Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A vision-language model can drive a robot by tuning dynamic movement primitives, enabling zero-shot tabletop manipulation without demonstrations or fine-tuning.

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 05:13 UTC pith:TL6B4X33

load-bearing objection LMP is a plausible new interface—VLM outputs DMP weights—but the headline 80% is not clearly attributable to weight tuning, and the abstract numbers don't match the text. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2602.02839 v3 pith:TL6B4X33 submitted 2026-02-02 cs.RO

Language Movement Primitives: Grounding Language Models in Robot Motion

Yinlong Dai , Benjamin A. Christie , Daniel J. Evans , Dylan P. Losey , Simon Stepputtis This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords dynamic movement primitivesvision-language modelszero-shot manipulationtabletop manipulationnatural language feedbackneuro-symbolic planningrobot motion grounding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the gap between a language model's high-level reasoning and a robot's low-level motion control can be closed by making the action space a set of Dynamic Movement Primitive (DMP) parameters rather than raw joint commands or dense waypoints. The authors build a system in which a vision-language model decomposes a natural-language task into subtasks and then outputs DMP weights and goal offsets that shape continuous, stable trajectories; the robot executes these DMPs and can revise them after natural-language feedback. On 20 real-world tabletop tasks, the system attains 80% task success with up to three correction rounds, compared to 30-31% for baselines that generate waypoint trajectories or require fine-tuned vision-language-action models. A sympathetic reader would care because this suggests that general-purpose language models can drive a physical robot without robot-specific training, provided the motion representation is compact and interpretable.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that DMPs physically ground VLMs: a VLM can set the small number of DMP weights to shape diverse, continuous, and stable trajectories. Concretely, the LMP pipeline segments the scene into object labels and 3D poses, feeds a language description plus the task to a decomposer VLM that selects the next subtask, and a generator VLM outputs per-axis weight vectors and goal height/orientation offsets. The robot tracks the resulting DMP trajectory; a human judge can provide corrective natural-language feedback, which is folded into the prompts and the environment is reset for another attempt. The reported result is 80% success across 20 tasks with feedback

What carries the argument

The central object is the Dynamic Movement Primitive (DMP), a stable second-order dynamical system whose attractor guarantees convergence to a goal, plus a nonlinear forcing function that shapes the trajectory through weights on Gaussian basis functions. The action space is the weight matrix per controlled dimension (x, y, z, z-axis rotation, gripper) and the goal pose offset (height and yaw). This small, semantically meaningful parameter space is what lets an off-the-shelf VLM specify motion; the paper also relies on a task decomposition module that keeps subtasks at a granularity a single DMP can express.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that the perception module returns accurate 3D object positions and yaw angles, because those values directly define the DMP goal pose; the paper reports no perception accuracy numbers or sensitivity analysis.

What would settle it

Run the 20-task evaluation twice: once with perceived object poses and once with ground-truth poses. If success with ground-truth poses is substantially higher than the reported 80%, then perception error—not DMP weight selection—is the primary bottleneck. Additionally, inspect goal pose error per trial: if every trial with a goal error beyond a few centimeters fails, the unmeasured perception assumption is load-bearing.

