Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Integrating LMM Planners and 3D Skill Policies for Generalizable Manipulation

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Integrating a GPT-4V planner with a 3D feature-field policy lifts robot manipulation success by 1.45x and planning accuracy by 1.5x over LLM baselines.

desk verdict A sensible LMM-plus-3D-policy integration whose headline numbers don't survive close reading; worth peer review, but the evaluation needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18733 v1 pith:ZPIKZPYL submitted 2025-01-30 cs.RO cs.AI

Yuelei Li , Ge Yan , Annabella Macaluso , Mazeyu Ji , Xueyan Zou , Xiaolong Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords largemultimodalmodelsrobotmanipulation3Dfeaturefieldsimitationlearninglong-horizonplanningGPT-4Vkitchencriticagent
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

This paper tries to establish that robot manipulation in real-world kitchens can be made far more robust by combining a visual-language planner that can see and self-correct with a low-level policy that understands 3D geometry and semantics. The authors build LMM-3DP, which uses GPT-4V to generate and revise step-by-step language plans, a critic agent that checks each plan against the current scene, and a memory of past critiques; the low level is a language-conditioned 3D transformer that predicts keyframe poses from a fused semantic-geometric point cloud. Across five skills, composition tests, and three long-horizon tasks, the framework reports a 1.45x success-rate increase in low-level control and roughly 1.5x higher planning accuracy over LLM-based baselines, and 56.5% overall accuracy on long-horizon tasks where a baseline gets 7% (50% on the first step). If these numbers hold, the framework's value is showing that closed-loop visual feedback and a reusable 3D skill library can together overcome the classic failure modes of LLM planners, which ignore scene state and cannot adapt when the world changes mid-task.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the semantic-aware 3D feature field built by back-projecting DINO 2D features onto geometry features from PointNext, which is then attended jointly with CLIP language embeddings inside a 3D transformer (a '3D feature field transformer'). This unified representation is what lets a single imitation-learned policy perform multiple skills—grasp, place, turn, open, close—from a few demonstrations and to compose pick-and-place skills across unseen object-location pairs. On the planning side, the GPT-4V planner operates in a closed loop with a critic agent and a memory of human-summarised critiques; the critic takes only the visual observation and proposed plan, so it can veto steps that contradict the scene (e.g., open a drawer that is already open, or pick an object that is not present). The two sides are integrated by having the language embeddings that represent the high-level plan attend to the 3D feature field in the same transformer, so the low-level action is conditioned on both the instruction and the current 3D scene.

What would settle it

Rerun the three long-horizon tasks with 50 trials per condition and compute binomial confidence intervals for the success rates; if the 95% intervals for LMM-3DP and the baselines overlap substantially, the claimed 1.45x and 1.5x advantages are not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the gap between high-level reasoning and low-level control can be closed by making the planner multimodal and self-improving and by grounding the controller in a 3D semantic feature field. The planner receives visual feedback after each skill, so it can re-plan on environment disturbances; a critic that does not see the human instruction catches plans misaligned with observations; and stored critiques serve as memory for future planning. The controller back-projects self-supervised 2D features (DINO) into 3D space, fuses them with PointNext geometry features, and uses a 3D transformer in which language embeddings are jointly attended with the point cloud to output the next keyframe pose. The paper reports 90% grasp, 65% place, 80% turn, 40% open, 100% close without distractors, drop of roughly 10-20 points with distractors, and 56.5% average on long-horizon tasks, versus 7% for a SayCan+OWL-v2 baseline and 10% for Voxposer on the same three tasks. The mistakes that remain are attributed to the low-level policy accumulating errors, while the planning component with visual feedback and critic reaches near 100% accuracy in its ablations.

Load-bearing premise

Every reported accuracy rate comes from only 10 trials, and the paper treats these proportions as reliable estimates of true success probabilities, without any confidence intervals or significance tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robots using this stack can recover from failed low-level attempts by re-planning rather than repeating the same mistake, as shown in the 'reattempt after failure' experiments with injected noise.
  • The framework can handle a human instruction that does not match the scene by using a critic that ignores the instruction and checks feasibility against the visual observation.
  • Low-level skills learned from as few as 5-10 demonstrations per task generalize to new objects and locations, as shown by the pick/place composition table where milk is placed in the sink and drawer despite not being trained there.
  • Training on two kitchen settings lowers per-skill accuracy by 10-20 points, indicating a measurable generalization cost when scene diversity is increased.
  • On tasks requiring visual state awareness—placing a pan in a drawer that is initially closed—the planner reaches 80% accuracy versus 50% or 0% for baselines, because only the LMM can see the drawer state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reported ratios hold under larger trials, a practical implication is that expensive per-task engineering for low-level skills can be replaced by a small demonstration library plus a generic vision-language planner, lowering the marginal cost of adding new kitchen tasks.
  • The critic-agent design suggests a testable extension: replacing GPT-4V with an open-weight LMM and re-measuring the 1.5x planning gain would show whether the improvement is tied to GPT-4V's specific visual reasoning or generalizes across visual-language models.
  • The 10-trial evaluation means the 1.45x and 1.5x claims are compatible with wide confidence intervals; a direct replication with 50+ trials per condition would sharpen whether the true effect is as large as stated.
  • The two-kitchen drop of 10-20 points hints that the semantic 3D representation may be overfitting to visual texture or layout, and an extension is to finetune on a third kitchen to see whether the drop shrinks with more diverse data.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LMM-3DP, a framework that combines a GPT-4V-based high-level planner with a language-conditioned 3D feature-field imitation policy for real-world robot manipulation. The planner supports visual feedback, a critic agent with self-feedback, memory, and reattempts, while the low-level policy fuses DINO-derived semantic features with PointNext geometry features to predict keyframe actions. The system is evaluated on five low-level skills, high-level planning tasks, and three long-horizon kitchen tasks, with ablations on visual feedback and the critic agent. The abstract and conclusion claim a 1.45x success-rate increase in low-level control and an approximate 1.5x improvement in high-level planning accuracy over LLM-based baselines.

