The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.06256 · v1 · pith:SPC365PR · submitted 2026-07-07 · cs.RO

Diagnosing Semantic Handoff Failures in Agent-Orchestrated Vision-Language-Action Skill Composition

Ke Rui , Yushen Zuo , Jiawei Wang , Haoran Jia , Jinming Ma , Weitao Zhou , Minglei Li This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-08 11:43 UTCglm-5.2pith:SPC365PRrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.RO
keywords semantic handoffvision-language-action modelsskill compositionrobot long-horizon tasksBEHAVIOR-1Kfailure attributionVLA skill librarychained-state distribution shift
0
0 comments X

The pith

VLA skills pass in isolation, fail in composition

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

The paper introduces a diagnostic framework for understanding why long-horizon robotic tasks fail when composed from individual vision-language-action (VLA) skills. The central object is the **semantic handoff failure**: a situation where a skill completes its local objective but leaves the robot in a state from which the next skill cannot reliably start. The authors construct an execution harness that orchestrates VLA skill checkpoints through a plan-act-verify-replan loop with multi-view vision-language model verification, and use it to compare skill performance under two conditions: clean curated snapshots versus chained terminal states from prior skills. The core discovery is a competence gap: skills that achieve 77-100% success from clean snapshots frequently stall when called from the messy states left by preceding skills. The harness attributes these failures to three VLA-side causes: next-skill readiness (e.g., navigation stops short of arm-reach), target grounding (e.g., target out of view or wrong instance), and control execution (e.g., grasp doesn't close). These are transfer failures of otherwise-competent skills, not raw incapacity, and they are invisible to isolated skill benchmarks.

Core claim

The same VLA skill checkpoints that achieve 77-100% success from curated starting states frequently fail when invoked from the terminal states of preceding skills. This gap is not due to uniformly weak policies but to a distribution shift at skill boundaries: each skill's legitimate terminal state is already out-of-distribution for the next skill. The paper's agent harness converts near-zero end-to-end task success into a prioritized failure attribution across three categories—next-skill readiness (35 navigation-stops-short failures), target grounding (37 scene-search failures), and control execution (58 grasp/actuation/placement failures)—demonstrating that the binding constraint on long-ho

What carries the argument

The semantic execution harness treats each skill call as a typed contract with arguments, a step budget, and a postcondition. A multi-view VLM verifier checks head and wrist camera observations against the postcondition every 200 simulator steps, deciding whether to advance, retry, or replan. Every rollout produces a replayable trace of skill dispatches, verifier decisions, and recovery actions. The arm-reach handoff ablation isolates the effect of tightening the navigation postcondition from 'reached the area' to 'within arm-reach,' surfacing 12 additional readiness failures and recovering the radio task.

If this is right

  • VLA skill benchmarks that evaluate only from curated snapshots systematically overestimate real-world competence; evaluation must include chained-state initial conditions to expose handoff failures.
  • Training data for VLA skill libraries should include chained-state distributions—states produced by preceding skills—not just clean demonstration boundaries, to build robustness to the conditions skills actually encounter in composition.
  • A next-skill readiness predicate, verified jointly with the postcondition, could prevent semantic handoff failures by checking not just whether the current skill completed but whether the resulting state is a valid starting point for the next skill.
  • The agent layer's value extends beyond execution: it functions as a diagnostic instrument that localizes where competence collapses, turning opaque task-level failures into a prioritized improvement roadmap.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the competence gap is fundamentally a distribution shift at skill boundaries, then curriculum learning strategies that progressively train skills from increasingly perturbed or chained initial states could close the gap more efficiently than scaling clean-demonstration data alone.
  • The three failure categories map to distinct improvement strategies—chained-state fine-tuning for readiness, instance-grounding supervision for target grounding, and contact-rich data for control execution—suggesting that a single intervention is unlikely to resolve all three simultaneously.
  • The verifier's dual role as both execution controller and failure attributor creates a potential circularity: if the verifier's handoff criteria are too loose, it may advance skills through weak states that then fail downstream, and the downstream failure would be attributed to the wrong skill rather than to the loose handoff at the prior boundary.

Load-bearing premise

The failure attribution depends on a VLM verifier being a reliable judge of both whether skills failed and why they failed. A blinded human audit confirms the binary failure decisions (20 of 21 verifier-flagged failures were real), but the failure-category labels remain verifier-derived and unvalidated, so the relative proportions of readiness, grounding, and control failures could be biased.

What would settle it

If skills trained with chained-state data still fail at the same handoff points, the semantic handoff problem would not be primarily a distribution shift but something structural about the skill decomposition itself.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06256 by Haoran Jia, Jiawei Wang, Jinming Ma, Ke Rui, Minglei Li, Weitao Zhou, Yushen Zuo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Turning on the radio through skill composition. The agent issues a sequence of typed skill calls such as move_to, pick_up_from, and press, and a multi-view VLM verifier checks each handoff before the next skill runs. When a check fails the agent recovers within the same loop—re-planning to a new sub-goal after a navigation that does not reach the radio, and retrying after a grasp that does not close—advanc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The semantic execution harness. Offline (left), cleaned BEHAVIOR-1K demonstrations initialize a π0.5 VLA backbone that full-skill mid-training and single-skill post-training specialize into a skill library spanning manipulation and navigation. Online (right), the agent layer maintains a task script, planning, and typed skill contracts, and dispatches step-level VLA skills in BEHAVIOR-1K/OmniGibson; a multi… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Long-horizon household tasks require robots to compose many language-conditioned skills, yet the boundary between consecutive skills is rarely explicit. A skill may satisfy its own postcondition while leaving the robot, objects, or camera views in a state from which the next skill cannot reliably start. We study this semantic handoff problem in BEHAVIOR-1K through an agent-orchestrated vision-language-action execution harness. The harness invokes $\pi_{0.5}$-based skill checkpoints trained from cleaned BEHAVIOR-1K demonstrations, assigns each skill typed arguments and a step budget, and uses multi-view vision-language model verification to decide whether execution should advance, retry, or replan. To separate isolated skill competence from long-horizon compositional robustness, we evaluate the same checkpoints under two initial-state distributions: clean skill-boundary snapshots and chained terminal states produced by previous skills. Selected navigation, grasping, placement, and door-opening skills achieve 77--100% success from clean snapshots under human-reviewed verification, yet composed rollouts still frequently stall from chained states. Execution traces attribute these failures to next-skill readiness, target grounding, and low-level control execution, revealing a substantial gap between single-skill success and reliable long-horizon task completion. These findings turn near-zero end-to-end task success into actionable diagnostics, showing that future VLA skill libraries must learn robustness to the messy chained-state distribution that clean demonstrations systematically underrepresent.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper studies the 'semantic handoff' problem in agent-orchestrated vision-language-action (VLA) skill composition within BEHAVIOR-1K. The authors train a compact π₀.₅-based skill library (navigation, grasping, placement, door manipulation) and deploy it through a plan-act-verify-replan agent harness that uses a multi-view VLM verifier (gemini-2.5-flash) to decide skill advancement, retry, or replan. The central empirical finding is a gap between isolated and composed performance: the same checkpoints achieve 77–100% success from clean skill-boundary snapshots but near-zero end-to-end task success. The harness attributes these composed-rollout failures to three VLA-side causes—next-skill readiness, target grounding, and control execution—derived from structured verifier reasons. An arm-reach verifier ablation (Table VI) shows that tightening the navigation handoff criterion reclassifies failures and recovers one task. The paper is transparent about limitations: small sample sizes (n=3 per task for progress scores, one representative round for attribution), single-annotator scoring, and verifier-derived failure categories that are not independently validated.