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

If this is right

  • A robot can take on a new tabletop task described in plain language with zero demonstrations and no robotic fine-tuning, as long as a pretrained VLM can reason about the scene.
  • Natural-language corrections can be converted directly into DMP weight revisions, so non-expert users can steer robot motion without knowing kinematics.
  • Tasks that require curved or collision-avoiding motion profiles are claimed to be where the DMP parameterization pays off most, since weight shaping can bend a trajectory around obstacles.
  • Removing the decomposer or the feedback judge degrades success markedly (69%, 46%, 27%), implying both structured subtask decomposition and refinement are necessary parts of the approach.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the interpretable-parameter thesis holds, the same trick may transfer to other compact motion representations (spline control points, impedance parameters, via-points), giving a design recipe for grounding language models in control without video-action pretraining.
  • The reported success rate is coupled to the unstated accuracy of the perception stack; a version with ground-truth object poses would reveal how much of the 80% is due to the VLM-DMP mapping versus the object detector and depth back-projection.
  • The generator prompt encodes substantial domain knowledge (zero-by-default weights, late gripper closure, rotation for skinny cross-sections), so the approach may be less 'zero-shot' than the headline suggests and more a prompt-engineering effort per task family.
  • Automating the judge with a VLM, which the paper names as future work, is the natural next step toward a fully autonomous loop; until then, the human is part of the control loop.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Language Movement Primitives (LMP), a framework that uses a vision-language model (Gemini Robotics-ER 1.5) to decompose a natural-language tabletop manipulation instruction into subtasks, and a second VLM (GPT-5.2) to generate Dynamic Movement Primitive (DMP) weights, goal height offsets, and gripper-orientation offsets for each subtask. A human judge may provide natural-language feedback after failed subtask attempts, which is fed back into the generator. The manuscript reports 80% success over 20 real-world tabletop tasks, compared with 30% for TrajGen and 31% for {\pi}0.5, plus ablations showing that removing the judge and/or decomposer degrades performance. The central claim is that DMPs ground VLMs because a small set of physically meaningful parameters can be intuitively tuned by a general-purpose VLM, yielding zero-shot continuous trajectories without demonstrations or fine-tuning.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it offers a concrete mechanism for connecting high-level language-based reasoning to low-level continuous robot control without training or demonstrations, and the DMP parameterization is interpretable. The supplementary prompt material is unusually transparent, which is a strength. The ablation study (Table I, columns 4-6) gives partial evidence that the decomposer and judge matter, and the external baselines are reasonable comparisons. However, the current empirical support has several load-bearing gaps: the headline number includes human feedback, no control isolates the contribution of the DMP weights themselves, perception accuracy is unmeasured, and the statistical evidence is thin (5 trials per task, no confidence intervals, no released code or data). The central claim is therefore plausible but not yet demonstrated to the standard claimed in the abstract.

major comments (5)
  1. [§VII-B1 (System Prompt, Zero-By-Default Rule) and §IV-C] The generator prompt explicitly instructs: 'Default output MUST be all zeros for every motion dimension' and permits non-zero weights only for obstacle avoidance, explicit ordering constraints, or task-required trajectory shaping. For the many point-to-point tasks in Table I (e.g., 'pick the chip bag', 'place the apple in the bowl'), the generated weight matrix W_i is therefore all zeros, making the DMP in Eqs. (2)-(3) reduce to a linear spring-damper attraction toward the perceived goal g in Eq. (9). The experiments do not include a control that sets W_i=0 while retaining the perception, goal offsets, decomposer, and judge feedback. Without this control, the 80% success rate cannot be attributed to the VLM's weight generation; it may be fully explained by object detection plus goal selection. This is load-bearing because the paper's stated novelty is that VLMs can 'intuitively tune' DMP
  2. [§V-A, Table I and §IV-D] The headline LMP success rate of 80% includes up to three rounds of human corrective feedback from the subtask judge, while the baselines TrajGen and π0.5 receive no such feedback. The zero-feedback LMP ablation (J/F) achieves 69%, which is a more appropriate comparison for a zero-shot claim, but Table I does not clearly separate feedback-aided from feedback-free runs, and the abstract/intro are written around the 80% number. Since the judge injects task knowledge during execution, the comparison is asymmetric. Please report baseline performance with the same feedback protocol, or clearly define the no-feedback setting as the primary zero-shot claim.
  3. [§IV-A and Eq. (9)] The entire pipeline depends on 3D object positions and yaw angles recovered from Gemini Robotics-ER labels, LangSAM segmentations, depth back-projection, and bounding-box yaw estimation. These estimates directly define the DMP goal pose g in Eq. (9). The paper reports no perception accuracy numbers, no sensitivity analysis, and no failure analysis separating perception errors from weight-generation errors. If, for example, object yaw or z-height is biased, no amount of correct weight selection can produce a successful grasp or placement. This is a load-bearing unmeasured assumption. Please add perception accuracy metrics on the actual task scenes, or at minimum show that failures are not dominated by localization errors.
  4. [§V (Metrics, Setup) and Table I] All success rates are based on 5 independent trials per task, yet no confidence intervals, p-values, or raw trial counts are reported. For a 20-task battery with per-task rates like 60% vs 40% (e.g., 'pick the fruit in the middle') or 80% vs 60%, the differences correspond to one or two trials, making the aggregate comparisons statistically fragile. The paper also does not release code, prompts, or data, which limits reproducibility. I recommend reporting exact binomial confidence intervals, providing per-task trial-level data, and, if possible, releasing the implementation and prompt templates.
  5. [Abstract and Section I/V] The metadata abstract states 'Across 31 real-world manipulation tasks, we show that LMP achieves 65% task success as compared to 35% for the best performing baseline,' while the full-text abstract and Section V state 20 tasks, 80% success, and 31% for the best baseline. These are materially different claims. The manuscript must be internally consistent; please reconcile the task counts and success rates, and clarify which version corresponds to the submitted experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§VII-B1, line 154] The example JSON contains a typo: '2.0s' instead of '2.0'. Since the prompt demands strict JSON output, this typo could affect the VLM's output formatting.
  2. [§V-A, baseline paragraph] 'GTP-5.2' is a typo for 'GPT-5.2'.
  3. [§VI, Limitations] There is a typo: 'semanic' should be 'semantic'.
  4. [§III, Eq. (2)-(4)] The DMP hyperparameters α, β, γ, h, B, and the gripper step-function basis are not reported anywhere. These are needed to reproduce the experiments, even approximately.
  5. [Table I] The meaning of parentheses and dashes in the feedback column is not explained in the caption or text; for example, a dash in '100(−)' is ambiguous (no feedback needed, or not applicable?). Please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the LMP derivation is self-contained, with the zero-weight prompt raising a non-circular experimental-validity concern.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The DMP equations (Eqs. 2-5) are standard control-theoretic definitions; the generator policy (Eq. 8) outputs weights and goal offsets conditioned on the subtask and scene, and the goal pose (Eq. 9) is formed from perception outputs plus the generated offsets. Nothing in this chain is fit to the reported success rates, and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the experimental outcome. The comparisons are external baselines (TrajGen and pi0.5), and the ablations remove the judge and decomposer rather than reusing fitted values. Self-citations appear in related work and in some neuro-symbolic positioning references, but they are not load-bearing: the central claim about DMP parameterization is supported by external DMP literature and by the paper's own experiments. The most salient concern is the generator prompt's Zero-By-Default Rule (Section VII-B1), which instructs that weights be all zeros unless obstacles, ordering constraints, or explicit task requirements demand otherwise. For many point-to-point tasks, the DMP then reduces to a linear spring-damper attractor toward the perceived goal, so the 80% success rate may not strongly test the paper's weight-shaping claim. This is a missing-control / experimental-validity issue, not a circularity: the weights are not fitted to success, and the paper does not claim those specific tasks prove weight tuning. It should be addressed empirically (e.g., a zero-weight control), but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. No equation is equal to another by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the design. Score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result is an empirical system claim; it rests on classical DMP stability, commercial VLM capabilities, perception accuracy, and a set of hand-authored prompt rules. None of these is fitted to the success metric, but several are untested assumptions that would need to be reported to reproduce the result.