Significance. If the empirical claims were fully supported, LMM-3DP would be a useful demonstration of closed-loop LMM planning combined with 3D semantic feature-field policies for long-horizon manipulation. The integration of visual feedback, a critic, and memory into a GPT-4V planner is a plausible recipe for improving robustness, and the 3D policy builds on credible prior work (GNFactor, DNAct). The paper also ships a project page with demo videos, which is a plus. However, the central quantitative claims are not reproducible from the tables, the baselines for low-level control are not trained policies, and no statistical support is provided for any reported accuracy rate. The significance of the work therefore depends on a revision that corrects the reporting and narrows the claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion vs. Tables II and IV] The headline claims of "1.45x success rate increase in low-level control" and "approximate 1.5x improvement in high-level planning accuracy" are not reproducible from the paper's own tables. For low-level control, Table II compares only Grasp and Place: Ours averages 77.5%, OWL-v2 52.5% (ratio 1.48), and Voxposer 55% (ratio 1.41); these ratios differ by baseline and cover only two of the five skills. For high-level planning, Table IV gives Ours 92%, SayCan 50% (ratio 1.84), and Voxposer 88% (ratio 1.05). No calculation from these tables yields the advertised 1.5x planning improvement, and the low-level ratio is not a well-defined single number. The abstract and conclusion should state the specific comparisons actually made.
  2. [Introduction vs. Table VII] The introduction states that "our baseline only has an overall average accuracy of 7% and first step average accuracy of 50%" for long-horizon tasks. Table VII reports overall averages of 6.7% for SayCan+OWL-v2 and 10% for Voxposer, which roughly round to 7%, but the first-step averages are 40% for SayCan+OWL-v2 and 66.7% for Voxposer. The claimed 50% first-step accuracy does not match either baseline. This discrepancy must be corrected, and the basis for any aggregate baseline number should be explicitly computed from Table VII.
  3. [Section IV-A, first paragraph] The paper states that "each reported accuracy rate is obtained with 10 trials," but the very next sentence says "Pick is tested 5 times for each of 5 objects, place 5 times for each of 4 locations, and other skills 10 times total." Thus the pick and place rates in Tables I and II are based on 25 and 20 trials, respectively, not 10. This contradiction affects the interpretation of all skill accuracies, and the trial-count reporting should be revised to be unambiguous and accurate.
  4. [Section IV-A, Table II and low-level baselines] The low-level baselines are OWL-v2, an open-vocabulary object detector, and Voxposer, a planning method with value maps; neither is a trained imitation policy. Claiming a "1.45x success rate increase in low-level control" against these alternatives is not a comparison of low-level control policies, and the paper's wording implies a policy-level improvement. Moreover, Turn, Open, and Close skills are not evaluated against any baseline in Table II. The authors should either add proper imitation-learning baselines or clearly reframe the comparison as "our learned policy versus non-learned affordance-based approaches" and avoid the general "low-level control" claim.
  5. [Section IV-A and Tables VII/VIII] All accuracy rates are proportions from 10 trials per condition (or fewer for some subtrials) with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. For example, in Table II, the Grasp difference of 90% vs. 60% over 10 trials is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level (Fisher's exact test two-sided p ≈ 0.30). The word "significant" in the abstract is therefore unsupported. The paper should report confidence intervals or exact tests, or soften the language to "observed improvement" without statistical significance claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (1)] The loss equation is malformed: the equation number appears in the middle of the expression, and the line breaks split the equation into fragments. Please rewrite it as a single, properly numbered equation.
  2. [Section III-B] The notation "arot ∈ 0, 1(360/5)3" is unclear. Please define the rotation discretization explicitly, e.g., 72 bins per axis, and clarify the dimension of the prediction.
  3. [Related Work] The phrase "Due to the emergency of LMMs" should be "Due to the emergence of LMMs."
  4. [Section IV-A] The sentence "Our results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms the baseline (see Table II)" uses "significantly" in a statistical sense without any supporting test. Please either add a test or rephrase to "outperforms the baseline in these trials."
  5. [Section IV-A, Long Horizon Tasks] The text says "Our planning part, with visual feedback and a critic agent, has nearly 100% accuracy," but Table IV shows an average of 92% and Table VIII shows 70% for the close-left-drawer condition. Please align this statement with the reported numbers.
  6. [Table V] The row labeled "1st kitchen (1 kitchen checkpoint)" is confusing: it appears to repeat the single-kitchen results from Table I, not a separate checkpoint. Please clarify the experimental condition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's central claims rest on external baselines, and its self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is an empirical system evaluation rather than a chain of equations that reduce to their own inputs. The high-level planner uses GPT-4V with a critic and memory, and the low-level policy is trained by imitation learning on demonstrations using DINO and PointNext features. The long-horizon experiments compare against external baselines SayCan, Voxposer, and OWL-v2, and the headline 1.45x and 1.5x ratios are empirical comparisons, not algebraic identities. No parameter is fitted to the reported success rates, and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the outcome being predicted. The only self-citations are to GNFactor and DNAct in the Related Work section, where the paper explicitly contrasts its PointNext/DINO two-branch representation with their NeRF-based feature fields; these citations do not carry the central argument. The observable internal inconsistencies in the reported numbers (e.g., the statement that each accuracy rate is obtained with 10 trials versus the description of 5 trials per object or location, and the introduction's 'first step average accuracy of 50%' not matching Table VII) are reproducibility and reporting concerns, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is established, and the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on several unstated modeling choices and evaluation assumptions. The most important free parameters are the undisclosed GPT-4V prompts and the success criteria; the most important axioms are that DINO back-projection and PointNext provide sufficient semantic and geometric features, and that keyframe actions suffice for the tested skills.

free parameters (5)
  • Success criteria for each skill
    Each accuracy number depends on the authors' binary definition of success (e.g., object inside drawer) without a formal metric.
  • GPT-4V prompt templates
    The planner and critic outputs are sensitive to prompt phrasing; the prompts are not disclosed.
  • Loss weights in Eq. 1
    The total loss is a weighted sum, but lambda_trans, lambda_rot, lambda_open, lambda_collide are not reported.
  • Label smoothing parameter alpha
    The translation loss uses label smoothing with an unspecified alpha.
  • Query point sampling configuration
    The fixed set of query points in the gripper workspace is not specified in number or distribution.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DINO features back-projected to 3D provide semantically useful per-point features
    Assumed in Section III-B; no comparison with other semantic feature sources.
  • domain assumption PointNext geometric features are sufficient for the scene representation
    Assumed in Section III-B; no ablation on the geometry branch.
  • domain assumption GPT-4V can reliably understand the kitchen scene and generate or critique plans
    The planning and critic modules rely on the proprietary model's behavior, which is not controlled by the authors.
  • domain assumption Keyframe-based action prediction is sufficient for the five skills
    The policy predicts discrete keyframe poses instead of continuous trajectories; the paper lists continuous tasks as a limitation.
  • domain assumption The 10-trial evaluation accurately estimates true success rates
    All accuracies use 10 trials with no variance or significance testing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrating LMM Planners and 3D Skill Policies for Generalizable Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZPIKZPYL

@misc{pith2026250118733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrating LMM Planners and 3D Skill Policies for Generalizable Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZPIKZPYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18733}
}
read the original abstract

The recent advancements in visual reasoning capabilities of large multimodal models (LMMs) and the semantic enrichment of 3D feature fields have expanded the horizons of robotic capabilities. These developments hold significant potential for bridging the gap between high-level reasoning from LMMs and low-level control policies utilizing 3D feature fields. In this work, we introduce LMM-3DP, a framework that can integrate LMM planners and 3D skill Policies. Our approach consists of three key perspectives: high-level planning, low-level control, and effective integration. For high-level planning, LMM-3DP supports dynamic scene understanding for environment disturbances, a critic agent with self-feedback, history policy memorization, and reattempts after failures. For low-level control, LMM-3DP utilizes a semantic-aware 3D feature field for accurate manipulation. In aligning high-level and low-level control for robot actions, language embeddings representing the high-level policy are jointly attended with the 3D feature field in the 3D transformer for seamless integration. We extensively evaluate our approach across multiple skills and long-horizon tasks in a real-world kitchen environment. Our results show a significant 1.45x success rate increase in low-level control and an approximate 1.5x improvement in high-level planning accuracy compared to LLM-based baselines. Demo videos and an overview of LMM-3DP are available at https://lmm-3dp-release.github.io.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LMM-3DP effectively handles environment disturbances, retries if previous attempts fail, and performs accurate reasoning even when human instructions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of how our planner updates the plan during the robot’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Full Framework Pipeline. control. Some methods [16], [31], [32], [33], [34] also leverage vision language models (VLMs) to infer language-grounded affordances and perform motion planning. However, they still lack accurate 3D understanding for challenging environments with diverse geometry shapes and intricate 3D structures. However, LMM-3DP addresses this challenge by integrating the high-level planner with a langua… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Flex-$\pi$: A Multi-Stream World-Action Model with Compute Flexibility

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Flex-π is a 6B world-action model that jointly predicts RGB, 3D pointmaps, and DINO semantic futures, allowing a single checkpoint to switch between fast action-only and full joint generation.

  2. ManiFlow: A General Robot Manipulation Policy via Consistency Flow Training

    cs.RO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ManiFlow trains a flow-matching policy with a continuous-time consistency objective and an adaptive cross-attention transformer, enabling dexterous manipulation with 1-2 inference steps and substantially higher succes...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    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

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Inner monologue: Embod- ied reasoning through planning with language models,

    W. Huang, F. Xia, T. Xiao, H. Chan, J. Liang, P. Florence, A. Zeng, J. Tompson, I. Mordatch, Y . Chebotaret al., “Inner monologue: Embod- ied reasoning through planning with language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Socratic models: Composing zero-shot multimodal reasoning with language,

    A. Zeng, M. Attarian, B. Ichter, K. Choromanski, A. Wong, S. Welker, F. Tombari, A. Purohit, M. Ryoo, V . Sindhwani et al. , “Socratic models: Composing zero-shot multimodal reasoning with language,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00598 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Collaborating with language models for embodied reasoning,

    I. Dasgupta, C. Kaeser-Chen, K. Marino, A. Ahuja, S. Babayan, F. Hill, and R. Fergus, “Collaborating with language models for embodied reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00763 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,

    S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y . Cao, “React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models,

    C. H. Song, J. Wu, C. Washington, B. M. Sadler, W.-L. Chao, and Y . Su, “Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 2998–3009

    2023

  7. [7]

    Planning with large language models via corrective re-prompting,

    S. S. Raman, V . Cohen, E. Rosen, I. Idrees, D. Paulius, and S. Tellex, “Planning with large language models via corrective re-prompting,” in NeurIPS 2022 F oundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    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 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 11 523–11 530

    2023

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Chatgpt empowered long-step robot control in various environments: A case application,