Significance. The semantic handoff problem—where a skill satisfies its own postcondition but leaves the state unready for the next skill—is a real and under-studied failure mode in VLA composition. The paper's framing of this as a distribution shift between composed policies (rather than within a single policy) is a useful conceptual contribution. The diagnostic harness design, with typed skill contracts, bounded verification, and replayable trace artifacts, is a practical contribution that others could adopt. The arm-reach ablation (Table VI) is a concrete demonstration that verifier design changes surface different failure modes, which is informative for the community. The paper is commendably transparent about its limitations, explicitly labeling category counts as 'preliminary indicators rather than calibrated rates.'

major comments (3)
  1. §IV-D, Table III and Table VII: The failure attribution in Table III (130 failed attempts categorized into control execution 58, target grounding 37, next-skill readiness 35) is derived entirely from structured verifier reasons produced by gemini-2.5-flash—the same verifier that controls execution decisions (advance/retry/replan). The paper acknowledges this limitation, but the specific category counts are the paper's main actionable output and rest on an unvalidated measurement instrument. The human audit (Table VII) validates only the binary failure decision (20/21 confirmed, N=21), explicitly not the failure categories. To make the diagnostic contribution defensible, the authors should either (a) have human annotators independently categorize a sample of the 130 failed attempts and report inter-annotator agreement against the verifier-derived labels, or (b) explicitly reframe TableIII
  2. §IV-D, Table VI: The arm-reach ablation provides direct evidence that the attribution is sensitive to verifier configuration. Tightening the navigation criterion shifted readiness failures from 23 to 35, grounding from 31 to 37, and control/commit from 61 to 58—a reclassification of at least 12 failures across categories. The paper frames this as 'sharpening the readiness signal,' but it equally demonstrates that the category proportions in Table III are not stable under verifier changes. This undermines the precision of the diagnostic percentages. The authors should discuss this sensitivity more explicitly: if changing one verifier clause reclassifies ~10% of failures, the category ratios should be presented as configuration-dependent ranges rather than fixed counts. A brief note on whether the directional conclusions (control execution as dominant cause) hold across both configurations
  3. §IV-A, Table II: The progress score (the paper's primary quantitative metric for composed performance) is scored by a single annotator from rollout video against the reference skill sequence, with n=3 instances per task. The standard deviations are large relative to the means (e.g., radio: 50.0±43.3%), and the scoring criterion—counting a step complete only when the postcondition is visible in video—is conservative but also subjective. Given that this metric underpins the claim that 'composed rollouts still frequently stall,' a second annotator on at least a subset (e.g., 10 of 30 rollouts) with reported agreement would make the central claim more defensible.
minor comments (7)
  1. §III-A: The skill contract s_t = (name, args, prompt, B_s, K_s, φ_t) is introduced but K_s (verifier interval) is not clearly distinguished from K=200 used in experiments. Clarifying whether K_s is per-skill or globally fixed would help.
  2. Table I: The 'press' row shows dashes for all columns. The footnote explains it shares a checkpoint with turn_on_switch, but a brief note in the table itself would improve readability.
  3. §IV-C: The phrase 'the same checkpoints are used in both protocols' is repeated multiple times across §IV-C and §IV-D. Consolidating this point would improve flow.
  4. Table VIII: The 'End' column uses 'finish' and 'timeout' without defining them. A footnote explaining that 'finish' means the episode budget was exhausted without timeout would help.
  5. §V-C, Table IX: The proposed readiness predicate templates are presented as future work. A brief note on whether the current arm-reach approximation already implements one of these templates (for move_to before pick_up_from) would clarify the relationship between the current system and the proposed framework.
  6. The paper uses both 'move_to' and 'navigate_to' for the same skill (acknowledged in §III-A). Standardizing on one name throughout, or using the canonical name with the alias noted once, would reduce confusion.
  7. References [8] and [11] cite arXiv papers from 2026 (2603.xxxxx and 2602.xxxxx). If these are accepted/published, the venue should be updated; if not, the arXiv identifier should be verified.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive reading. The referee's three major comments all concern the same underlying issue: our diagnostic outputs (failure attribution categories, progress scores) rest on measurement instruments whose reliability has not been independently validated. We agree this is the paper's most important weakness. We can and will address all three comments through additional human annotation: (1) independent categorization of a sample of failed attempts with inter-annotator agreement against verifier-derived labels, (2) reframing Table III category counts as configuration-dependent ranges informed by the arm-reach ablation, and (3) a second annotator on a subset of progress-scored rollouts. We cannot fully eliminate the small-sample limitation (n=3 per task, one representative round for attribution) within the revision cycle, but we can make the uncertainty explicit and bound it with the requested annotation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §IV-D, Table III and Table VII: The failure attribution is derived entirely from structured verifier reasons produced by gemini-2.5-flash—the same verifier that controls execution decisions. The human audit validates only the binary failure decision, not the failure categories. The authors should either (a) have human annotators independently categorize a sample of the 130 failed attempts and report inter-annotator agreement, or (b) explicitly reframe Table III.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the category counts in Table III rest on an unvalidated instrument—the same VLM verifier that drives execution also produces the labels we count. We acknowledged this in the original text ('category counts as preliminary indicators rather than calibrated rates'), but the referee is right that acknowledgment is not a substitute for validation. We will implement option (a): two annotators will independently categorize a sample of the 130 failed attempts using the same three-category scheme (control execution, target grounding, next-skill readiness), blind to the verifier's own category label. We will report inter-annotator agreement (Cohen's kappa) both between the two human annotators and between the human consensus and the verifier-derived labels. We will target a sample of at least 40 of the 130 attempts (stratified across the three verifier-derived categories and across tasks) to ensure adequate coverage. If the human-verifier agreement is high, this validates the category counts as approximate; if it is low, we will say so explicitly and reframe Table III as verifier-derived labels with measured disagreement, as the referee suggests in option (b). Either way, the revised manuscript will report the agreement numbers and qualify the category counts accordingly. We note one limitation we cannot resolve: the 130 attempts come from a single representative round (one instance per task), so even with perfect annotation the counts are not population-level estimates. We will state this bound explicitly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §IV-D, Table VI: The arm-reach ablation demonstrates that category proportions are not stable under verifier changes—tightening one verifier clause reclassifies ~10% of failures. The authors should discuss this sensitivity more explicitly and present category ratios as configuration-dependent ranges rather than fixed counts. They should also note whether the directional conclusion (control execution as dominant cause) holds across both configurations.

