Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Automated Hybrid Reward Scheduling via Large Language Models for Robotic Skill Learning

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a large language model can act as a curriculum scheduler for robot reinforcement learning, automatically choosing which reward component to emphasize at each stage of training and improving final performance by…

desk verdict A plausible LLM-based reward-scheduling variant with honest ablations, but the 6.48% gain lacks a fixed-rule control and solid statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02483 v1 pith:TYL4ZMKG submitted 2025-05-05 cs.RO cs.AI

Changxin Huang , Junyang Liang , Yanbin Chang , Jingzhao Xu , Jianqiang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords largelanguagemodelsreinforcementlearningrewardshapinghybridarchitectureroboticskilldynamicweightschedulingmulti-branchvaluenetwork
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

The paper tries to show that the order in which a robot learns from its multiple reward signals can be chosen automatically by a large language model, rather than hand-designed by a human. It proposes a framework in which each reward component has its own value branch, an LLM pre-generates a library of weight-calculation rules, and during training the LLM picks a rule based on the recent mean and variance of each branch's returns. The reported result is an average 6.48% improvement in cumulative reward over a standard policy-gradient baseline across six simulated robot tasks. If true, this matters because reward design and curriculum design are among the most labor-intensive parts of robot learning, and this offers a way to automate part of that process.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-branch value network combined with an LLM-operated rule buffer. Each reward component $r_k$ has its own value branch and advantage estimate $A_k$; the policy gradient uses a weighted sum $I_k = w_k A_k$ plus an auxiliary branch $I_a = w_a A_a$ as its advantage signal. The rules are formulas, pre-generated by the LLM from the task description, that map each branch's mean return and variance to a weight $w_k$. Every 100 epochs, the LLM receives those statistics as text plus the current and historical returns, and selects one rule from the buffer; this selection step is what turns reward summation into a dynamic curriculum.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to run AHRS on the same six tasks with the LLM's rule selection replaced by a simple scripted heuristic—for example, always increasing weight on the branch with the highest mean return—and compare cumulative reward; if the heuristic matches or beats AHRS, then the LLM is not the source of the improvement. A second check is to feed the selection prompt with shuffled or corrupted mean/variance numbers; if the LLM's rule choices stay the same, then the statistics are not being used.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that replacing the common practice of summing all reward components into a single value function with a multi-branch value network whose branch weights are set by LLM-selected rules improves robot skill learning. Across six simulated tasks—legged locomotion, dexterous manipulation, and quadrotor flight—the proposed AHRS method achieves a mean cumulative reward about 6.48% higher than the PPO baseline and about 5.52% higher than the fixed-rule HDPG baseline. The paper further shows, through ablations, that the gain is not merely the auxiliary reward (which alone yields 2.34% over PPO) and not merely having many rules, since random rule selection (AHRS-R) and direct LLM weight generation (AHRS-D) both perform worse. The intended conclusion is that a language model can act as a curriculum scheduler: given the task description, it generates candidate weight rules, and given the current mean and variance of each reward component's returns, it chooses which rule to apply for the next training stage.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on the assumption that a text summary of each branch's mean and variance, read by an LLM, contains enough information to pick a weight rule that genuinely helps training; if that signal is uninformative, the LLM's choices are no better than random.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, a new robot task can receive a rule library and an auxiliary reward automatically from a task description, removing a large part of the manual reward-engineering burden.
  • The ablations imply that the auxiliary reward matters only inside the dynamic scheduling framework; adding it to a static reward yields only 2.34% over PPO, far below the full method's 6.48%.
  • Because the LLM intervenes only every 100 epochs to pick a rule, the method slots into an existing policy-gradient training loop with limited added compute.
  • The consistent gains across legged, manipulation, and flight tasks suggest the scheduling principle transfers across robot morphologies rather than being tuned to one environment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same 'statistics as text, rule as action' loop could be applied to any multi-objective reinforcement learning problem, not just robotics, whenever the reward decomposition is known.
  • A cheaper alternative might replace the LLM with a classifier trained on the collected (mean/variance -> chosen rule) data; matching AHRS performance would show the LLM's linguistic reasoning, rather than the rule library, is expendable.
  • The prompt currently summarizes each branch by mean and variance only; feeding quantiles or trend slopes could make the LLM's choices more informative, or reveal which statistics actually carry the signal.
  • If the selected rule sequences were logged, they might reveal a general curriculum pattern (e.g., start with variance-stabilizing rules, later switch to mean-maximizing rules) that could be distilled into a hand-coded schedule.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AHRS, an LLM-based framework that decomposes a robot's reward into components, learns a separate value branch for each component, and dynamically weights each branch during PPO training. Before training, an LLM generates a library of weight-calculation rules and an auxiliary reward component; every 100 epochs, the LLM receives text summaries of per-component return means and variances and selects a rule from the library. Experiments in Isaac Gym cover six main tasks plus two additional dexterous-manipulation tasks, and the paper reports an average improvement of 6.48% over PPO and 5.52% over HD-PPO. Ablations compare random rule selection (AHRS-R), direct LLM weight generation (AHRS-D), and auxiliary-reward-only variants (PPO-A, HD-PPO-A).