free parameters (7)
  • DMP spring-damper gains alpha, beta
    Standard DMP constants in Eq. (2) chosen by hand; no values reported, yet they set convergence behavior of every trajectory.
  • Temporal scaling T
    Modulates execution speed in Eqs. (2)-(3); value not reported.
  • Canonical decay rate gamma
    Sets z(t) decay in Eq. (5), controlling when the forcing term acts; no value reported.
  • Number of basis functions B = 11 (from prompt indices 0-10)
    The generator prompt uses 11 basis functions per dimension; hand-selected.
  • Gaussian basis width h
    Basis variance defined in prompt via n_functions; affects trajectory smoothness.
  • Gripper close threshold = 0.5
    Prompt defines gripper closure when trajectory crosses 0.5; hand-set and central to grasp timing.
  • Weight bounds = [-0.9, 0.9] / [-1, 1]
    Prompt clamps DMP weights; hand-set, affects expressivity.
axioms (7)
  • standard math DMP second-order system with forcing term converges to goal g as canonical variable z goes to 0 (Eqs. 2-5).
    Background control-theoretic guarantee used to claim stability; standard DMP literature assumption.
  • domain assumption Restricting motion to top-down Cartesian end-effector space (x,y,z,theta_z,gripper) with fixed x/y orientation is sufficient for all 20 tasks.
    Section IV-C limits the action space; if tasks required wrist tilts or 3D orientations, the parameterization would fail.
  • domain assumption Object labels and 3D poses from Gemini Robotics-ER + LangSAM + depth projection are accurate enough for goal selection.
    Goal g in Eq. (9) is computed from object pose p_k; no perception error analysis is reported.
  • domain assumption GPT-5.2 can follow the DMP prompt and output valid JSON weight matrices in the required range.
    The generator is an off-the-shelf closed model with no verification of output validity rates; invalid outputs would break execution.
  • domain assumption DMP weights are semantically interpretable from a textual description, e.g. increasing x weights pushes trajectory forward.
    This is the core hypothesis of the method; experiments test it but it is assumed at design time.
  • domain assumption Human judge feedback is available, consistent, and beneficial when needed.
    Section IV-D and experiments rely on the judge; the main result includes up to 3 feedback rounds, so autonomy depends on this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Prompt rules such as zero-by-default weights, boundary index restrictions, and gripper close-at-end default are valid priors for the task distribution.
    These rules are hand-crafted for these tasks and directly influence generated weights (Appendix VII-B), so they are not general principles.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18233 in / 15458 out tokens · 159420 ms · 2026-08-03T05:13:26.987191+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Enabling robots to perform novel manipulation tasks from natural language instructions remains a fundamental challenge in robotics, despite significant progress in generalized problem solving with foundational models. Large vision and language models (VLMs) are capable of processing high-dimensional input data for visual scene and language understanding, as well as decomposing tasks into a sequence of logical steps; however, they struggle to ground those steps in embodied robot motion. On the other hand, robotics foundation models output action commands, but require in-domain fine-tuning or experience before they are able to perform novel tasks successfully. At its core, there still remains the fundamental challenge of connecting abstract task reasoning with low-level motion control. To address this disconnect, we propose Language Movement Primitives (LMPs), a framework that grounds VLM reasoning in Dynamic Movement Primitive (DMP) parameterization. Our key insight is that DMPs provide a small number of interpretable parameters, and VLMs can set these parameters to specify diverse, continuous, and stable trajectories. Put another way: VLMs can reason over free-form natural language task descriptions, and semantically ground their desired motions into DMPs -- bridging the gap between high-level task reasoning and low-level position and velocity control. Building on this combination of VLMs and DMPs, we formulate our LMP pipeline for zero-shot robot manipulation that effectively completes tabletop manipulation problems by generating a sequence of DMP motions. Across 31 real-world manipulation tasks, we show that LMP achieves 65% task success as compared to 35% for the best performing baseline. See videos at our website: https://collab.me.vt.edu/lmp