    Authors: The referee's observation is accurate and we agree the current framing does not adequately foreground the sensitivity. Looking at the two configurations: under reached-area, the counts are readiness 23, grounding 31, control/commit 61 (total 115); under arm-reach, they are readiness 35, grounding 37, control/commit 58 (total 130). Control/commit is the dominant category in both configurations (53% and 45% respectively), so the directional conclusion holds. However, the referee is right that ~12 failures are reclassified by a single verifier clause change, and the total also changes because the tighter criterion surfaces additional failures and triggers more re-navigation attempts. We will revise the manuscript to: (1) present the category counts as a range across the two verifier configurations (e.g., readiness 23–35, grounding 31–37, control/commit 58–61), (2) explicitly state that control execution remains the dominant cause across both configurations, and (3) add a sentence noting that the category proportions are configuration-dependent and should be read as ranges, not fixed rates. We will also add a brief note that the arm-reach ablation itself illustrates why independent category validation (per the first comment) is necessary: the verifier's own category assignments shift when its criteria change. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §IV-A, Table II: The progress score is scored by a single annotator with n=3 instances per task and large standard deviations. A second annotator on at least a subset (e.g., 10 of 30 rollouts) with reported agreement would make the central claim more defensible.

    Authors: We agree. The progress score underpins the claim that composed rollouts stall, and a single-annotator metric with large variances is not sufficient evidence for that claim on its own. We will add a second annotator on 10 of the 30 rollouts (selected to span the range of observed progress scores, from near-zero to near-50%) and report inter-annotator agreement. We will report both the agreement rate and the mean absolute difference in progress scores between annotators. If agreement is high, this supports the current scores; if not, we will report the disagreement and note that the progress score should be read as an approximate diagnostic proxy, which is how we already frame it. We note that the large standard deviations (e.g., radio: 50.0±43.3%) are partly inherent to the small sample (n=3) and the binary nature of task success across instances—one of three radio rollouts succeeds, producing a bimodal distribution. Additional annotators reduce measurement noise but cannot reduce sampling variance from n=3. We will state this distinction explicitly in the revised text. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The small sample sizes (n=3 per task for progress scores, one representative round for failure attribution) are a structural limitation of the current experimental scope. We can add annotation to validate the measurements we have, but we cannot increase the number of rollout rounds within the revision cycle. We will be explicit that the counts are preliminary and not population-level estimates, but we cannot provide larger-sample statistics that we do not have.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation-chain circularity; verifier dual-use is a validity concern, not a circular reduction