Significance. If the reported gains hold, delegating both rule generation and rule selection to an LLM, conditioned on training statistics, is a useful step toward reducing manual reward-shaping labor in multi-objective robot reinforcement learning. The ablation design is thoughtful in targeting random selection and direct weight generation, and the multi-task sweep across eight environments provides reasonable breadth. However, the evidential base is currently too weak: no number of seeds, no significance tests, no code or rule-selection logs, and a missing fixed-rule control. These gaps make the central attribution claim—that dynamic LLM-based selection, rather than the rule repository or the auxiliary reward alone, causes the improvement—not yet established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section V-C, Tables I-II] The central claim that dynamic LLM-based rule selection is beneficial is not tested against a fixed-rule control. AHRS-R (random selection) and AHRS-D (direct weight generation) are useful ablations, but neither controls for the possibility that one of the LLM-generated repository rules, applied statically for the entire run, performs as well as or better than AHRS. Without such a control, the reported gain over PPO could be due to a richer candidate rule set rather than to the selection mechanism. Please add per-task runs that hold each repository rule fixed and report the best fixed-rule performance alongside AHRS.
  2. [Table I and Section V-A] No number of seeds is reported, so the mean ± standard deviation entries cannot be interpreted. Several margins are small relative to the reported dispersion; for example, AllegroHand AHRS (4646.92 ± 103.22) versus PPO (4501.63 ± 130.31) is less than one combined standard deviation, and AnymalTerrain has a similarly narrow gap (23.64 ± 0.07 vs 22.26 ± 0.29). Without seed counts and significance tests, the statement that AHRS 'consistently achieves superior performance' is not statistically supported.
  3. [Section V-B and Table I] The text contains numeric and cross-reference errors that block verification. It refers to 'Tab. III' when reporting the results shown in Table I, and it states that AHRS w/o A achieves 'a cumulative reward of 448.22±14.79 in ShadowHand' whereas Table I lists 7448.22 ± 14.79. Please correct the table references and re-check all quoted numbers against the tables.
  4. [Appendix B, Fig. 6] The auxiliary-reward ablations PPO-A and HD-PPO-A are summarized only as aggregate percentages (2.34% over PPO; AHRS 4.21% over HD-PPO-A) without a per-task table of values. Because the conclusion that auxiliary rewards 'can only be brought into full play' in combination with reward decomposition and dynamic scheduling is load-bearing, it needs the same numerical detail provided in Tables I and II.
  5. [Sections IV-B and IV-C] The prompt for rule generation includes the HDPG rule as an example, and the same LLM (GPT-4o) both generates and selects rules. This is a legitimate design choice, but the paper does not report which rules were actually generated or selected, nor how different they are from the HDPG example. Without rule-selection logs or a sensitivity analysis, the contribution of 'automated rule design' over reusing HDPG's rule is unquantified. Please release the rule logs or provide a per-task summary of which rules were selected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A and Eq. (3)] The notation A^π(s_t,a_t) is used for the advantage function in Eq. (1), but Eq. (3) later uses I_k = w_k A_k without defining A_k; please define all symbols consistently.
  2. [Figure 3 and Figure 6] Figure 3's caption lists PPO, HD-PPO, AHRS w/o A, and AHRS, while Figure 6 adds PPO-A and HD-PPO-A; please make the figure numbering and captions consistent with the main text.
  3. [Section V-A] The base weight w_base = 0.5 is stated, but the values of the rule hyperparameters (α, β, ε) used in the repository rules are not specified; please state them or explain how they are chosen.
  4. [Appendix A, Rules' selection prompt] The manuscript would benefit from stating the LLM sampling temperature and the number of LLM calls per run, since the selection prompt requests an integer output but does not describe how ties, invalid outputs, or changes in the selected rule are handled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: AHRS's performance gain is an empirical result benchmarked against external baselines and ablations, and no load-bearing claim reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental one: AHRS (LLM-generated rule repository plus per-epoch LLM rule selection plus optional auxiliary reward) achieves about 6.48% higher return than PPO and about 5.52% higher than HD-PPO on six Isaac Gym tasks. This claim is not derived from an equation whose output is defined as its input; the weight update (Eqs. 5-7) takes LLM-selected rules and branch return statistics as inputs and produces weights, and the reported gains are measured on training runs rather than being fitted values renamed as predictions. The only self-citation is to the authors' HDPG [15], which supplies the multi-branch architecture and a baseline rule; the paper is explicit that the HDPG rule is provided to the LLM only as an example (Eq. 4 and Appendix A), and the AHRS-versus-HD-PPO comparison is a direct external benchmark, not a consequence of that citation. The ablations AHRS-R (random rule selection), AHRS-D (direct weight generation), PPO-A, and HD-PPO-A provide independent controls; a missing control (holding each repository rule fixed) would be a completeness issue, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or self-citation chain forces the claimed improvement.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on hand-set training parameters, LLM-generated formulas with free constants, and strong assumptions about the validity of reward decomposition and the usefulness of LLM outputs. The auxiliary reward is an invented component with no external evidence, and the LLM model choice is an uncontrolled factor.

