Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Architecture-level search can improve perceptual embodied agents on simulator tasks, but rollout noise, local edit basins, and weak episode credit assignment constrain the transfer from text-domain AAS.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 10:44 UTC pith:NWOITNOZ

load-bearing objection First careful transfer of AAS to embodied simulators with real rollouts—honest diagnostics and a useful failure taxonomy, but several headline gains remain soft under the noise the paper itself documents. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2606.30111 v2 pith:NWOITNOZ submitted 2026-06-29 cs.RO cs.AIcs.LG

Automating the Design of Embodied Agent Architectures

Jian Zhou , Sihao Lin , Jin Li , Shuai Fu , Gengze Zhou , Qi Wu This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AIcs.LG
keywords Embodied AgentsAgent Architecture SearchLLM AgentsVision-Language NavigationEmbodied Question AnsweringLanguage-Conditioned ManipulationSimulator RolloutsTyped Graph Runtime
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.

Embodied agents are usually hand-wired stacks of perception, memory, planning, and action. That structure creates a large design space that researchers still fill by intuition. This paper asks whether Agent Architecture Search, already used for text agents, can redesign real perceptual agents that act in simulators. The authors supply a typed node-and-wire runtime so published agents become editable programs, plus a coding-agent loop that proposes, critiques, experiments, and distills edits. Across three search methods and four seed systems covering navigation, embodied question answering, and manipulation, several searched graphs raise success rate in confirmed reruns, while one high-scoring design is thrown out as evaluator-leaking. The same matrix shows why embodied search is harder than text search: noisy multi-episode scores can hide real edits, search often stays inside one local mechanism, and rich episode logs are only partly used for credit assignment. The work is therefore both a positive transfer result and a map of the limits that any automated designer of embodied agents must face.

Core claim

Method-seeded architecture search over typed embodied-agent graphs can produce deployable or directional success-rate gains on vision-language navigation, embodied question answering, and language-conditioned manipulation when candidates are scored by multi-episode simulator rollouts, yet the same regime reveals evaluation noise, trapping in local edit basins, and only partial use of episode-level logs for credit assignment—constraints largely muted in text-domain AAS.

What carries the argument

AgentCanvas, a typed node-and-wire runtime that turns an embodied executor into an editable, simulator-runnable graph with episode logs, paired with a shared coding-agent harness that hosts three search policies (including KDLoop’s propose–critique–experiment–distill cycle with stall-triggered reflection) over a fixed method-seeded neighborhood.

Load-bearing premise

The main improvable failures of published embodied agents sit inside nearby editable graph and code patches around a fixed seed method and backbone, so modest search under that setup is a fair test of automated architecture design.

What would settle it

Re-run the same 3×4 matrix with independent multi-seed search, stricter multi-pass selection during search, and no evaluator-side signals: if confirmed success-rate gains vanish or every optimizer remains trapped on one intervention axis with no usable log-driven credit, the transfer claim fails.

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

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether Agent Architecture Search (AAS), previously developed for text-domain LLM workflows, transfers to perceptual embodied agents evaluated by simulator rollouts. It introduces AgentCanvas, a typed node-and-wire executor substrate with simulator-aware batch evaluation and episode logs, and KDLoop, a coding-agent search loop with typed memory, multi-axis proposals, critique, and stall-triggered reflection. Three optimizers (ADAS, AFlow, KDLoop) are compared on four method-seeded executors (MapGPT, SmartWay, ExploreEQA, VoxPoser) spanning VLN, EQA, and manipulation. The 3×4 matrix reports several success-rate gains over seeded baselines after post-selection reruns, rejects one leak-bearing SmartWay–AFlow candidate, and diagnoses a shared VoxPoser logging fault. The authors argue that embodied AAS can yield deployable or directional gains while being constrained by rollout noise, local edit basins, and only partial episode-level credit assignment.