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.02839 by Benjamin A. Christie, Daniel J. Evans, Dylan P. Losey, Simon Stepputtis, Yinlong Dai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of Language Movement Primitives (LMP). Given a task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: LMP pipeline for a single subtask rollout. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Our experiments evaluate LMP’s performance on tabletop-manipulation tasks, converting natural-language task descriptions into robot controllers. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We identify five dominant failure modes and analyze the impact of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.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. From Local Corrections to Generalized Skills: Improving Neuro-Symbolic Policies with MEMO

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Clustering multi-user multi-task language corrections into a retrieval-augmented skillbook of code templates lets neuro-symbolic robots generate new skills and raise zero-shot success on novel tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Do as I can and not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, et al. Do as I can and not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. InConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Embodied robot manipulation in the era of foundation models: Planning and learning perspectives

    Shuanghao Bai, Wenxuan Song, Jiayi Chen, Yuheng Ji, et al. Embodied robot manipulation in the era of foundation models: Planning and learning perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.22983, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Let me help you! Neuro-symbolic short-context action anticipation

    Sarthak Bhagat, Samuel Li, Joseph Campbell, Yaqi Xie, Katia Sycara, and Simon Stepputtis. Let me help you! Neuro-symbolic short-context action anticipation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(11):9749– 9756, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, et al.π 0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

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

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, et al. RT-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Bayesian inter- action primitives: A SLAM approach to human-robot interaction

    Joseph Campbell and Heni Ben Amor. Bayesian inter- action primitives: A SLAM approach to human-robot interaction. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 379–387, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    A frame- work for neurosymbolic robot action planning using large language models.Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 18: 1342786, 2024

    Alessio Capitanelli and Fulvio Mastrogiovanni. A frame- work for neurosymbolic robot action planning using large language models.Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 18: 1342786, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 44(10-11):1684–1704, 2025

    Cheng Chi, Zhenjia Xu, Siyuan Feng, Eric Cousineau, Yilun Du, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, and Shuran Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 44(10-11):1684–1704, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Prepare before you act: Learning from humans to rearrange initial states.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18043, 2025