free parameters (4)
  • base weight wbase = 0.5
    Hand-set in Section V-A; each component's final weight is w_k = wbase + w_calculated, affecting all multi-branch methods.
  • historical data length L = 5
    Set in Section V-A for AHRS and AHRS w/o A; controls how much training history the LLM sees when selecting a rule.
  • rule hyperparameters (alpha, beta, epsilon) = Not specified; appear inside LLM-generated formulas (Fig. 4)
    The LLM-generated rules include scaling factors, bias terms, and small constants that are not tuned on validation data; they are ad hoc choices made by the LLM.
  • LLM model and sampling parameters = GPT-4o, no temperature or API details
    Rule generation, auxiliary reward generation, and rule selection all depend on the LLM; no sampling parameters are reported, making the method sensitive to an unreported free choice.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard MDP and PPO assumptions hold for all tasks.
    Used as the RL basis in Section III-A; convergence and GAE are taken as given from prior work.
  • domain assumption Decomposing the total reward into independent components and learning a separate value branch per component remains unbiased when scalar weights are applied in Eq. 3.
    Adopted from HDPG [15]; the paper does not re-derive or validate this assumption on the new tasks.
  • ad hoc to paper The LLM can generate useful weight rules and auxiliary rewards from task descriptions and performance statistics.
    The whole method depends on GPT-4o's outputs; the ablation studies (AHRS-R, AHRS-D) give indirect support, but there is no independent grounding outside this paper.
  • domain assumption The six (or eight) Isaac Gym tasks with default reward configurations are representative of high-DoF robot skill learning.
    Used to support generalization claims; all tasks come from one simulation suite with default settings.
invented entities (1)
  • LLM-generated auxiliary reward component
    purpose: Adds an extra reward term to guide learning when human-designed rewards are insufficient.
    The auxiliary reward is generated by GPT-4o from prompts and added to the reward vector. It has no independent verification outside the paper's experiments; the ablation shows it helps in some tasks but not in Cassie, where AHRS (1.67) is slightly below AHRS w/o A (1.69).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automated Hybrid Reward Scheduling via Large Language Models for Robotic Skill Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYL4ZMKG

@misc{pith2026250502483,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automated Hybrid Reward Scheduling via Large Language Models for Robotic Skill Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYL4ZMKG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02483}
}
read the original abstract