Significance. If the empirical characterization holds, this is a useful first systematic study of AAS under simulator-based embodied evaluation rather than text-only workflow benchmarks. The shared coding-agent harness, explicit leak rejection, injected logging-fault diagnostic, and transparent separation of search-time selection from three-pass verification are stronger experimental hygiene than is common in agent-systems papers. AgentCanvas and the method-seeded formulation also give the community a concrete substrate and problem statement for subsequent work. The paper’s main value is as much negative as positive: it documents evaluation noise, basin trapping, and incomplete log use as first-class obstacles for embodied AAS. Those constraints, if robust, should shape how the field designs optimizers and evaluation protocols. The contribution is systems-and-characterization rather than a decisive new SOTA architecture family.

major comments (4)
  1. Table 1 and §4.2 / Appendix E.3: the central claim that architecture-level search produces deployable or directional gains “across” embodied tasks rests on a single search trajectory per cell with no multi-seed averaging. Search-time fitness for ADAS/AFlow is largely single-pass, and several reported Δs remain variance-overlapping after only three post-selection reruns (e.g., SmartWay–ADAS +4.0 with Best 33.7±2.5 vs Baseline 29.7±2.1; ExploreEQA–KDLoop +3.0 from 43.0±1.7 to 46.0±1.0; VoxPoser gains on a near-deterministic 9.0 baseline). §4.2 correctly notes that max-over-noisy-estimates can overstate quality, and SmartWay σ reaches 5.9 SR. As written, the abstract and §4.1 generalize beyond the one clearly separated MapGPT ~+7 pp pair. Please either (i) add multi-seed or multi-trajectory evidence for the cells used to support “deployable” gains, or (ii) substantially tighten the claim la
  2. Table 1 “Surviving change (axis)” and §4.1: the paper frames results as architecture-level / graph-level search, but several winning edits are prompt rewrites, model swaps, or control thresholds (e.g., ExploreEQA–AFlow “VLM single-letter prompt rewrite”; VoxPoser–AFlow “GPT-4o composer swap”; MapGPT stop-after 3→5). Topology and state-memory edits appear in some cells, but the matrix mixes mechanism classes. Without a clearer taxonomy and ablation of which axes drive certified gains, it is hard to credit “architecture search” rather than local prompt/config optimization under a coding agent. Please stratify results by intervention axis (as in Table 2) against certified ΔSR, and state which claims require structural graph edits versus any editable component of the seed executor.
  3. §3.1 method-seeded formulation and §4 setup (fixed GPT-5-mini backbone except VoxPoser composer): the evaluation tests nearby edits around one published seed per task with a fixed backbone and modest iteration budgets. That is a legitimate engineering-matched setting, but the abstract’s transfer claim (“AAS … has not been systematically evaluated on perceptual embodied agents”) can be read as broader than the tested neighborhood. If dominant failure modes are below-graph substrate faults (as KDLoop finds on VoxPoser), dynamic control flow (Limitation 1), or model choice, the measured gains and failure modes may not characterize embodied AAS in general. Please state the claim scope more sharply in the abstract and introduction: method-seeded local search over typed workflow graphs with fixed backbones, not open-ended architecture discovery from scratch.