    Yinlong Dai, Andre Keyser, and Dylan P Losey. Prepare before you act: Learning from humans to rearrange initial states.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18043, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Civil: Causal and intuitive visual imitation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17959, 2025

    Yinlong Dai, Robert Ramirez Sanchez, Ryan Jeronimus, Shahabedin Sagheb, Cara M Nunez, Heramb Nemlekar, and Dylan P Losey. Civil: Causal and intuitive visual imitation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17959, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Local policies enable zero-shot long-horizon manipula- tion

    Murtaza Dalal, Min Liu, Walter Talbott, Chen Chen, Deepak Pathak, Jian Zhang, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Local policies enable zero-shot long-horizon manipula- tion. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 13875–13882, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    The ingredients for robotic diffusion transformers

    Sudeep Dasari, Oier Mees, Sebastian Zhao, Mohan Ku- mar Srirama, and Sergey Levine. The ingredients for robotic diffusion transformers. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 15617–15625, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Revla: Reverting visual domain limitation of robotic foundation models

    Sombit Dey, Jan-Nico Zaech, Nikolay Nikolov, Luc Van Gool, and Danda Pani Paudel. Revla: Reverting visual domain limitation of robotic foundation models. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8679–8686, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Rethinking the foundations for continual reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08161, 2025

    Esraa Elelimy, David Szepesvari, Martha White, and Michael Bowling. Rethinking the foundations for continual reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08161, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Physically grounded vision-language models for robotic manipulation

    Jensen Gao, Bidipta Sarkar, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Jiajun Wu, Brian Ichter, Anirudha Majumdar, and Dorsa Sadigh. Physically grounded vision-language models for robotic manipulation. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 12462–12469, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Open-vocabulary object detection via vision and lan- guage knowledge distillation

    Xiuye Gu, Tsung-Yi Lin, Weicheng Kuo, and Yin Cui. Open-vocabulary object detection via vision and lan- guage knowledge distillation. InInternational Confer- ence on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    Learning agile soccer skills for a bipedal robot with deep reinforcement learning.Science Robotics, 9(89):eadi8022, 2024

    Tuomas Haarnoja, Ben Moran, Guy Lever, Sandy H Huang, et al. Learning agile soccer skills for a bipedal robot with deep reinforcement learning.Science Robotics, 9(89):eadi8022, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    Mastering diverse domains through world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104, 2024

    Danijar Hafner, Jurgis Pasukonis, Jimmy Ba, and Timo- thy Lillicrap. Mastering diverse domains through world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Continual knowledge adaptation for reinforcement learning

    Jinwu Hu, Zihao Lian, Zhiquan Wen, Chenghao Li, Guohao Chen, Xutao Wen, Bin Xiao, and Mingkui Tan. Continual knowledge adaptation for reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    How to train your robot with deep reinforcement learning: Lessons we have learned.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 40(4-5):698–721, 2021

    Julian Ibarz, Jie Tan, Chelsea Finn, Mrinal Kalakrishnan, Peter Pastor, and Sergey Levine. How to train your robot with deep reinforcement learning: Lessons we have learned.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 40(4-5):698–721, 2021

    2021

  21. [21]

    Physical Intelligence et al.π ∗ 0.6: a VLA that learns from experience.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.14759, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    InConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2025

    Physical Intelligence et al.π 0.5: a vision-language-action model with open-world generalization. InConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    Qt-opt: Scalable deep rein- forcement learning for vision-based robotic manipula- tion

    Dmitry Kalashnikov et al. Qt-opt: Scalable deep rein- forcement learning for vision-based robotic manipula- tion. InConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2018

    2018

  24. [24]

    Vision-language-action models for robotics: A review towards real-world applications

    Kento Kawaharazuka, Jihoon Oh, Jun Yamada, Ingmar Posner, and Yuke Zhu. Vision-language-action models for robotics: A review towards real-world applications. IEEE Access, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    Neuro-symbolic imitation learning: Discovering sym- bolic abstractions for skill learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21406, 2025

    Leon Keller, Daniel Tanneberg, and Jan Peters. Neuro-symbolic imitation learning: Discovering sym- bolic abstractions for skill learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21406, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Foun- dation model driven robotics: A comprehensive review

    Muhammad Tayyab Khan and Ammar Waheed. Foun- dation model driven robotics: A comprehensive review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10087, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    YOLOv11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements

    Rahima Khanam and Muhammad Hussain. YOLOv11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17725, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    DROID: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset

    Alexander Khazatsky, Karl Pertsch, Suraj Nair, Ashwin Balakrishna, et al. DROID: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset. InRobotics: Science and Systems, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

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

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, et al. OpenVLA: An open-source vision-language-action model. InConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2024

    2024

  30. [30]

    Lan- guage models as zero-shot trajectory generators.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(7):6728–6735, 2024

    Teyun Kwon, Norman Di Palo, and Edward Johns. Lan- guage models as zero-shot trajectory generators.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(7):6728–6735, 2024

    2024

  31. [31]

    ProDMP: A uni- fied perspective on dynamic and probabilistic movement primitives.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8(4): 2325–2332, 2023

    Ge Li, Zeqi Jin, Michael V olpp, Fabian Otto, Rudolf Lioutikov, and Gerhard Neumann. ProDMP: A uni- fied perspective on dynamic and probabilistic movement primitives.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8(4): 2325–2332, 2023

    2023

  32. [32]

    Scal- able vision-language-action model pretraining for robotic manipulation with real-life human activity videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21571, 2025

    Qixiu Li, Yu Deng, Yaobo Liang, Lin Luo, et al. Scal- able vision-language-action model pretraining for robotic manipulation with real-life human activity videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21571, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    ShapeGrasp: Zero-shot task-oriented grasping with large language models through geometric decomposition

    Samuel Li, Sarthak Bhagat, Joseph Campbell, Yaqi Xie, Woojun Kim, Katia Sycara, and Simon Stepputtis. ShapeGrasp: Zero-shot task-oriented grasping with large language models through geometric decomposition. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 10527–10534, 2024

    2024

  34. [34]

    Effi- cient robot manipulation via reinforcement learning with dynamic movement primitives-based policy.Applied Sciences, 14(22), 2024

    Shangde Li, Wenjun Huang, Chenyang Miao, Kun Xu, Yidong Chen, Tianfu Sun, and Yunduan Cui. Effi- cient robot manipulation via reinforcement learning with dynamic movement primitives-based policy.Applied Sciences, 14(22), 2024

    2024

  35. [35]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embod- ied control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07753, 2022

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embod- ied control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07753, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    VisualPredicator: Learning abstract world models with neuro-symbolic predicates for robot planning

    Yichao Liang, Nishanth Kumar, Hao Tang, Tom Silver, et al. VisualPredicator: Learning abstract world models with neuro-symbolic predicates for robot planning. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025

    2025

  37. [37]

    Ground- ing DINO: Marrying DINO with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection

    Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, et al. Ground- ing DINO: Marrying DINO with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 38–55, 2024

    2024

  38. [38]

    SERL: A software suite for sample-efficient robotic reinforcement learning

    Jianlan Luo, Zheyuan Hu, Charles Xu, You Liang Tan, et al. SERL: A software suite for sample-efficient robotic reinforcement learning. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 16961–16969, 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    Language conditioned imitation learning over unstructured data

    Corey Lynch and Pierre Sermanet. Language conditioned imitation learning over unstructured data. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2020

    2020

  40. [40]

    Simple open-vocabulary object detection with vision transformers

    Matthias Minderer, Alexey Gritsenko, Austin Stone, et al. Simple open-vocabulary object detection with vision transformers. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 728–755, 2022

    2022

  41. [41]

    Open X-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and RT-X models: Open X-embodiment collaboration0

    Abby O’Neill, Abdul Rehman, Abhiram Maddukuri, Abhishek Gupta, et al. Open X-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and RT-X models: Open X-embodiment collaboration0. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 6892–6903, 2024

    2024

  42. [42]

    SAM 2: Segment anything in images and videos

    Nikhila Ravi, Valentin Gabeur, Yuan-Ting Hu, et al. SAM 2: Segment anything in images and videos. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  43. [43]

    Recent advances in robot learning from demonstration.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 3(1):297–330, 2020

    Harish Ravichandar, Athanasios S Polydoros, Sonia Chernova, and Aude Billard. Recent advances in robot learning from demonstration.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 3(1):297–330, 2020

    2020

  44. [44]

    Vision-language models are zero-shot reward models for reinforcement learning

    Juan Rocamonde, Victoriano Montesinos, Elvis Nava, Ethan Perez, and David Lindner. Vision-language models are zero-shot reward models for reinforcement learning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  45. [45]

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

    St ´ephane Ross, Geoffrey Gordon, and Drew Bagnell. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), 2011

    2011

  46. [46]

    Dynamic movement prim- itives in robotics: A tutorial survey.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 42(13):1133–1184, 2023

    Matteo Saveriano, Fares J Abu-Dakka, Alja ˇz Kram- berger, and Luka Peternel. Dynamic movement prim- itives in robotics: A tutorial survey.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 42(13):1133–1184, 2023

    2023

  47. [47]

    Dynamic movement primitives-a frame- work for motor control in humans and humanoid robotics.Adaptive Motion of Animals and Machines, pages 261–280, 2006

    Stefan Schaal. Dynamic movement primitives-a frame- work for motor control in humans and humanoid robotics.Adaptive Motion of Animals and Machines, pages 261–280, 2006

    2006

  48. [48]

    Behavior transformers: Cloningkmodes with one stone.Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 22955– 22968, 2022

    Nur Muhammad Shafiullah, Zichen Cui, Ariuntuya Arty Altanzaya, and Lerrel Pinto. Behavior transformers: Cloningkmodes with one stone.Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 22955– 22968, 2022

    2022

  49. [49]

    OpenAI GPT-5 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025

    Aaditya Singh, Adam Fry, Adam Perelman, Adam Tart, et al. OpenAI GPT-5 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Language- conditioned imitation learning for robot manipulation tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems (NeurIPS), pages 13139–13150, 2020

    Simon Stepputtis, Joseph Campbell, Mariano Phielipp, Stefan Lee, Chitta Baral, and Heni Ben Amor. Language- conditioned imitation learning for robot manipulation tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems (NeurIPS), pages 13139–13150, 2020

    2020

  51. [51]

    Gemini robotics 1.5: Pushing the frontier of generalist robots with advanced embodied reasoning, thinking, and motion transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03342, 2025

    Gemini Robotics Team et al. Gemini robotics 1.5: Pushing the frontier of generalist robots with advanced embodied reasoning, thinking, and motion transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03342, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024

    Octo Model Team et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Neurosymbolic ai as an antithesis to scaling laws.PNAS Nexus, 4(5):pgaf117, 2025

    Alvaro Velasquez, Neel Bhatt, Ufuk Topcu, Zhangyang Wang, Katia Sycara, Simon Stepputtis, Sandeep Neema, and Gautam Vallabha. Neurosymbolic ai as an antithesis to scaling laws.PNAS Nexus, 4(5):pgaf117, 2025

    2025

  54. [54]

    Deep imitation learning for bimanual robotic manipulation

    Fan Xie, Alexander Chowdhury, M De Paolis Kaluza, Linfeng Zhao, Lawson Wong, and Rose Yu. Deep imitation learning for bimanual robotic manipulation. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 2327–2337, 2020

    2020

  55. [55]

    Latent action pretraining from videos

    Seonghyeon Ye, Joel Jang, Byeongguk Jeon, Sejune Joo, et al. Latent action pretraining from videos. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025

    2025

  56. [56]

    Learn- ing synergies between pushing and grasping with self- supervised deep reinforcement learning

    Andy Zeng, Shuran Song, Stefan Welker, Johnny Lee, Alberto Rodriguez, and Thomas Funkhouser. Learn- ing synergies between pushing and grasping with self- supervised deep reinforcement learning. InIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Sys- tems (IROS), pages 4238–4245, 2018

    2018

  57. [57]

    Deep imita- tion learning for complex manipulation tasks from virtual reality teleoperation

    Tianhao Zhang, Zoe McCarthy, Owen Jow, Dennis Lee, Xi Chen, Ken Goldberg, and Pieter Abbeel. Deep imita- tion learning for complex manipulation tasks from virtual reality teleoperation. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 5628–5635, 2018

    2018

  58. [58]

    DINO-WM: World models on pre-trained visual features enable zero-shot planning

    Gaoyue Zhou, Hengkai Pan, Yann LeCun, and Lerrel Pinto. DINO-WM: World models on pre-trained visual features enable zero-shot planning. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2024

    2024

  59. [59]

    Chatvla: Unified multimodal understanding and robot control with vision- language-action model

    Zhongyi Zhou, Yichen Zhu, Minjie Zhu, Junjie Wen, Ning Liu, Zhiyuan Xu, Weibin Meng, Yaxin Peng, Chaomin Shen, Feifei Feng, et al. Chatvla: Unified multimodal understanding and robot control with vision- language-action model. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5377–5395, 2025

    2025

  60. [60]

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

    Brianna Zitkovich, Tianhe Yu, Sichun Xu, Peng Xu, et al. RT-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 2165–2183, 2023. VII. SUPPLEMENTALMATERIAL Herein we detail the prompts used for our task decomposer and controller generator. Strings that areboldedin the prompt are replaced dynamic...