Enabling a high-degree-of-freedom robot to learn specific skills is a challenging task due to the complexity of robotic dynamics. Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a promising solution; however, addressing such problems requires the design of multiple reward functions to account for various constraints in robotic motion. Existing approaches typically sum all reward components indiscriminately to optimize the RL value function and policy. We argue that this uniform inclusion of all reward components in policy optimization is inefficient and limits the robot's learning performance. To address this, we propose an Automated Hybrid Reward Scheduling (AHRS) framework based on Large Language Models (LLMs). This paradigm dynamically adjusts the learning intensity of each reward component throughout the policy optimization process, enabling robots to acquire skills in a gradual and structured manner. Specifically, we design a multi-branch value network, where each branch corresponds to a distinct reward component. During policy optimization, each branch is assigned a weight that reflects its importance, and these weights are automatically computed based on rules designed by LLMs. The LLM generates a rule set in advance, derived from the task description, and during training, it selects a weight calculation rule from the library based on language prompts that evaluate the performance of each branch. Experimental results demonstrate that the AHRS method achieves an average 6.48% performance improvement across multiple high-degree-of-freedom robotic tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02483 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed Automated Hybrid Reward Scheduling (AHRS) framework. It includes multi-branch value networks, the construction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrations of the six tasks in this experiment: Ant, ShadowHand, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The learning curves show the variation in accumulative rewards across multiple environments (Ant, ShadowHand, AllegroHand, Quadcopter, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of LLM-generated rules include: Formula 1, which uses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prompt for Auxiliary reward: Before the start of each task, we will put the task’s environment description and environment code, as well as the initial reward function in Weight Calculation Formula: The formula generate weights based on the mean returns of each reward …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This figure compares the performance of five reinforcement learning algorithms—PPO, PPO-A, HD-PPO, HD-PPO-A, and AHRS—across six tasks: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models: Open x- embodiment collaboration 0,

    A. O’Neill, A. Rehman, A. Maddukuri, A. Gupta, A. Padalkar, A. Lee, A. Pooley, A. Gupta, A. Mandlekar, A. Jain, et al. , “Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models: Open x- embodiment collaboration 0,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 6892–6903

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Universal value func- tion approximators,

    T. Schaul, D. Horgan, K. Gregor, and D. Silver, “Universal value func- tion approximators,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2015, pp. 1312–1320

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Learning agile soccer skills for a bipedal robot with deep reinforcement learning,

    T. Haarnoja, B. Moran, G. Lever, S. H. Huang, D. Tirumala, J. Hump- lik, M. Wulfmeier, S. Tunyasuvunakool, N. Y . Siegel, R. Hafner, et al. , “Learning agile soccer skills for a bipedal robot with deep reinforcement learning,” Science Robotics, vol. 9, no. 89, p. eadi8022, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Deep reinforcement learning that matters,

    P. Henderson, R. Islam, P. Bachman, J. Pineau, D. Precup, and D. Meger, “Deep reinforcement learning that matters,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Discovering reinforcement learning algorithms,

    J. Oh, M. Hessel, W. M. Czarnecki, Z. Xu, H. P. van Hasselt, S. Singh, and D. Silver, “Discovering reinforcement learning algorithms,” Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, pp. 1060– 1070, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Legged robots that keep on learning: Fine-tuning locomotion policies in the real world,

    L. Smith, J. C. Kew, X. B. Peng, S. Ha, J. Tan, and S. Levine, “Legged robots that keep on learning: Fine-tuning locomotion policies in the real world,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1593–1599

    2022

  7. [7]

    Reinforcement learning for reduced-order models of legged robots,

    Y .-M. Chen, H. Bui, and M. Posa, “Reinforcement learning for reduced-order models of legged robots,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 5801–5807

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    H-index: Visual reinforcement learning with hand-informed representations for dexterous manipulation,

    Y . Ze, Y . Liu, R. Shi, J. Qin, Z. Yuan, J. Wang, and H. Xu, “H-index: Visual reinforcement learning with hand-informed representations for dexterous manipulation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Dexterous im- itation made easy: A learning-based framework for efficient dexterous manipulation,

    S. P. Arunachalam, S. Silwal, B. Evans, and L. Pinto, “Dexterous im- itation made easy: A learning-based framework for efficient dexterous manipulation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 5954–5961

    2023

  2. [10]

    Bi-dexhands: Towards human-level bimanual dexterous manipulation,

    Y . Chen, Y . Geng, F. Zhong, J. Ji, J. Jiang, Z. Lu, H. Dong, and Y . Yang, “Bi-dexhands: Towards human-level bimanual dexterous manipulation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Learning multi-arm manipulation through collaborative teleoperation,

    A. Tung, J. Wong, A. Mandlekar, R. Mart ´ın-Mart´ın, Y . Zhu, L. Fei- Fei, and S. Savarese, “Learning multi-arm manipulation through collaborative teleoperation,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 9212–9219

    2021

  4. [12]

    Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning,

    V . Mnih, “Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hybrid reward architecture for reinforcement learning,