  4. §4.3–§4.4 and the 3×4 design: optimizer comparisons are confounded by unequal iteration semantics and evaluation policies (ADAS/AFlow 20 iters with full perf scoring vs KDLoop 10 iters with custom ≥30-episode subsets and escalation on ≥0.05 lift; Appendix E.2–E.3). The paper argues compute is roughly matched, but parent selection, memory, and scoring floors differ enough that “no optimizer dominates” is under-identified. For the comparative statements in §4.1 and §4.3, either equalize the evaluation budget/protocol for head-to-head claims or restrict comparative language to qualitative search dynamics (basin concentration, leak detection) rather than relative SR quality.
minor comments (5)
  1. Figure 1 outcome matrix and Table 1: make the deployable / directional / leak / no-claim legend identical in both places and mark variance-overlapping cells consistently so readers do not treat all positive Δ as equivalent.
  2. §4.3 “Tt shifts the exploration–exploitation balance” appears to be a typo for “It”.
  3. Appendix B vs main text: iteration axes differ (0–20 vs 0–10 for KDLoop); state once in the main text that KDLoop’s multi-spec waves are intended to match ADAS/AFlow wall-clock, with the actual compute accounting in Appendix E.
  4. Related Work: briefly situate against concurrent coding-agent / workflow optimization platforms beyond the cited AAS line so the substrate novelty boundary is clearer for non-AAS readers.
  5. VoxPoser baseline SR 9.0±0.0 is striking; one sentence on why that split is effectively deterministic under the pinned setup would help interpret the +3.7/+3.9 gains.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical systems paper with external simulator fitness; no derivation that reduces predictions to fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing claim is empirical: method-seeded graph edits under three AAS optimizers can raise (or directionally raise) task success rate on four published embodied executors, as measured by multi-episode simulator rollouts, with one high-scoring SmartWay candidate rejected as evaluator-leak. Fitness f(c) is external SR on held benchmark splits (R2R/MP3D, VLN-CE, HM-EQA, LIBERO), not a quantity defined from the search policy or from parameters fitted to the same target. Selected candidates are re-evaluated on three post-selection passes; baselines are shared three-draw means; and the authors explicitly separate search-time selection from verification (§4.2, Table 1, App. E.4). AgentCanvas and KDLoop are the authors’ own substrate and optimizer, which is normal for a systems contribution and does not make SR gains circular: ADAS and AFlow are independently ported into the same harness, and gains/failures are reported against seeded published methods. Overlap of some co-authors with seed systems (e.g., SmartWay, NavGPT lineage) is citation of prior engineering artifacts used as c0, not a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the reported ΔSR. Method-seeding and fixed backbones are scope choices (§3.1, §4), not self-definitional reductions. No fitted-input-as-prediction, no load-bearing self-citation uniqueness claim, and no renaming of a known closed-form result. Under the circularity criteria, the work is self-contained against external benchmarks; residual concerns about single-run noise and variance-overlapping deltas are statistical power issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical systems assumptions rather than free physical constants: a method-seeded typed-graph search space, fixed backbones, success rate as fitness, and coding-agent proposers under a shared harness. No new physical entities are postulated. The free parameters are experimental knobs that shape which edits are found and which gains are certified.