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles derivation claim that reduces to its inputs. Its three claims are: (1) skills succeed in isolation (Table I, scored by VLM verifier with human review — an empirical measurement), (2) composed rollouts stall (Table II, scored by human inspection of rollout video — independent of the verifier), and (3) failures attribute to three VLA-side causes (Table III, derived from structured verifier reasons). The reader and skeptic flag that the same VLM verifier (gemini-2.5-flash) both controls execution (advance/retry/replan) and generates the structured failure reasons that populate Table III. This is a legitimate validity concern — the verifier shapes trajectories and then diagnoses them — but it is not circularity in the technical sense: the paper does not claim to derive the failure categories from a mathematical or logical chain that secretly assumes its conclusion. The attribution is explicitly labeled as 'diagnostics, not ground-truth labels' and 'preliminary indicators rather than calibrated rates.' The arm-reach ablation (Table VI) actually demonstrates sensitivity rather than tautology: if the attribution were purely circular (verifier always produces the same categories regardless of configuration), changing the verifier criterion would not shift 12 failures between categories. The human audit (Table VII) validates the binary failure decision (20/21 confirmed) but explicitly does not validate categories — again a validity gap, not a circular reduction. There are no self-citations to prior work by the same authors (all authors are from SimpleAI; no SimpleAI prior work appears in the reference list). No parameter is fitted to data and then presented as a prediction. The central claim about the isolated-vs-composed gap has independent grounding through human-scored progress scores (Table II) and human-reviewed isolated benchmarks (Table I). Score 2 reflects the minor methodological entanglement of verifier-as-controller-and-diagnostician, which is a correctness risk rather than a circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The axiom ledger captures the key assumptions and design choices. The verifier reliability axiom is the most load-bearing, as it underpins both execution control and failure attribution.

free parameters (4)
  • Verifier confidence threshold = 0.6
    Chosen to gate skill advancement; an uncertain verdict never terminates a skill. Not tuned to data but selected by hand.
  • Verifier interval K = 200
    Simulator steps between verification calls. Fixed across all experiments; a sweep over K ∈ {50,100,200} is mentioned as future work.
  • Per-skill step budgets B_s = varies by skill (800–1500)
    Set per skill based on demonstration duration statistics (Table IV). Not fitted to performance but chosen heuristically.
  • Global episode budget = 2× human demonstration length
    Caps total rollout length. Chosen by convention, not optimized.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The VLM verifier (gemini-2.5-flash) is reliable enough to control execution and attribute failures
    Used throughout Sec. III-B and Sec. IV. The audit (Table VII) validates binary failure decisions on N=21 but not failure categories.
  • domain assumption BEHAVIOR-1K tasks are representative of real household long-horizon tasks
    Invoked implicitly throughout; the paper's conclusions are scoped to BEHAVIOR-1K.
  • domain assumption π0.5 architecture is suitable for a skill library
    The skill checkpoints are π0.5-based (Sec. III-A). No comparison to alternative architectures is provided.
  • domain assumption Cleaned demonstration segments provide valid skill-boundary states for isolated evaluation
    The isolated benchmark (Sec. IV-A) restores snapshots from cleaned demonstration segments, assuming these represent valid skill-start distributions.
invented entities (2)
  • Semantic skill contract s_t = (name, args, prompt, B_s, K_s, φ_t) no independent evidence
    purpose: Defines the interface between agent and VLA skill, including typed arguments, budget, verifier interval, and postcondition.
    The contract structure is a design choice; no external evidence validates this specific contract form over alternatives.
  • Next-skill readiness predicate ρ(s_t, s_{t+1}) no independent evidence
    purpose: Proposed but not implemented predicate to verify that the current state is a valid starting state for the next skill.
    Described in Sec. V-C as future work. Template library (Table IX) is proposed but not evaluated.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 14753 in / 4119 out tokens · 352941 ms · 2026-07-08T11:43:29.221792+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 14 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding language in robotic affordances