    N. Wake, A. Kanehira, K. Sasabuchi, J. Takamatsu, and K. Ikeuchi, “Chatgpt empowered long-step robot control in various environments: A case application,” IEEE Access , 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,

    W. Huang, P. Abbeel, D. Pathak, and I. Mordatch, “Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 9118–9147

    2022

  3. [11]

    Open-vocabulary queryable scene represen- tations for real world planning,

    B. Chen, F. Xia, B. Ichter, K. Rao, K. Gopalakrishnan, M. S. Ryoo, A. Stone, and D. Kappler, “Open-vocabulary queryable scene represen- tations for real world planning,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 11 509–11 522

    2023

  4. [12]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied 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 embodied control,” 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable robot task planning,

    K. Rana, J. Haviland, S. Garg, J. Abou-Chakra, I. Reid, and N. Suenderhauf, “Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable robot task planning,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06135

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    From text to mo- tion: Grounding gpt-4 in a humanoid robot

    T. Yoshida, A. Masumori, and T. Ikegami, “From text to mo- tion: Grounding gpt-4 in a humanoid robot” alter3”,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06571, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Manipllm: Embodied multimodal large lan- guage model for object-centric robotic manipulation,

    X. Li, M. Zhang, Y . Geng, H. Geng, Y . Long, Y . Shen, R. Zhang, J. Liu, and H. Dong, “Manipllm: Embodied multimodal large lan- guage model for object-centric robotic manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16217, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,

    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

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    (2023) Gpt-4v(ision) system card

    OpenAI. (2023) Gpt-4v(ision) system card. [Online]. Available: https://cdn.openai.com/papers/GPTV System Card.pdf

    2023

  11. [19]

    Pointnext: Revisiting pointnet++ with improved training and scaling strategies,

    G. Qian, Y . Li, H. Peng, J. Mai, H. Hammoud, M. Elhoseiny, and B. Ghanem, “Pointnext: Revisiting pointnet++ with improved training and scaling strategies,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 23 192–23 204, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Tidybot: Personalized robot assis- tance with large language models,

    J. Wu, R. Antonova, A. Kan, M. Lepert, A. Zeng, S. Song, J. Bohg, S. Rusinkiewicz, and T. Funkhouser, “Tidybot: Personalized robot assis- tance with large language models,” Autonomous Robots , vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1087–1102, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities,

    S. Vemprala, R. Bonatti, A. Bucker, and A. Kapoor, “Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities,” 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Piglet: Language grounding through neuro- symbolic interaction in a 3d world,

    R. Zellers, A. Holtzman, M. Peters, R. Mottaghi, A. Kembhavi, A. Farhadi, and Y . Choi, “Piglet: Language grounding through neuro- symbolic interaction in a 3d world,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00188 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Instruct2act: Mapping multi-modality instructions to robotic actions with large lan- guage model,

    S. Huang, Z. Jiang, H. Dong, Y . Qiao, P. Gao, and H. Li, “Instruct2act: Mapping multi-modality instructions to robotic actions with large lan- guage model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11176 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Autort: Embodied foundation models for large scale orchestration of robotic agents,

    M. Ahn, D. Dwibedi, C. Finn, M. G. Arenas, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, A. Irpan, N. Joshi, R. Julian et al. , “Autort: Embodied foundation models for large scale orchestration of robotic agents,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12963 , 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Look before you leap: Unveiling the power of gpt-4v in robotic vision-language planning,

    Y . Hu, F. Lin, T. Zhang, L. Yi, and Y . Gao, “Look before you leap: Unveiling the power of gpt-4v in robotic vision-language planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17842 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Copa: General robotic manipulation through spatial constraints of parts with foundation models,

    H. Huang, F. Lin, Y . Hu, S. Wang, and Y . Gao, “Copa: General robotic manipulation through spatial constraints of parts with foundation models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08248 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gpt-4v (ision) for robotics: Multimodal task planning from human demonstration,

    N. Wake, A. Kanehira, K. Sasabuchi, J. Takamatsu, and K. Ikeuchi, “Gpt-4v (ision) for robotics: Multimodal task planning from human demonstration,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12015 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Llm granularity for on-the-fly robot control,

    P. Wang, M. Robbiani, and Z. Guo, “Llm granularity for on-the-fly robot control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14653 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Empow- ering large language models on robotic manipulation with affordance prompting,

    G. Cheng, C. Zhang, W. Cai, L. Zhao, C. Sun, and J. Bian, “Empow- ering large language models on robotic manipulation with affordance prompting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11027 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Moka: Open-vocabulary robotic manipulation through mark-based visual prompting,

    F. Liu, K. Fang, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Moka: Open-vocabulary robotic manipulation through mark-based visual prompting,” 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Visual language maps for robot navigation,

    C. Huang, O. Mees, A. Zeng, and W. Burgard, “Visual language maps for robot navigation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 10 608–10 615

    2023

  25. [33]

    Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable task planning,

    K. Rana, J. Haviland, S. Garg, J. Abou-Chakra, I. D. Reid, and N. Suenderhauf, “Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable task planning,” CoRR, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Language-grounded dynamic scene graphs for interactive object search with mobile manipulation,

    D. Honerkamp, M. B ¨uchner, F. Despinoy, T. Welschehold, and A. Val- ada, “Language-grounded dynamic scene graphs for interactive object search with mobile manipulation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,

    C. Chi, S. Feng, Y . Du, Z. Xu, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song, “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04137 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Implicit behavioral cloning,

    P. Florence, C. Lynch, A. Zeng, O. A. Ramirez, A. Wahid, L. Downs, A. Wong, J. Lee, I. Mordatch, and J. Tompson, “Implicit behavioral cloning,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 158– 168

    2022

  29. [37]

    Scaling up and distilling down: Language-guided robot skill acquisition,

    H. Ha, P. Florence, and S. Song, “Scaling up and distilling down: Language-guided robot skill acquisition,” in Conference on Robot Learn- ing. PMLR, 2023, pp. 3766–3777

    2023

  30. [38]

    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

  31. [39]

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

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, X. Chen, K. Choroman- ski, T. Ding, D. Driess, A. Dubey, C. Finn et al., “Rt-2: Vision-language- action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

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

    A. Padalkar, A. Pooley, A. Jain, A. Bewley, A. Herzog, A. Ir- pan, A. Khazatsky, A. Rai, A. Singh, A. Brohan et al. , “Open x- embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08864, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Perceiver-actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic manipulation,

    M. Shridhar, L. Manuelli, and D. Fox, “Perceiver-actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic manipulation,” in Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 785–799

    2023

  34. [42]

    Gnfactor: Multi-task real robot learning with generalizable neural feature fields,

    Y . Ze, G. Yan, Y .-H. Wu, A. Macaluso, Y . Ge, J. Ye, N. Hansen, L. E. Li, and X. Wang, “Gnfactor: Multi-task real robot learning with generalizable neural feature fields,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 284–301

    2023

  35. [43]

    Dnact: Diffusion guided multi-task 3d policy learning,

    G. Yan, Y .-H. Wu, and X. Wang, “Dnact: Diffusion guided multi-task 3d policy learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04115 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Polarnet: 3d point clouds for language-guided robotic manipulation,

    S. Chen, R. Garcia, C. Schmid, and I. Laptev, “Polarnet: 3d point clouds for language-guided robotic manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15596, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Learning generalizable manip- ulation policies with object-centric 3d representations,

    Y . Zhu, Z. Jiang, P. Stone, and Y . Zhu, “Learning generalizable manip- ulation policies with object-centric 3d representations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14386, 2023. 8

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A universal semantic- geometric representation for robotic manipulation,

    T. Zhang, Y . Hu, H. Cui, H. Zhao, and Y . Gao, “A universal semantic- geometric representation for robotic manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10474, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.08934

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers,

    M. Caron, H. Touvron, I. Misra, H. J ´egou, J. Mairal, P. Bojanowski, and A. Joulin, “Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

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

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. Le, and D. Zhou, “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,” 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al. , “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  43. [51]

    Act3d: 3d feature field transformers for multi-task robotic manipulation,

    T. Gervet, Z. Xian, N. Gkanatsios, and K. Fragkiadaki, “Act3d: 3d feature field transformers for multi-task robotic manipulation,” 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Scaling open-vocabulary object detection,

    M. Minderer, A. Gritsenko, and N. Houlsby, “Scaling open-vocabulary object detection,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.