Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Model-Based AI planning and Execution Systems for Robotics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Model-based planning and execution systems, with the planner as master, offer the most promising route to flexible, transparent robot autonomy.

desk verdict A useful, well-organized survey of robot planning-execution systems, undercut by an undisclosed conflict of interest around the authors' own AOS system. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04493 v1 pith:U44WRI3I submitted 2025-05-07 cs.RO cs.AI

Or Wertheim , Ronen I. Brafman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords model-basedplanningroboticstask-levelcontrolandexecutionPDDLPOMDProbotskillsLLM-generatedmodels
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

Model-based planning and execution systems for robotics (MPERs) work by giving the robot a formal model of its skills, environment, and task, then using automated planning to decide which skill to run when. This review argues that this architecture is the most practical engineering route to flexible autonomous robots, because the decision-making core stays transparent, verifiable, and controllable. The paper's key thesis is that learning and large language models should be used where they excel—acquiring repetitive skills and generating formal models from natural language—while the MPER remains the master that chooses actions through well-understood optimization. If that thesis holds, robots can be reconfigured by editing or generating models rather than rewriting hand-coded controllers, which would lower the barrier to new applications and support regulatory oversight.

What carries the argument

The central object is the MPER architecture itself: a software layer that maintains a world state (the abstract facts the planner reasons about) separate from an execution state (the low-level data skills need), represents each skill as an action in a formal description language such as PDDL or the probabilistic Skill Documentation Language, and uses a planning algorithm plus sensing, monitoring, and replanning to drive the robot online. The argument runs through this machinery: because every decision traces back to an explicit model and an explicit optimization criterion, the system is legible to users and regulators, and because the model is the only thing that changes when the task changes, the same skill base can be reused across tasks. The paper also introduces the notion of a multi-level hybrid design where solvers and predefined policies are skills that can call other skills, which is what would give MPERs both flexibility and hierarchical structure.

What would settle it

Count published, reusable skill models per MPER and measure the time a new user needs to integrate a new skill; if most real deployments still require expert hand-written PDDL or ontology authoring and model quality degrades in novel contexts, the paper's claim that model difficulty is a 'non-issue' fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that MPERs offer the best available compromise for autonomous robot control: skills can be learned by deep learning or imported from code libraries, LLMs can help build the formal skill models and translate natural-language tasks, but a model-based planner should remain the final decision maker because it optimizes against explicit criteria and produces readable, auditable decisions. The paper supports this by surveying the main design dimensions—modeling language, online versus offline decision making, state representation and update, integration effort, and impact—across the current generation of systems. It shows that today's systems already cover a spectrum from deterministic classical/temporal planning with replanning, to goal-tree executives with goal reasoning, to POMDP-based systems that handle probabilistic effects, partial observability, and noisy sensing, and it identifies a future hybrid architecture in which solvers and predefined policies are both treated as skills.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that formal skill models can be written or generated at acceptable cost and remain accurate enough, with replanning covering the rest; the paper itself concedes models are difficult to provide, and its confidence that open-model communities will arise is a prediction rather than evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If MPERs mature as described, changing a robot's behavior becomes a matter of revising or regenerating its model rather than rewriting state machines or scripts.
  • Task-level control can be made accessible to non-experts: natural-language task specification and LLM-generated domains could let casual users issue new tasks to a robot on the fly.
  • Skill models can double as certificates, giving regulators and safety auditors a concrete artifact to inspect, which addresses concerns like those in the EU AI Act.
  • A POMDP-based MPER can handle realistic uncertainty—probabilistic skill outcomes, partial observability, noisy sensing—at the price of solving harder models, and the paper's design choices show how to mitigate that cost with generative models and online solvers.
  • The proposed multi-level hybrid architecture, where solvers and predefined policies are both skills, would let engineers build robot autonomy incrementally from either the bottom up or the top down.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if LLM-generated skill models become reliable enough, the bottleneck in MPER adoption shifts from model authoring to verification; a natural next step the paper does not develop is automated checking of generated models against logged executions of the real skill.
  • Beyond the paper: the prediction that open-model communities will arise is testable—track whether shared, reusable skill-model repositories grow at a rate comparable to open-source code; if they do not, MPERs may remain confined to well-engineered industrial settings.
  • Beyond the paper: the multi-level hybrid design suggests a direct empirical benchmark—reimplement the paper's building-cleaning example on a standard mobile manipulator and measure development time, replanning frequency, and task success against a hand-written behavior tree.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is a survey of model-based planning and execution systems for robotics (MPERs). It argues that MPERs offer a transparent, controllable, and verifiable middle path between end-to-end learning and hand-written controllers, and it develops a five-dimensional taxonomy: modeling, decision making, state representation and update, integration, and impact. Six systems are reviewed in detail: ROSPlan, the CLIPS Executive, PlanSys2, SkiROS2, the ONERA skill-based architecture, and the authors' own AOS. The paper closes with future research directions, including multi-level hybrid architectures, sensing and monitoring, automated model simplification, human-control interfaces, and LLM-based model generation.