    2023

  61. [61]

    2 3<think> 4your reasoning 5</think> 6 7<answer> 8your answer 9</answer> 10 11<OVERALL_TASK>

    System Prompt: 1You are a helpful assistant that proposes high-level subtasks for robot manipulation based on video evidence. 2 3<think> 4your reasoning 5</think> 6 7<answer> 8your answer 9</answer> 10 11<OVERALL_TASK>

  62. [62]

    follow-up

    User Prompt: 1The overall goal is<OVERALL_TASK>. 2The agent in the video is currently performing one subtask out of many to complete this instruction. 3 4In the environment, the available OBJECT are: 5<OBJ_LIST> 6 7So far, the agent has completed the following subtasks: 8<PRIOR_TASKS> 9 10For the agent in the video, what is the most plausible next immedia...

  63. [63]

    2 3You need to generate${.total_weights}weights for a Dynamic Movement Primitive (DMP) with ${.dimensions}dimensions and${.num_functions}basis functions

    System Prompt: 1You are a helpful assistant that generates dynamics motion primitive weights for a given robot manipulation task. 2 3You need to generate${.total_weights}weights for a Dynamic Movement Primitive (DMP) with ${.dimensions}dimensions and${.num_functions}basis functions. 4Internally, you need to first analyze the provided scene description and...

  64. [67]

    5 6Action Space 7------------------------------------------- 8 9The action space is a ‘Box(-1, 1, (${.dimensions},), float32)‘

    User Prompt (Scene Description): 1Description 2------------------------------------------- 3 4The environment is a real world setting of a Panda Emika robot arm with 7 degrees of freedom (DoF) placed on tabletop. 5 6Action Space 7------------------------------------------- 8 9The action space is a ‘Box(-1, 1, (${.dimensions},), float32)‘. An action is ’(x...

  65. [68]

    User Prompt (Subtask Description): 1Here is the description of the current scene and task: 2${.task}

  66. [69]

    14 15With the trial history, your thought process should be as follows:

    User Prompt (Follow-Up): 1Given your previously generated weights: 2${.past_weights} 3 4Here is suggested corrections after trial n: 5${.history} 6 7Current objects being detected and their positions are: 8${.movable_objects} 9 10Here is a high level action plan analysing the previous trial: 11${.action_plan} 12 13ONLY change the weights based on the anal...

  67. [101]

    **Basis Functions **: The DMP uses${.num_functions}radial basis functions distributed along the movement timeline (from start to end). 11We use equaldistant Gaussian basis functions: 12basis_locations = np.linspace(0.0, 1.0, n_functions, dtype=np.float32) 13basis_variance = np.array([1.0 / (0.25 * (1.0 / (n_functions - 1))) **2] * n_functions, dtype=np.fl...

  68. [152]

    The weights determine how much each basis function contributes to the overall movement shape

    **Weight Role **: Each weight corresponds to one basis function in one dimension. The weights determine how much each basis function contributes to the overall movement shape

  69. [161]

    Instead of coming up with entirely new weights, you always make incremental adjustments to the previous weights

  70. [163]

    lift immediately at the very beginning

    **Trajectory Generation **: The DMP combines: 17- A stable attractor (pulls toward goal) 18- Your weighted forcing function (creates the desired movement pattern) 19 20 **Weight Guidelines: ** 21- Weights should be between -0.9 and 0.9 (both positive and negative values are useful) 22- **Early weights ** (indices 0-3): Affect movement near the start posit...

  71. [172]

    Identify any collisions that occurred during the last trial

  72. [183]

    Analyze the weights by dimension (reminder: x, y, z, qz, gripper action for each row)

  73. [194]

    early",

    Look closely at the "early", "middle", and "late" labels from the action plan and change weights accordingly. (e.g. early weights corresponds to indices 0-3, middle weights corresponds to indices 4-6, late weights corresponds to indices 8-10 for each dimension ) 20For example, if you want to close the gripper later, you should suppress ealier weights to b...

  74. [215]

    Refer to the given action plan, provide an updated set of weights