    H. Van Seijen, M. Fatemi, J. Romoff, R. Laroche, T. Barnes, and J. Tsang, “Hybrid reward architecture for reinforcement learning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Reward- adaptive reinforcement learning: Dynamic policy gradient optimization for bipedal locomotion,

    C. Huang, G. Wang, Z. Zhou, R. Zhang, and L. Lin, “Reward- adaptive reinforcement learning: Dynamic policy gradient optimization for bipedal locomotion,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 7686–7695, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Eureka: Human- level reward design via coding large language models,

    Y . J. Ma, W. Liang, G. Wang, D.-A. Huang, O. Bastani, D. Ja- yaraman, Y . Zhu, L. Fan, and A. Anandkumar, “Eureka: Human- level reward design via coding large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12931, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Horde: A scalable real-time architecture for learn- ing knowledge from unsupervised sensorimotor interaction,

    R. S. Sutton, J. Modayil, M. Delp, T. Degris, P. M. Pilarski, A. White, and D. Precup, “Horde: A scalable real-time architecture for learn- ing knowledge from unsupervised sensorimotor interaction,” in The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Syste...

    2011

  10. [18]

    Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning,

    T. Lillicrap, “Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.02971 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A survey on integration of large language models with intelligent robots,

    Y . Kim, D. Kim, J. Choi, J. Park, N. Oh, and D. Park, “A survey on integration of large language models with intelligent robots,” Intelligent Service Robotics , pp. 1–17, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou, et al., “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 24 824–24 837, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

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

    M. Ahn, A. Brohan, N. Brown, Y . Chebotar, O. Cortes, B. David, C. Finn, C. Fu, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman, et al. , “Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lever- aging pre-trained large language models to construct and utilize world models for model-based task planning,

    L. Guan, K. Valmeekam, S. Sreedharan, and S. Kambhampati, “Lever- aging pre-trained large language models to construct and utilize world models for model-based task planning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, pp. 79 081–79 094, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans,

    K. Lin, C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, M. Pavone, and J. Bohg, “Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1345–1365, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

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

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

    2023

  17. [25]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for em- bodied control,

    J. Liang, W. Huang, F. Xia, P. Xu, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, P. Florence, and A. Zeng, “Code as policies: Language model programs for em- bodied control,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 9493–9500

    2023

  18. [26]

    Language to rewards for robotic skill synthesis,

    W. Yu, N. Gileadi, C. Fu, S. Kirmani, K.-H. Lee, M. G. Arenas, H.- T. L. Chiang, T. Erez, L. Hasenclever, J. Humplik, et al., “Language to rewards for robotic skill synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08647, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Robogen: Towards unleashing infinite data for automated robot learning via generative simulation,

    Y . Wang, Z. Xian, F. Chen, T.-H. Wang, Y . Wang, K. Fragkiadaki, Z. Erickson, D. Held, and C. Gan, “Robogen: Towards unleashing infinite data for automated robot learning via generative simulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01455 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

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

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, J. Dabis, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, et al. , “Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Language models as zero-shot trajectory generators,

    T. Kwon, N. Di Palo, and E. Johns, “Language models as zero-shot trajectory generators,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Roco: Dialectic multi-robot col- laboration with large language models,

    Z. Mandi, S. Jain, and S. Song, “Roco: Dialectic multi-robot col- laboration with large language models,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 286–299

    2024

  23. [31]

    Llm+ p: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency,

    B. Liu, Y . Jiang, X. Zhang, Q. Liu, S. Zhang, J. Biswas, and P. Stone, “Llm+ p: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11477 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

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

    2024

  25. [33]

    High- dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estima- tion,

    J. Schulman, P. Moritz, S. Levine, M. Jordan, and P. Abbeel, “High- dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estima- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02438 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Isaac gym: High performance gpu-based physics simulation for robot learning,

    V . Makoviychuk, L. Wawrzyniak, Y . Guo, M. Lu, K. Storey, M. Mack- lin, D. Hoeller, N. Rudin, A. Allshire, A. Handa, et al., “Isaac gym: High performance gpu-based physics simulation for robot learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.10470 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Explainable reinforcement learning via reward decomposition,

    Z. Juozapaitis, A. Koul, A. Fern, M. Erwig, and F. Doshi-Velez, “Explainable reinforcement learning via reward decomposition,” in IJCAI/ECAI Workshop on explainable artificial intelligence , 2019. APPENDIX This appendix provides a detailed explanation of the prompt strategy de...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.