Significance. If the comparative analysis is accepted, the survey provides a useful organizing reference for practitioners choosing among MPERs and for researchers working on integrated planning and execution. The taxonomy is reasonable, and the system descriptions appear consistent with the cited primary sources. Table I condenses the design tradeoffs effectively, and the future-directions section identifies concrete open problems such as automated model learning, anomaly detection, and safety monitoring. The paper does not provide new systems or experiments, which is appropriate for a survey; its value is in the synthesis and the explicit treatment of sensing, monitoring, and integration effort. The main weaknesses are an unsupported feasibility claim about LLM-generated models in Section II and the undisclosed inclusion of the authors' own AOS as a surveyed system with favorable entries in Table I.

major comments (3)
  1. [II (model-authoring feasibility)] The paragraph beginning 'One major objection to the use of model-based systems in robotics is that models are difficult to provide' bases its dismissal of the subjective difficulty on the claim that 'LLMs are showing a clear and increasing ability to generate such formal models from natural language descriptions' and cites [6]-[11]. The cited evidence does not support this strong claim: [6] is a single research paper on world models constructed for LLM-based task planning; [7] is an anonymous preprint whose own title says LLMs cannot plan but can help in LLM-modulo frameworks; [8] is an anonymous preprint that evaluates pretrained LLMs in embodied planning and reports substantial failures; and [11] is also anonymous. None of these demonstrates a reliable, verified pipeline for generating correct robot skill models. Because Section II's overall argument that MPERs are practically viable because model authoring is cheap rests on this assertion, the passage is load-bearing. The manuscript should either replace these citations with systematic evidence or weaken the claim and mark model-authoring cost as an open challenge. The same paragraph should also qualify the statement that replanning can 'compensate for such inaccuracies': replanning cannot repair a model that is semantically wrong about unobserved preconditions or effects, since the planner may confidently select actions that are unsafe or ineffective.
  2. [IV.F and Table I (self-citation disclosure)] The survey includes AOS as one of the six reviewed systems and gives it the only positive entries in Table I for 'Plug'n Play,' 'Auto Mapping,' 'Probabilistic Effects,' 'Partial Observability,' 'Noisy Sensing,' and 'Supported Platforms' (ROS extendable), without disclosing that AOS is the authors' own system: reference [57] is by Wertheim, Suissa, and Brafman, and reference [25] is by Brafman, Tolpin, and Wertheim. In a survey intended to help readers choose among MPERs, this is an undisclosed conflict of interest that affects the credibility of the comparison. The manuscript should add an explicit statement of the authors' involvement with AOS and SDL, and it should either apply the same level of critical distance to AOS as to the other systems or explain why that is not possible.
  3. [IV.F.4 (plug-and-play claim)] The text claims that AOS provides 'true plug-and-play capability' and that 'AOS users need only supply SDL documentation files.' This is still a model-authoring burden: users must write an Environment File, a Skill Documentation file, and an Abstraction Mapping file, which require expertise in SDL and in formalizing skill effects. Table I's 'Plug'n Play' entry for AOS should therefore be qualified so that readers do not infer that the model-authoring burden is eliminated; otherwise the comparison with other systems is misleading.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV.F.2 (Goal Reasoning)] The sentence 'The AOS does not support a Goal Reasoning (GR) mechanism' is immediately followed by a description of how users can implement GR by loading EF files with new utility functions; please clarify the difference between a built-in mechanism and a user-extensible capability.
  2. [Table I caption] The table caption should state explicitly that '✓' means supported and 'X' means not supported or not applicable; currently the reader has to infer this from the text.
  3. [References [7], [8], [11]] References [7], [8], and [11] are anonymous preprints; if they remain in the bibliography, the entries should be marked as preprints rather than appearing as plain arXiv references, since the survey relies on them for a load-bearing claim.
  4. [Reference [12]] Reference [12] appears to have an incorrect title: the cited PLDI 2019 paper is 'Gen: A General-Purpose Probabilistic Programming System with Programmable Inference,' not 'Gentl: The design and implementation of probabilistic programming languages'; please correct the entry and the URL.
  5. [II (open-model prediction)] The sentence 'open-model communities and contributors are likely to arise' is an unsupported prediction; if the central claim is softened, this sentence should be hedged or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a survey synthesis, and the authors' self-citations describe their own AOS/SDL system without forcing the paper's central claims.