free parameters (5)
  • iteration budget (ADAS/AFlow 20, KDLoop 10)
    Search depth is hand-set; local-basin and coverage conclusions depend on this budget.
  • performance-tier episode counts (e.g., MapGPT 216, SmartWay 100, ExploreEQA 100, VoxPoser 200)
    Fitness noise and certification of ΔSR depend on these evaluation sizes.
  • AFlow parent-selection hyperparameters α=0.2, λ=0.3, K=4
    Ported defaults control parent sampling and thus which basins are exploited.
  • KDLoop evaluation floor / escalation thresholds (custom ≥30 episodes; escalate on ≥0.05 SR lift)
    These hand-chosen thresholds change when candidates are fully scored and how search allocates compute.
  • backbone model choice (GPT-5-mini; VoxPoser composer GPT-4o) and temperature 1
    Architecture gains are measured with a pinned foundation-model substrate; different models could change editable failure modes.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Published embodied agents can be faithfully represented as fixed typed node-and-wire forward graphs with simulator nodes and declared memory cells.
    Stated in §3.1–§3.2 and Appendix A/F; excludes dynamically constructed control flow/tools/memory (Limitation 1).
  • domain assumption Task success rate over multi-episode simulator splits is an adequate primary fitness for architecture quality.
    Problem formulation §3.1 and §F.3; the paper itself shows this signal is noisy and incomplete for credit assignment.
  • ad hoc to paper Method-seeded local graph edits around one published seed per task are a valid test of embodied AAS transfer.
    Explicit design choice in §3.1; not from-scratch search over a universal primitive library.
  • domain assumption Holding implementation/evaluation harness fixed while varying only proposer/memory isolates search-policy effects.
    §3.2–§3.3 coding-agent harness claim; assumes no hidden unequal tool use beyond stated proposer differences.
  • domain assumption Static type/connectivity validation plus smoke tests sufficiently filter invalid candidates before expensive rollouts.
    Appendix A.3–A.4 / C.3 substrate contracts.
invented entities (2)
  • AgentCanvas typed-graph executor substrate no independent evidence
    purpose: Make embodied agents editable, batch-evaluable, and loggable as node-and-wire programs for AAS.
    New software substrate introduced by the paper; evidence is implementation and experiments, not an external physical discovery.
  • KDLoop (Knowledge Distill Loop) no independent evidence
    purpose: Search policy with THINK/CRITIC/EXPERIMENT/DISTILL/REFLECT and typed intervention memory for embodied evidence.
    New optimizer variant designed for this setting; validated only inside the paper’s matrix.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 29536 in / 3692 out tokens · 40032 ms · 2026-07-12T10:44:20.606339+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Embodied agents are typically built as hand-designed compositions of perception, memory, planning, and action modules. This modularity exposes a large architectural design space, but current systems still rely on researcher intuition to choose where information is stored, how observations are processed, and how model calls are connected. Agent Architecture Search (AAS) automates such design for text-domain agents, but has not been systematically evaluated on perceptual embodied agents through simulator rollouts. We study this transfer. We introduce AgentCanvas, a typed-graph runtime that hosts embodied executors as editable node-and-wire programs with simulator-aware execution and episode-level logs, and KDLoop, a coding-agent search procedure that cycles through proposal, critique, experiment, and distillation, with triggered reflection after stalls. We evaluate three AAS variants across four embodied executors spanning vision-language navigation, embodied question answering, and language-conditioned manipulation. The resulting 3x4 matrix shows that architecture-level search can produce deployable and directional success-rate gains on embodied tasks, while one apparent high-scoring candidate is rejected as leak-bearing. At the same time, the experiments expose constraints that are muted in text-domain AAS: optimization signals can be masked by rollout noise, search can become trapped in local edit basins, and episode-level credit assignment only partially emerges even when detailed logs are available. These results characterize both the promise and the current limits of automated architecture search for embodied agents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30111 by Gengze Zhou, Jian Zhou, Jin Li, Qi Wu, Shuai Fu, Sihao Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Embodied Agent Architecture Search. (1) Four seed Executors emit per-episode traces. (2) ADAS/AFlow/KDLoop edit Executor code through a shared coding-agent harness and only the proposer dif￾fers. (3) The 3×4 ∆SR matrix shows several deployable or directional improvements plus one leak-bearing apparent gain, and surfaces three constraints of embodied AAS: evaluation noise, local edit basins, and partial cre… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: AAS-method diagrams. Each variant differs in proposer logic and persistent memory. Bottom: the shared coding-agent harness. The outer loop invokes a proposer, implementer, and evaluator. Only the proposer is variant-specific, while implementation, evaluation, validation, and file access are shared. composes over a curated text-workflow operator library, whereas embodied AAS must edit the seed graph di… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Representative search trajectories. Each panel shows single-pass SR, best-so-far SR, the shared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: AgentCanvas as an embodied-AAS substrate. Left: an agent factors into typed nodes, typed-port wires, and shared state in a container reached by access grants (shown: the MapGPT-MP3D loop body; node colour = source nodeset; the loop is an iter out→iter in carry, not a back-edge; §A.2–§A.3). Right: the batch-eval optimisation (§A.4). Naive synchronous lock-step (top) stalls every worker on the slowest module… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The AgentCanvas UI, for a human. The typed graph an Optimizer edits as JSON is, for a researcher, a node-and-wire canvas with an inspectable state panel (shown: the SmartWay-CE graph and its run state). The visual editor and the Optimizer’s edit/evaluate interface are two views of one artifact. A.2 The Executor as an editable typed graph An Executor in AGENTCANVAS is a pure-data GraphDefinition: a JSON doc… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Full 3 × 4 per-cell search trajectories (rows: optimizers, columns: executors), same conventions as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. Embodied Agents Take Control: Minimal-Interface Zero-Shot Agents Rival Industrial-Scale Policies in Vision-and-Language Navigation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Unmodified software-agent harnesses, given only a monocular RGB camera and four discrete actions, achieve 68–78% success on zero-shot R2R-CE navigation, rivaling trained and workflow-based systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Anderson, Q

    P. Anderson, Q. Wu, D. Teney, J. Bruce, M. Johnson, N. S ¨underhauf, I. Reid, S. Gould, and A. Van Den Hengel. Vision-and-language navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded naviga- tion instructions in real environments. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3674–3683, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    G. Zhou, Y . Hong, and Q. Wu. Navgpt: Explicit reasoning in vision-and-language navigation with large language models. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    J. Chen, B. Lin, R. Xu, Z. Chai, X. Liang, and K.-Y . Wong. Mapgpt: Map-guided prompting with adaptive path planning for vision-and-language navigation. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 9796–9810, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    A. Das, S. Datta, G. Gkioxari, S. Lee, D. Parikh, and D. Batra. Embodied question answering. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1–10, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    A. Z. Ren, J. Clark, A. Dixit, M. Itkina, A. Majumdar, and D. Sadigh. Explore until confident: Efficient exploration for embodied question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15941, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Saxena, B

    S. Saxena, B. Buchanan, C. Paxton, P. Liu, B. Chen, N. Vaskevicius, L. Palmieri, J. Francis, and O. Kroemer. Grapheqa: Using 3d semantic scene graphs for real-time embodied question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14480, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Liang, W

    J. Liang, W. Huang, F. Xia, P. Xu, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, P. Florence, and A. Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control. In2023 IEEE International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 9493–9500. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Huang, C

    W. Huang, C. Wang, R. Zhang, Y . Li, J. Wu, and L. Fei-Fei. V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    S. Hu, C. Lu, and J. Clune. Automated design of agentic systems. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Xiang, Z. Yu, F. Teng, X. Chen, J. Chen, M. Zhuge, X. Cheng, S. Hong, J. Wang, et al. Aflow: Automating agentic workflow generation. InInternational Conference on Learn- ing Representations, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Shang, Y

    Y . Shang, Y . Li, K. Zhao, L. Ma, J. Liu, F. Xu, and Y . Li. Agentsquare: Automatic llm agent search in modular design space. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Zhang, L

    G. Zhang, L. Niu, J. Fang, K. Wang, L. Bai, and X. Wang. Multi-agent architecture search via agentic supernet.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04180, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    X. Shi, Z. Li, W. Lyu, J. Xia, F. Dayoub, Y . Qiao, and Q. Wu. Smartway: Enhanced waypoint prediction and backtracking for zero-shot vision-and-language navigation. In2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    J. Xu, A. Koesdwiady, S. Bei, Y . Han, B. Huang, D. Wang, Y . Chen, Z. Wang, P. Wang, P. Li, et al. Rethinking the value of multi-agent workflow: A strong single agent baseline.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.12307, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Shridhar, J

    M. Shridhar, J. Thomason, D. Gordon, Y . Bisk, W. Han, R. Mottaghi, L. Zettlemoyer, and D. Fox. Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10740–10749, 2020. 9

    2020

  16. [16]

    Brohan, Y

    A. Brohan, Y . Chebotar, C. Finn, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, D. Ho, J. Ibarz, A. Irpan, E. Jang, R. Julian, et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. In Conference on robot learning, pages 287–318. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  17. [17]

    Huang, C

    W. Huang, C. Wang, Y . Li, R. Zhang, and L. Fei-Fei. Rekep: Spatio-temporal reasoning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01652, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    M. Zhai, H. Liang, X. Fan, Z. Gao, C. Li, C. Sun, X. Bin, Y . Wu, and Y . Jia. Multi-step reason- ing for embodied question answering via tool augmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.20310, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Driess, F

    D. Driess, F. Xia, M. S. M. Sajjadi, C. Lynch, A. Chowdhery, B. Ichter, A. Wahid, J. Tompson, Q. Vuong, T. Yu, W. Huang, Y . Chebotar, P. Sermanet, D. Duckworth, S. Levine, V . Vanhoucke, K. Hausman, M. Toussaint, K. Greff, A. Zeng, I. Mordatch, and P. Florence. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2303.03378

