Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 90 references

DSADF: Thinking Fast and Slow for Decision Making

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dual-system framework lets a vision-language model plan and a fast reinforcement-learning agent execute, claiming stronger generalization on unseen tasks than either component alone.

desk verdict A coherent RL+VLM dual-system framework with large but under-supported empirical claims; the unvalidated proficiency routing is the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08189 v2 pith:XUB2PUBR submitted 2025-05-13 cs.LG cs.AI

Zhihao Dou , Dongfei Cui , Jun Yan , Weida Wang , Benteng Chen , Haoming Wang , Zeke Xie , Shufei Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords reinforcementlearningvisionlanguagemodelSystem1and2decision-makinggeneralizationlong-horizontaskstaskallocationprogressivereward
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

The paper argues that a single reinforcement-learning agent cannot efficiently generalize to long-horizon or unseen tasks, so it builds a two-part decision system: a fast RL agent handles familiar short subtasks, and a slow vision-language model plans, decomposes goals, and steps in on unfamiliar subtasks. The central move is to store per-subtask proficiency scores in a memory space and use them to route each subtask to whichever component is better suited. The paper reports that this dual-system framework, called DSADF, outperforms RL baselines and VLM-only agents on both known and unseen tasks in the Crafter and Housekeep environments, while completing tasks faster.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Memory Space M, a list of short-horizon task subspaces storing pairs of actions and proficiency values, where each proficiency is produced by the vision-language model from the action and its history. A threshold T decides assignment: subtasks whose proficiency meets or exceeds T go to the RL agent, and the rest go to the VLM. Around this routing sits the planner's chain-of-thought decomposition with a self-reflection step, and a three-part progressive reward (initial-target reward, sub-goal reward, and proximity reward) that turns a sparse long-horizon reward into dense single-step signals; the memory is updated after training with new proficiency scores.

What would settle it

Shuffle or randomize the proficiency values stored in memory while keeping everything else fixed, then run the same unseen-task evaluations; if success rates stay at the reported levels, the memory-routed allocation is not the source of the gain and the claimed mechanism fails the test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the bottleneck to generalization in goal-conditioned RL is not the RL policy alone but the absence of a mechanism for deciding when the policy can be trusted. DSADF solves this by letting a VLM decompose a long-horizon goal into a list of short-horizon subtasks, scoring the RL agent's past rewarded actions for proficiency, and routing each subtask to the RL agent only when the score meets a threshold; otherwise the VLM executes it as an auxiliary performer. The paper claims this routing, together with a progressive reward made of sparse, sub-goal, and proximity rewards, lets the RL agent learn single-step skills quickly and still complete multi-step unseen tasks, with measured success rates above those of RL baselines and VLM agents.