full rationale

The paper is a survey and design-space analysis, not a derivation of a result from assumptions. Its central claim that model-based planning and execution systems (MPERs) are a promising engineering paradigm is supported by a comparative discussion of external systems (ROSPlan, CLIPS Executive, PlanSys2, SkiROS2, skill-based architecture) and by architectural arguments about transparency, controllability, and modularity. No equation or formal claim is reduced to its own input. The authors do cite their own prior work in describing the AOS system and the Skill Documentation Language ([25], [57], [61]), but those citations are used to attribute the design and evaluation of their own system, which is normal in a survey and is not load-bearing for the paper's general thesis. The claim that LLMs can help generate formal models cites external work [6]-[11]; regardless of whether that evidence is strong, it is an empirical citation, not a circular definition. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction step, or imported uniqueness theorem appears. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a survey and introduces no free parameters or new entities. The axioms listed are domain assumptions about model authoring, system representativeness, and LLM capability that the survey's favorable stance depends on.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Skill code can be captured by formal action models (PDDL, SDL, etc.) with enough fidelity for planning, and model inaccuracy can be compensated by replanning.
    Section II addresses the objection that models are hard to provide and argues that replanning handles inaccuracies; this is the load-bearing premise of the MPER approach.
  • domain assumption The six surveyed systems are representative of the current state of model-based planning and execution for robotics.
    Section IV selects ROSPlan, CX, PlanSys2, SkiROS2, Skill-Based Architecture, and AOS without a systematic selection criterion; the survey's conclusions depend on this sample.
  • domain assumption Large language models can increasingly generate formal planning models from natural language descriptions.
    Section II cites refs [6]-[11] to support LLM-based model generation, including anonymous and non-archival sources; the survey's vision partly relies on this capability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model-Based AI planning and Execution Systems for Robotics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U44WRI3I

@misc{pith2026250504493,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model-Based AI planning and Execution Systems for Robotics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U44WRI3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04493}
}
read the original abstract

Model-based planning and execution systems offer a principled approach to building flexible autonomous robots that can perform diverse tasks by automatically combining a host of basic skills. This idea is almost as old as modern robotics. Yet, while diverse general-purpose reasoning architectures have been proposed since, general-purpose systems that are integrated with modern robotic platforms have emerged only recently, starting with the influential ROSPlan system. Since then, a growing number of model-based systems for robot task-level control have emerged. In this paper, we consider the diverse design choices and issues existing systems attempt to address, the different solutions proposed so far, and suggest avenues for future development.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    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

    work page 2023

  2. [11]

    Can LLMs Fix Issues with Reasoning Models? Towards More Likely Models for AI Planning

    Anonymous, “Towards more likely models for ai planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13720 , 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2311.13720

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [7]