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Haus- man, et al. Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. InConference on Robot Learning, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    RoboBrain 2.0 Technical Report

    BAAI RoboBrain Team, Mingyu Cao, Huajie Tan, Yuheng Ji, Xiansheng Chen, Minglan Lin, Zhiyu Li, Zhou Cao, Pengwei Wang, Enshen Zhou, et al. RoboBrain 2.0 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02029, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    $\pi_0$: A Vision-Language-Action Flow Model for General Robot Control

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Es- mail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, et al.π 0: A vision- language-action flow model for general robot control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    RT-1: Robotics Transformer for Real-World Control at Scale

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yev- gen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, et al. RT-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Control

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choromanski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, et al. RT-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    WorldVLA: Towards Autoregressive Action World Model

    Jun Cen, Chaohui Yu, Hangjie Yuan, Yuming Jiang, Siteng Huang, Jiayan Guo, Xin Li, Yibing Song, Hao Luo, Fan Wang, et al. WorldVLA: Towards autoregressive action world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21539, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion

    Cheng Chi, Zhenjia Xu, Siyuan Feng, Eric Cousineau, Yilun Du, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, and Shuran Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04137, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    CaP-X: A Framework for Benchmarking and Improving Coding Agents for Robot Manipulation

    Letian Fu, Justin Yu, Karim El-Refai, Ethan Kou, Haoru Xue, Huang Huang, Wenli Xiao, Guanzhi Wang, Dan- tong Niu, Fei-Fei Li, et al. CaP-X: A framework for benchmarking and improving coding agents for robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22435, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    PDDLStream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning

    Caelan Reed Garrett, Tom ´as Lozano-P ´erez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. PDDLStream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning. InProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, 2020

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    TIGeR: Tool-integrated geometric reasoning in vision-language models for robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07181, 2025

    Yi Han, Enshen Zhou, Shanyu Rong, Jingkun An, Peng- wei Wang, Zhongyuan Wang, Cheng Chi, Lu Sheng, and Shanghang Zhang. TIGeR: Tool-integrated geometric reasoning in vision-language models for robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07181, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    H-WM: Robotic task and motion planning guided by hierarchical world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11291, 2026

    Jinbang Huang, Wenyuan Chen, Zhiyuan Li, Oscar Pang, Xiao Hu, Lingfeng Zhang, Yuanzhao Hu, Zhanguang Zhang, Mark Coates, Tongtong Cao, et al. H-WM: Robotic task and motion planning guided by hierarchical world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11291, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Inner Monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models

    Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, et al. Inner Monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models. InConference on Robot Learning, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    V oxPoser: Composable 3D value maps for robotic manipulation with language models

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. V oxPoser: Composable 3D value maps for robotic manipulation with language models. InConference on Robot Learning, 2023

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    VIMA: General Robot Manipulation with Multimodal Prompts

    Yunfan Jiang, Agrim Gupta, Zichen Zhang, Guanzhi Wang, Yongqiang Dou, Yanjun Chen, Li Fei-Fei, Anima Anandkumar, Yuke Zhu, and Linxi Fan. VIMA: General robot manipulation with multimodal prompts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03094, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Hier- archical task and motion planning in the now

    Leslie Pack Kaelbling and Tom ´as Lozano-P ´erez. Hier- archical task and motion planning in the now. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 1470–1477, 2011

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    OpenVLA: An Open-Source Vision-Language-Action Model

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Open- VLA: An open-source vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    BEHA VIOR-1K: A benchmark for embodied AI with 1,000 everyday activities and realistic simulation

    Chengshu Li, Ruohan Zhang, Josiah Wong, et al. BEHA VIOR-1K: A benchmark for embodied AI with 1,000 everyday activities and realistic simulation. In Conference on Robot Learning, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    An Atomic Skill Library Construction Method for Data-Efficient Embodied Manipulation

    Dongjiang Li, Bo Peng, Chang Li, Ning Qiao, Qi Zheng, Lei Sun, Yusen Qin, Bangguo Li, Yifeng Luan, Bo Wu, et al. An atomic skill library construction method for data-efficient embodied manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15068, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    RoboClaw: An agentic framework for scalable long-horizon robotic tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11558, 2026

    Ruiying Li, Yunlang Zhou, YuYao Zhu, Kylin Chen, Jingyuan Wang, Sukai Wang, Kongtao Hu, Minhui Yu, Bowen Jiang, Zhan Su, et al. RoboClaw: An agentic framework for scalable long-horizon robotic tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11558, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Code as Policies: Language model programs for em- bodied control

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as Policies: Language model programs for em- bodied control. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Octo: An Open-Source Generalist Robot Policy

    Octo Model Team, Dibya Ghosh, Homer Walke, Karl Pertsch, Kevin Black, Oier Mees, Sudeep Dasari, Joey Hejna, Tobias Kreiman, Charles Xu, et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Open X-Embodiment: Robotic Learning Datasets and RT-X Models

    Open X-Embodiment Collaboration, Abby O’Neill, Ab- dul Rehman, Abhinav Gupta, Abhiram Maddukuri, Ab- hishek Gupta, Abhishek Padalkar, Abraham Lee, Acorn Pooley, Agrim Gupta, et al. Open X-Embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and RT-X models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08864, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    A generalist agent

    Scott Reed, Konrad Zolna, Emilio Parisotto, Ser- gio Gomez Colmenarejo, Alexander Novikov, Gabriel Barth-Maron, Mai Gimenez, Yury Sulsky, Jackie Kay, Jost Tobias Springenberg, et al. A generalist agent. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Gordon, and J

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

    work page 2011

  25. [25]

    MemoryVLA: Perceptual-Cognitive Memory in Vision-Language-Action Models for Robotic Manipulation

    Hao Shi, Bin Xie, Yingfei Liu, Lin Sun, Fengrong Liu, Tiancai Wang, Erjin Zhou, Haoqiang Fan, Xiangyu Zhang, and Gao Huang. MemoryVLA: Perceptual- cognitive memory in vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19236, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    MAESTRO: Orchestrating robotics modules with vision-language models for zero-shot generalist robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00917, 2025

    Junyao Shi, Rujia Yang, Kaitian Chao, Selina Bingqing Wan, Yifei Shao, Jiahui Lei, Jianing Qian, Long Le, Pratik Chaudhari, Kostas Daniilidis, et al. MAESTRO: Orchestrating robotics modules with vision-language models for zero-shot generalist robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00917, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    CLI- Port: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation

    Mohit Shridhar, Lucas Manuelli, and Dieter Fox. CLI- Port: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation. InConference on Robot Learning, 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Perceiver-actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic ma- nipulation

    Mohit Shridhar, Lucas Manuelli, and Dieter Fox. Perceiver-actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic ma- nipulation. InConference on Robot Learning, 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    ManiAgent: An agentic framework for general robotic manipulation

    Yi Yang, Kefan Gu, Yuqing Wen, Hebei Li, Yucheng Zhao, Tiancai Wang, and Xudong Liu. ManiAgent: An agentic framework for general robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11660, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Agentic Robot: A Brain-Inspired Framework for Vision-Language-Action Models in Embodied Agents

    Zhejian Yang, Yongchao Chen, Xueyang Zhou, Jiangyue Yan, Dingjie Song, Yinuo Liu, Yuting Li, Yu Zhang, Pan Zhou, Hechang Chen, et al. Agentic robot: A brain- inspired framework for vision-language-action models in embodied agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23450, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    the head camera does not show any object identifiable as a radio close-up and prominent at arm-reach distance. . . the robot has not successfully navigated to the radio,

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. APPENDIX Training and Routing Details The skills areπ 0.5 vision-language-action policies [3]: a PaliGemma 2B vision-language backbone coupled...

    work page 2023