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Brohan, N

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, J. Dabis, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Haus- man, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, J. Ibarz, B. Ichter, A. Irpan, T. Jackson, S. Jesmonth, N. J. Joshi, R. Julian, D. Kalashnikov, Y . Kuang, I. Leal, K.-H. Lee, S. Levine, Y . Lu, U. Malla, D. Man- junath, I. Mordatch, O. Nachum, C. Parada, J. Peralta, E. Perez, K. Pertsc...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Zitkovich, T

    B. Zitkovich, T. Yu, S. Xu, P. Xu, T. Xiao, F. Xia, J. Wu, P. Wohlhart, S. Welker, A. Wahid, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 2165–2183. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Black, N

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Haus- man, B. Ichter, S. Jakubczak, T. Jones, L. Ke, S. Levine, A. Li-Bell, M. Mothukuri, S. Nair, K. Pertsch, L. X. Shi, J. Tanner, Q. Vuong, A. Walling, H. Wang, and U. Zhilinsky.π 0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv. o...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    G. Wang, Y . Xie, Y . Jiang, A. Mandlekar, C. Xiao, Y . Zhu, L. Fan, and A. Anandku- mar. V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Shinn, F

    N. Shinn, F. Cassano, A. Gopinath, K. Narasimhan, and S. Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 8634–8652, 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    Zhuge, W

    M. Zhuge, W. Wang, L. Kirsch, F. Faccio, D. Khizbullin, and J. Schmidhuber. Gptswarm: Language agents as optimizable graphs. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Cheng, A

    C.-A. Cheng, A. Nie, and A. Swaminathan. Trace is the next autodiff: Generative optimization with rich feedback, execution traces, and llms.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:71596–71642, 2024

    2024

  28. [28]

    Y . Wang, S. Liu, J. Fang, and Z. Meng. Evoagentx: An automated framework for evolving agentic workflows. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 643–655, 2025. 10

    2025

  29. [29]

    Khattab, A

    O. Khattab, A. Singhvi, P. Maheshwari, Z. Zhang, K. Santhanam, S. Vardhamanan, S. Haq, A. Sharma, T. T. Joshi, H. Moazam, H. Miller, M. Zaharia, and C. Potts. Dspy: Compiling declarative language model calls into self-improving pipelines, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2310.03714

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    C. Yang, X. Wang, Y . Lu, H. Liu, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou, and X. Chen. Large language models as optimizers. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  31. [31]

    Yuksekgonul, F

    M. Yuksekgonul, F. Bianchi, J. Boen, S. Liu, Z. Huang, C. Guestrin, and J. Zou. Textgrad: Automatic” differentiation” via text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07496, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    S. Xu, J. Zhang, S. Di, Y . Luo, L. Yao, H. Liu, J. Zhu, F. Liu, and M.-L. Zhang. Robustflow: Towards robust agentic workflow generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.21834, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    J. Yang, C. E. Jimenez, A. Wettig, K. Lieret, S. Yao, K. Narasimhan, and O. Press. Swe- agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:50528–50652, 2024

    2024

  34. [34]

    X. Wang, B. Li, Y . Song, F. F. Xu, X. Tang, M. Zhuge, J. Pan, Y . Song, B. Li, J. Singh, et al. Openhands: An open platform for ai software developers as generalist agents. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, 2025

    2025

  35. [35]

    Claude code, 2025.https://www.anthropic.com/product/claude-code

    Anthropic. Claude code, 2025.https://www.anthropic.com/product/claude-code

    2025

  36. [36]

    LangGraph, 2024.https://github.com/langchain-ai/langgraph

    LangChain. LangGraph, 2024.https://github.com/langchain-ai/langgraph

    2024

  37. [37]

    Move the stop decision after the landmark check

    Q. Wu, G. Bansal, J. Zhang, Y . Wu, B. Li, E. Zhu, L. Jiang, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Liu, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversations. InFirst conference on language modeling, 2024. 11 Appendix Contents •Appendix A – AgentCanvas.The typed-graph Executor substrate (§A). •Appendix B – Per-Cell Search Trajectories.Full sea...

    2024