    On the normal modes of coupled harmonic oscillators

    Anonymous, “Llms can’t plan, but can help planning in llm- modulo frameworks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13567 , 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.13567

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  4. [8]

    Controllable orbital angular momentum monopoles in chiral topological semimetals

    ——, “Evaluation of pretrained large language models in embodied planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13217 , 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.13217

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [57]

    Plug’n play task-level autonomy for robotics using pomdps and probabilistic programs,

    O. Wertheim, D. R. Suissa, and R. I. Brafman, “Plug’n play task-level autonomy for robotics using pomdps and probabilistic programs,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 587–594, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [25]

    Probabilistic programs as an action description language,

    R. I. Brafman, D. Tolpin, and O. Wertheim, “Probabilistic programs as an action description language,” in AAAI’23, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [1]

    Strips: A new approach to the appli- cation of theorem proving to problem solving,

    R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson, “Strips: A new approach to the appli- cation of theorem proving to problem solving,” Artificial intelligence , vol. 2, no. 3-4, pp. 189–208, 1971. 16

    work page 1971

  8. [2]

    Rosplan: Planning in the robot operating system,

    M. Cashmore, M. Fox, D. Long, D. Magazzeni, B. Ridder, A. Carrera, N. Palomeras, N. Hurtos, and M. Carreras, “Rosplan: Planning in the robot operating system,” in ICAPS, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 66 references
  1. [3]

    Formalization of robot skills with descriptive and operational models,

    C. Lesire, D. Doose, and C. Grand, “Formalization of robot skills with descriptive and operational models,” in IROS. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  2. [4]

    Ghallab, D

    M. Ghallab, D. Nau, and P . Traverso, Automated Planning . Morgan Kaufmann, 2004

    2004

  3. [5]

    M. L. Puterman, Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dy- namic Programming . Wiley, 2005

    2005

  4. [9]

    Harnessing large language models for planning: A lab on strategies for success and mitigation of pitfalls,

    V . Pallagani, K. Murugesan, B. Srivastava, F . Rossi, and L. Horesh, “Harnessing large language models for planning: A lab on strategies for success and mitigation of pitfalls,” in AAAI 2024 . IBM Research,

    2024

  5. [12]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02500

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02500

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    Goal reasoning: Foundations, emerging applications, and prospects,

    D. W . Aha, “Goal reasoning: Foundations, emerging applications, and prospects,” AI Magazine , vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 3–24, 2018

    2018

  7. [14]

    Gentl: The design and implementation of probabilistic programming languages,

    F . A. Saad, A. Lew, and V . K. Mansinghka, “Gentl: The design and implementation of probabilistic programming languages,” in Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI ’19) . ACM, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://o...

    2015

  8. [15]

    Between mdps and semi-mdps: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning,

    R. S. Sutton, D. Precup, and S. Singh, “Between mdps and semi-mdps: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning,” Artificial intelligence , vol. 112, no. 1-2, pp. 181–211, 1999

    1999

  9. [16]

    A theory of abstraction for hierarchical planning,

    C. A. Knoblock, “ A theory of abstraction for hierarchical planning,” in Change of Representation and Inductive Bias . Springer, 1990, pp. 81–104

    1990

  10. [17]

    Probabilistic planning for robotics with rosplan,

    G. Canal, M. Cashmore, S. Krivi´ c, G. Alenyà, D. Magazzeni, and C. Torras, “Probabilistic planning for robotics with rosplan,” in Annual Conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems. Springer, 2019, pp. 236–250

    2019

  11. [18]

    Russell & peter norvig: Artificial intelligence: A modern approach,

    J. Stuart, “Russell & peter norvig: Artificial intelligence: A modern approach,” Prentice-Hall, 2003

    2003

  12. [19]

    A rosplan- based multi-robot navigation system,

    D. S. S. Miranda, L. E. de Souza, and G. S. Bastos, “ A rosplan- based multi-robot navigation system,” in 2018 Latin American Robotic Symposium, 2018 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR) and 2018 Workshop on Robotics in Education (WRE) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 248–253

    2018

  13. [20]

    Ros- plan: A framework for planning in ros - documentation,

    M. Cashmore, M. Fox, D. Long, D. Magazzeni, and B. Ridder, “Ros- plan: A framework for planning in ros - documentation,” https: //kcl-planning.github.io/ROSPlan/, 2024, accessed: 2024-07-31

    2024

  14. [21]

    Continuous operations and fully autonomy of a social service robotic system,

    B. Hoteit, I. A. Awada, A. Sorici, and A. M. Florea, “Continuous operations and fully autonomy of a social service robotic system,” in 2021 23rd International Symposium on Symbolic and Numeric Algorithms for Scientific Computing (SYNASC) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 129– 134

    2021

  15. [22]

    Ai planning and reasoning for a social assistive robot

    B. Hoteit, A. Abdallah, A. Faour, I. A. Awada, A. Sorici, and A. M. Florea, “ Ai planning and reasoning for a social assistive robot.” International Association for Development of the Information Society , 2020

    2020

  16. [23]

    Study of the anchoring prob- lem in generalist robots based on rosplan,

    D. Escudero-Rodrigo and R. Alquezar, “Study of the anchoring prob- lem in generalist robots based on rosplan,” in Artificial Intelligence Research and Development . IOS Press, 2016, pp. 45–50

    2016

  17. [24]

    Towards providing ex- planations for ai planner decisions,

    R. Borgo, M. Cashmore, and D. Magazzeni, “Towards providing ex- planations for ai planner decisions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.06338 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Autonomous inspection and maintenance missions with ai planning and the rosplan framework,

    J. Fillan, “ Autonomous inspection and maintenance missions with ai planning and the rosplan framework,” Master’ s thesis, NTNU, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Multi-agent goal reasoning with the clips executive in the robocup logistics league

    T . Hofmann, T . Viehmann, M. Gomaa, D. Habering, T . Niemueller, G. Lakemeyer, and C. Team, “Multi-agent goal reasoning with the clips executive in the robocup logistics league.” in ICAART (1) , 2021, pp. 80–91

    2021

  20. [28]

    Goal reasoning with the clips executive in ros2,

    I. D. Doychev, T . Viehmann, T . Hofmann, G. Lakemeyer, and S. Trimpe, “Goal reasoning with the clips executive in ros2,” Bachelor’s Thesis, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Towards clips-based task execution and monitoring with smt-based decision optimization,

    T . Niemueller, G. Lakemeyer, F . Leofante, and E. Ábrahám, “Towards clips-based task execution and monitoring with smt-based decision optimization,” Proc. of PlanRob@ ICAPS , vol. 17, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Winning the robocup logistics league with visual ser- voing and centralized goal reasoning,

    T . Viehmann, N. Limpert, T . Hofmann, M. Henning, A. Ferrein, and G. Lakemeyer, “Winning the robocup logistics league with visual ser- voing and centralized goal reasoning,” in Robot World Cup. Springer, 2022, pp. 300–312

    2022

  23. [31]

    Design prin- ciples of the component-based robot software framework fawkes,

    T . Niemueller, A. Ferrein, D. Beck, and G. Lakemeyer, “Design prin- ciples of the component-based robot software framework fawkes,” in Simulation, Modeling, and Programming for Autonomous Robots: Second International Conference, SIMPAR 2010, Darmstadt, Germany, November 15-18...

    2010

  24. [32]

    Goal reasoning in the clips executive for integrated planning and execution,

    T . Niemueller, T . Hofmann, and G. Lakemeyer, “Goal reasoning in the clips executive for integrated planning and execution,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , vol. 29, 2019, pp. 754–763

    2019

  25. [33]

    The fast downward planning system,

    M. Helmert, “The fast downward planning system,” Journal of Artifi- cial Intelligence Research , vol. 26, pp. 191–246, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    FF: The fast-forward planning system,

    J. Hoffmann, “FF: The fast-forward planning system,” AI magazine , vol. 22, no. 3, p. 57, 2001

    2001

  27. [35]

    Forward-chaining partial- order planning,

    A. Coles, A. Coles, M. Fox, and D. Long, “Forward-chaining partial- order planning,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , vol. 20, 2010, pp. 42–49

    2010

  28. [36]

    Plansys2: A planning system framework for ros2,

    F . Martín, J. G. Clavero, V . Matellán, and F . J. Rodríguez, “Plansys2: A planning system framework for ros2,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 9742–9749

    2021

  29. [37]

    Clips-based execution for pddl planners,

    T . Niemueller, T . Hofmann, and G. Lakemeyer, “Clips-based execution for pddl planners,” in ICAPS Workshop on Integrated Planning, Acting and Execution (IntEx) , 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Using the context-enhanced additive heuristic for temporal and numeric planning,

    P . Eyerich, R. Mattmüller, and G. Röger, “Using the context-enhanced additive heuristic for temporal and numeric planning,” in Towards Service Robots for Everyday Environments: Recent Advances in De- signing Service Robots for Complex Tasks in Everyday Environments . Springer...

    2012

  31. [39]

    [Online]

    Fawkes Robotics, “Fawkes,” 2024, accessed: 2024-06-05. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/fawkesrobotics/fawkes

    2024

  32. [40]

    Winning the robocup logistics league with visual servoing and centralized goal reasoning,

    A. Ferrein and G. Lakemeyer, “Winning the robocup logistics league with visual servoing and centralized goal reasoning,” RoboCup 2022:: Robot World Cup XXV , vol. 13561, p. 300, 2023

    2022

  33. [41]

    Temporal fast downward,

    P . Eyerich and R. M. G. Röger, “Temporal fast downward,” Department of Computer Science University of Freiburg, Germany , 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    Ros2 clips executive,

    ——, “Ros2 clips executive,” 2024, accessed: 2024-06-05. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/fawkesrobotics/ros2-clips-executive

    2024

  35. [43]

    Skiros—a skill-based robot control platform on top of ros,

    F . Rovida, M. Crosby, D. Holz, A. S. Polydoros, B. Großmann, R. Petrick, and V . Krüger, “Skiros—a skill-based robot control platform on top of ros,” in Robot operating system (ROS) , 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Skiros2: A skill-based robot control platform for ros,

    M. Mayr, F . Rovida, and V . Krueger, “Skiros2: A skill-based robot control platform for ros,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 6273–6280

    2023

  37. [45]

    Integrating mission and task planning in an industrial robotics framework,

    M. Crosby, R. Petrick, F . Rovida, and V . Krueger, “Integrating mission and task planning in an industrial robotics framework,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Schedul- ing, vol. 27, 2017, pp. 471–479

    2017

  38. [46]

    Design and development of a software architecture for autonomous mobile manipulators in industrial en- vironments,

    F . Rovida and V . Krüger, “Design and development of a software architecture for autonomous mobile manipulators in industrial en- vironments,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 3288–3295

    2015

  39. [47]

    Productive mul- titasking for industrial robots,

    D. Wuthier, F . Rovida, M. Fumagalli, and V . Krüger, “Productive mul- titasking for industrial robots,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 12 654–12 661

    2021

  40. [48]

    Planning for robots with skills,

    M. Crosby, F . Rovida, M. R. Pedersen, R. P . Petrick, and V . Krüger, “Planning for robots with skills,” in 4th ICAPS Workshop on Planning and Robotics 2016 . ICAPS, 2016, pp. 49–57

    2016

  41. [49]

    Ieee standard ontologies for robotics and automation,

    I. Robotics and A. Society, “Ieee standard ontologies for robotics and automation,” IEEE Stan. , vol. 1872, pp. 1–60, 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

    Testing the vertical and cyber-physical integration of cognitive robots in manufacturing,

    V . Krueger, F . Rovida, B. Grossmann, R. Petrick, M. Crosby, A. Char- zoule, G. M. Garcia, S. Behnke, C. Toscano, and G. Veiga, “Testing the vertical and cyber-physical integration of cognitive robots in manufacturing,” Robotics and computer-integrated manufacturing , vol. 57...