Load-bearing premise

The whole design assumes that the proficiency scores a vision-language model assigns to each small task truly reflect how well the reinforcement-learning agent can do that task, because these scores alone decide which side handles what.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If DSADF generalizes as claimed, RL agents can be trained on a few short tasks and still complete longer, unseen tasks by handing unfamiliar steps to a VLM.
  • Task success on known tasks would improve because the RL agent trains on dense, sub-goal-level rewards instead of sparse final rewards, shortening training time.
  • Deployment cost becomes controllable: the VLM only acts on subtasks the memory says are not proficient, so most steps run on the fast RL policy.
  • The memory space turns every deployment into a chance to update proficiency scores, so the system can adapt to new environments by reassigning subtasks.
  • The same routing idea could apply beyond video games to embodied or household tasks where reliable low-level control and high-level common-sense reasoning must coexist.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the memory scores are produced by the VLM from descriptions of past successes, so the framework's benefit is only as good as that scoring; a cheaper proxy for proficiency, such as measured success statistics, could replace it and would be a natural test of whether VLM scoring is essential.
  • Editorial: if the threshold T were tuned per task, the system could shift work adaptively as the RL agent improves; the paper treats T as a fixed hyperparameter, leaving this online adaptation implicit.
  • Editorial: the dual-system layout may transfer to continual learning settings, where each new task family first goes through System 2 and is gradually absorbed into System 1's memory as proficiency rises.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DSADF (Dual-System Adaptive Decision Framework), which combines a goal-conditioned RL agent (System 1) with a vision-language model (System 2) for decision-making in long-horizon tasks. System 2 decomposes high-level goals into short-horizon subtasks, maintains a memory space of proficiency scores p_v = VLM(u_v, h_v), routes each subtask to either the RL agent or the VLM auxiliary performer based on whether p_v exceeds a threshold T, and generates progressive rewards for RL training. The framework is evaluated in the Crafter and Housekeep environments, reporting improvements in task success rate, completion time, completion rate, survival rate, and average object success rate on both in-domain and out-of-distribution tasks, compared to several RL baselines and VLM-as-agent baselines. Ablations isolate the contributions of the planner, auxiliary performer, RL agent, and self-reflection component.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, DSADF offers a concrete architecture for adaptive coordination between RL agents and foundation models, operating on a plausible interpretation of Kahneman's dual-process theory. The paper has clear strengths: the framework is described in detail, ablations cover the main components, and evaluation spans two environments with in-domain and OOD tasks. The significance is, however, tempered by two unresolved issues: the proficiency-based routing mechanism is not validated, and the empirical claims rely on point estimates without statistical support. These weaknesses currently prevent the paper from establishing its central claim that adaptive task allocation, rather than simply adding a VLM, drives the observed generalization gains. The contribution is nonetheless sufficiently interesting and potentially useful to warrant a major revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (5)] The proficiency value p_v = VLM(u_v, h_v) is the linchpin of the routing mechanism, but the paper provides no evidence that this value tracks the RL agent's true competence. There is no definition of the evaluation prompt, no description of the output scale, and no calibration against measured success rates on held-out short-horizon tasks. Because the same VLM both scores proficiency and serves as auxiliary performer, the reported OOD gains could arise from the VLM executing most subtasks rather than from the dual-system allocation. I request a calibration study (e.g., correlation between p_v and the RL agent's rollout success rate on the corresponding subtask) and a sensitivity analysis of the threshold T in Eq. (5). Without these, the central mechanism of the framework is unsupported.
  2. [§5.3.1, §5.3.2, Tables 3-10] All performance tables and figures report point estimates of TSR, execution time, or AOSR without confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests, despite the text repeatedly claiming 'significant' improvements. For example, Table 3 reports DSADF exceeding baselines by 3-17 percentage points on in-domain tasks, and Table 4 reports improvements of 0-68 percentage points on OOD tasks, but no measure of variability is given even though Figure 3 states the mean TSR is averaged over 60 independent runs. I request error bars or confidence intervals for the reported means and a statistical test (e.g., bootstrap or paired test across seeds/runs) for the key comparisons, especially DSADF versus the best baseline in Tables 3, 4, and 10.
  3. [§5.2, Appendix A.1.1, Tables 4-10] The task numbering and categorization are inconsistent across the paper, making it difficult to verify which results correspond to which claims. Section 5.2 describes 14 tasks with specific categories, but the appendix lists only Tasks 1-13; Table 4 uses Tasks 5-7, Table 5 uses Tasks 8-10, Table 6 and Table 7 use overlapping labels (Table 7 refers to 'Tasks 4-6' as OOD while Task 4 is an in-domain task), and Table 10 uses Tasks 11-13. Additionally, in the appendix Task 9 is described as 'Craft iron sword' but its step list is 'Make wood pickaxe → find stone → mine stone → make stone sword.' Please align the numbering, descriptions, and table labels so that the empirical evaluation is unambiguous.
  4. [§5.3.2, Table 4] The opening of Section 5.3.2 states that DSADF 'outperforms other RL agents in both generalization and efficiency on unseen tasks,' but the baselines in Table 4 are vision-language model agents (LLaVA-1.5, MiniGPT-4, Qwen-2.5-VL) and combinations with GPT-4o, not RL agents. The comparison to RL agents appears only on in-domain tasks in Table 3. I request OOD results for RL baselines (for example, the ELLM- or APT-pretrained sparse-reward agent) or a revised claim that restricts the OOD comparison to foundation-model agents.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The sentence 'The knowledge conveyed by Otext includes the object coordinates from the goal list G and the corresponding action subspace of the object' is repeated verbatim; please remove the duplicate.
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (9)] The cosine similarity expression contains typos: 'cos(E_tran,E_g)' should be 'cos(E_trans,E_g)' and the closing parenthesis is missing in the condition 'cos( Etran,E g ) >β'.
  3. [§3.1, §5.3] The objectives are labeled 'Object 1', 'Object 2', 'Object 3'; these should be 'Objective 1', etc., since 'Object' is misleading.
  4. [Table 3, Figure 3] Table 3 contains typographical errors ('Reweard', '3375,4'), and Figure 3 reports means over 60 runs without error bars; adding shaded confidence regions would improve interpretability.
  5. [§5.4] The sentence 'Does each scenario consist of a single room...' should read 'Each scenario consists of a single room...'.
  6. [Table 1] The entry 'ed reflection instruction' is incomplete; the notation e_d used in Eqs. (4) and (6) should be defined clearly in the notational table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DSADF's OOD gains are measured against external benchmarks, and the uncalibrated VLM proficiency signal is a robustness concern rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper derives no conclusion from the proficiency values by construction. In Sec. 4.1, p_v = VLM(u_v, h_v) is an operational input used by the routing rule Eq. (5), but the claimed OOD improvements in Sec. 5.3.2 are empirical TSR and completion-time results on Crafter and Housekeep, not a formal derivation from p_v. The skeptical concern that p_v is uncalibrated and threshold T is unsupported is a legitimate threat to validity: if the VLM's self-assessment does not track true RL competence, the dynamic allocation may be uninformative. That is not circularity, because no equation defines the evaluation metrics in terms of p_v, and the ablations in Tables 8 and 9 test the full system against RL-only and VLM-only variants on external tasks. The only overlapping-author reference [36] is used as a baseline rather than as load-bearing support; no self-citation chain, uniqueness import, or ansatz-via-citation pattern appears.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unvalidated proficiency scoring, the assumed reliability of VLM planning, and the effectiveness of the engineered reward. No new physical entities are introduced; the memory space is a software component.

free parameters (3)
  • Proficiency threshold T = not specified
    Used in Eq. (5) to split goals into GRL and GVLM; value not reported, likely tuned by hand.
  • Similarity threshold beta = not specified
    Used in Eq. (9) to decide when the proximity reward is nonzero; value not reported.
  • Reward weights gamma1, gamma2, gamma3 = 1, 0.5, 0.2
    Chosen manually for the progression of sparse, sub-goal, and proximity rewards; appears in Eq. (10) and Section 5.3.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The VLM-produced proficiency value p_v accurately reflects the RL agent's actual competence on a short-horizon task.
    Section 4.1 Memory Space uses p_v = VLM(u_v, h_v) without comparing it to measured RL success rates, so the routing depends on an unvalidated scoring model.
  • domain assumption The VLM's Chain-of-Thought decomposition and self-reflection produce correct and executable subtask sequences.
    Section 4.2.1 relies on the VLM to break down long-horizon tasks into valid steps; no verification that the plans are always executable.
  • domain assumption The proximity reward based on SentenceBERT cosine similarity is a valid dense reward signal.
    Section 4.3 assumes textual similarity between transition descriptions and sub-goals correlates with progress in the environment.
  • domain assumption The Crafter and Housekeep environments are representative of complex decision-making tasks.
    Section 5.2 treats these games as proxies for real-world decision-making; no claim of generality beyond them.
  • standard math DQN, ImageBind, and SentenceBERT are appropriate base models for the proposed method.
    These are established tools in the literature; the paper uses them without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DSADF: Thinking Fast and Slow for Decision Making." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XUB2PUBR

@misc{pith2026250508189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DSADF: Thinking Fast and Slow for Decision Making},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XUB2PUBR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08189}
}
read the original abstract

Although Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents are effective in well-defined environments, they often struggle to generalize their learned policies to dynamic settings due to their reliance on trial-and-error interactions. Recent work has explored applying Large Language Models (LLMs) or Vision Language Models (VLMs) to boost the generalization of RL agents through policy optimization guidance or prior knowledge. However, these approaches often lack seamless coordination between the RL agent and the foundation model, leading to unreasonable decision-making in unfamiliar environments and efficiency bottlenecks. Making full use of the inferential capabilities of foundation models and the rapid response capabilities of RL agents and enhancing the interaction between the two to form a dual system is still a lingering scientific question. To address this problem, we draw inspiration from Kahneman's theory of fast thinking (System 1) and slow thinking (System 2), demonstrating that balancing intuition and deep reasoning can achieve nimble decision-making in a complex world. In this study, we propose a Dual-System Adaptive Decision Framework (DSADF), integrating two complementary modules: System 1, comprising an RL agent and a memory space for fast and intuitive decision making, and System 2, driven by a VLM for deep and analytical reasoning. DSADF facilitates efficient and adaptive decision-making by combining the strengths of both systems. The empirical study in the video game environment: Crafter and Housekeep demonstrates the effectiveness of our proposed method, showing significant improvements in decision abilities for both unseen and known tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 40(4-5), 698–721 (2021)

    Ibarz, J., Tan, J., Finn, C., Kalakrishnan, M., Pastor, P., Levine, S.: How to train your robot with deep reinforcement learning: lessons we have learned. The International Journal of Robotics Research 40(4-5), 698–721 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp

    Peng, X.B., Andrychowicz, M., Zaremba, W., Abbeel, P.: Sim-to-real transfer of robotic control with dynamics randomization. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3803–3810 (2018). IEEE

    2018

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602 (2013)

    Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Graves, A., Antonoglou, I., Wierstra, D., Riedmiller, M.: Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602 (2013)

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Du, S., Krishnamurthy, A., Jiang, N., Agarwal, A., Dudik, M., Langford, J.: Prov- ably efficient rl with rich observations via latent state decoding. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1665–1674 (2019). PMLR

    2019

  5. [5]

    In: 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), pp

    Chen, J., Yuan, B., Tomizuka, M.: Model-free deep reinforcement learning for urban autonomous driving. In: 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), pp. 2765–2771 (2019). IEEE

    2019

  6. [6]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Di Langosco, L.L., Koch, J., Sharkey, L.D., Pfau, J., Krueger, D.: Goal misgener- alization in deep reinforcement learning. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 12004–12019 (2022). PMLR

    2022

  7. [7]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019) 27

    Yang, R., Sun, X., Narasimhan, K.: A generalized algorithm for multi-objective reinforcement learning and policy adaptation. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019) 27

    2019

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12529 (2023)

    Ao, S., Zhou, T., Long, G., Song, X., Jiang, J.: Curriculum reinforcement learn- ing via morphology-environment co-evolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12529 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09838 (2024)

    Rank, B., Triantafyllou, S., Mandal, D., Radanovic, G.: Performative reinforcement learning in gradually shifting environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09838 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (2024)

    Cao, Y., Zhao, H., Cheng, Y., Shu, T., Liu, G., Liang, G., Zhao, J., Li, Y.: Survey on large language model-enhanced reinforcement learning: Concept, taxonomy, and methods. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    ICLR (2024)

    Dalal, M., Chiruvolu, T., Chaplot, D., Salakhutdinov, R.: Plan-seq-learn: Lan- guage model guided rl for solving long horizon robotics tasks. ICLR (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Stooke, A., Lee, K., Abbeel, P., Laskin, M.: Decoupling representation learning from reinforcement learning. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 9870–9879 (2021). PMLR

    2021

  5. [13]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Laskin, M., Srinivas, A., Abbeel, P.: Curl: Contrastive unsupervised represen- tations for reinforcement learning. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 5639–5650 (2020). PMLR

    2020

  6. [14]

    ICLR (2020)

    Schwarzer, M., Anand, A., Goel, R., Hjelm, R.D., Courville, A., Bachman, P.: Data-efficient reinforcement learning with self-predictive representations. ICLR (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07622 (2023)

    Chakraborty, S., Weerakoon, K., Poddar, P., Elnoor, M., Narayanan, P., Busart, C., Tokekar, P., Bedi, A.S., Manocha, D.: Re-move: An adaptive policy design for robotic navigation tasks in dynamic environments via language-based feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07622 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VI 16, pp

    Majumdar, A., Shrivastava, A., Lee, S., Anderson, P., Parikh, D., Batra, D.: Improving vision-and-language navigation with image-text pairs from the web. In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VI 16, pp. 259–...

    2020

  9. [17]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Du, Y., Watkins, O., Wang, Z., Colas, C., Darrell, T., Abbeel, P., Gupta, A., Andreas, J.: Guiding pretraining in reinforcement learning with large language models. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 8657–8677 (2023). PMLR

    2023

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18127 (2023) 28

    Yan, X., Song, Y., