Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Embodied Agent Interface: Benchmarking LLMs for Embodied Decision Making

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.07166 v3 pith:DRCDPD46 submitted 2024-10-09 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LGcs.RO

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LGcs.RO
keywords embodiedllmsmakingdecisiondifferenterrorsinterfacetypes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We aim to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) for embodied decision making. While a significant body of work has been leveraging LLMs for decision making in embodied environments, we still lack a systematic understanding of their performance because they are usually applied in different domains, for different purposes, and built based on different inputs and outputs. Furthermore, existing evaluations tend to rely solely on a final success rate, making it difficult to pinpoint what ability is missing in LLMs and where the problem lies, which in turn blocks embodied agents from leveraging LLMs effectively and selectively. To address these limitations, we propose a generalized interface (Embodied Agent Interface) that supports the formalization of various types of tasks and input-output specifications of LLM-based modules. Specifically, it allows us to unify 1) a broad set of embodied decision-making tasks involving both state and temporally extended goals, 2) four commonly-used LLM-based modules for decision making: goal interpretation, subgoal decomposition, action sequencing, and transition modeling, and 3) a collection of fine-grained metrics which break down evaluation into various types of errors, such as hallucination errors, affordance errors, various types of planning errors, etc. Overall, our benchmark offers a comprehensive assessment of LLMs' performance for different subtasks, pinpointing the strengths and weaknesses in LLM-powered embodied AI systems, and providing insights for effective and selective use of LLMs in embodied decision making.

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. Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A four-layer systems framework and T0–T5 hierarchy for grading and maintaining bounded trustworthiness claims in embodied AI systems.

  2. STEP Planner: Constructing cross-hierarchical subgoal tree as an embodied long-horizon task planner

    cs.RO 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    STEP builds a coarse-to-fine subgoal tree with LLM-based decomposition and termination checks, reporting higher task success than existing LLM planners on WAH-NL and a real robot.

Pith tools