    2019

  43. [51]

    A skill fault model for autonomous systems,

    G. C. Medina, J. Guiochet, C. Lesire, and A. Manecy, “ A skill fault model for autonomous systems,” in Proceedings of the 4th Interna- tional Workshop on Robotics Software Engineering , 2022, pp. 55–62

    2022

  44. [52]

    Skill-based architecture development for online mission reconfiguration and failure management,

    A. Albore, D. Doose, C. Grand, C. Lesire, and A. Manecy, “Skill-based architecture development for online mission reconfiguration and failure management,” in 2021 IEEE/ACM 3rd International Workshop on Robotics Software Engineering (RoSE) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 47–54

    2021

  45. [53]

    Skill-based design of dependable robotic architectures,

    A. Albore, D. Doose, C. Grand, J. Guiochet, C. Lesire, and A. Manecy, “Skill-based design of dependable robotic architectures,” RAS, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Skinet, a petri net generation tool for the verification of skillset-based autonomous systems,

    B. Pelletier, C. Lesire, D. Doose, K. Godary-Dejean, and C. Dramé- Maigné, “Skinet, a petri net generation tool for the verification of skillset-based autonomous systems,” in EPTCS 2022-Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science , vol. 371, 2022, pp. 120– 138

    2022

  47. [55]

    Z3: An efficient smt solver,

    L. De Moura and N. Bjørner, “Z3: An efficient smt solver,” in International conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems . Springer, 2008, pp. 337–340

    2008

  48. [56]

    Temporal planning with pref- erences and time-dependent continuous costs,

    J. Benton, A. Coles, and A. Coles, “Temporal planning with pref- erences and time-dependent continuous costs,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , vol. 22, 2012, pp. 2–10

    2012

  49. [58]

    Onera skill-based robot architecture: Documentation and tutorials,

    ONERA Robot Skills, “Onera skill-based robot architecture: Documentation and tutorials,” 2024, accessed: 2024-08-01. [Online]. Available: https://onera-robot-skills.gitlab.io/tutorial.html

    2024

  50. [59]

    Pomdp file format specification,

    Cassandra, Anthony Rocco, “Pomdp file format specification,” http: //www.pomdp.org/code/pomdp-file-spec.html, 2015, accessed: July 3, 2024

    2015

  51. [60]

    Monte-carlo planning in large pomdps,

    D. Silver and J. Veness, “Monte-carlo planning in large pomdps,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 23, 2010

    2010

  52. [61]

    Aos documentation and tutorials,

    O. Wertheim, “ Aos documentation and tutorials,” 2024, accessed: 2024-08-01. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/orhaimwerthaim/ AOS-WebAPI/blob/master/README.md

    2024

  53. [62]

    Sarsop: Efficient point-based pomdp planning by approximating optimally reachable belief spaces,

    H. Kurniawati, D. Hsu, and W . S. Lee, “Sarsop: Efficient point-based pomdp planning by approximating optimally reachable belief spaces,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems IV . The MIT Press, 2009

    2009

  54. [63]

    Generating consistent pddl domains with large language models,

    P . Smirnov, F . Joublin, A. Ceravola, and M. Gienger, “Generating consistent pddl domains with large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07751, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  55. [64]

    A safety monitoring model for a faulty mobile robot,

    A. Leite, A. Pinto, and A. Matos, “ A safety monitoring model for a faulty mobile robot,” Robotics, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 32, 2018

    2018

  56. [65]

    Nltopddl: One-shot learning of pddl models from natural language process manuals,

    S. Miglani and N. Yorke-Smith, “Nltopddl: One-shot learning of pddl models from natural language process manuals,” in ICAPS’20 Workshop on Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling (KEPS’20). ICAPS, 2020

    2020

  57. [66]

    Translating natural language to planning goals with large-language models,

    Y. Xie, C. Yu, T . Zhu, J. Bai, Z. Gong, and H. Soh, “Translating natural language to planning goals with large-language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05128 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  58. [2024]

    Available: https://research.ibm.com/publications/ harnessing-large-language-models-for-planning

    [Online]. Available: https://research.ibm.com/publications/ harnessing-large-language-models-for-planning

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.