Detector. We collect 21 real-world camera inputs and annotate object regions using SAM masks [17] and corresponding bounding boxes. We compute (i) point-in-mask success rate, based on whether the VLM-predicted point lies Action Seqence Solved by PDDL Planner (pick green-cube-1 orange-cube-1); (place-on-object green-cube-1 yellow-cube-1); (pick oran...

  40. [40]

    success":true,

    Goal Checker. For task-level parsing evaluation, we record 16 final-scene cases and ask the VLM to judge whether the task goal is satisfied. Each model is evaluated with three runs. Ground-truth labels are provided by five human anno- tators, who determine success based on the goal specification and the task prompt. Module Benchmark Results:We summarize p...

  41. [41]

    We execute the sorting task without human intervention, placing food items into the box and toys into the bowl

    No disturbance, sorting. We execute the sorting task without human intervention, placing food items into the box and toys into the bowl

  42. [42]

    During the first pick, we move the target object to induce a misgrasp and simulate grasp failure

    One disturbance, sorting. During the first pick, we move the target object to induce a misgrasp and simulate grasp failure

  43. [43]

    success":false,

    Two disturbances, sorting. In addition to the first-pick disturbance, we move the target placement location during the Gpt-5.2 Effect Check Result: pick can-1 { "success":false, "reasoning": "All three expected effects must be achieved for success. However, none of them are satisfied: the robot is not holding any object, the hand is empty (contradicting ’...

  44. [44]

    Grab the food to the bowl

    One disturbance, stacking. To test a sequential task where later outcomes depend on earlier actions, we move the target block during the first grasp to induce a disturbance. D. VLA Fine-tuning Setup We fine-tune the pretrainedπ 0.5 VLA policy [14] on two tabletop manipulation tasks: sorting and stacking. Training configurations are provided in Table VI. F...

    2000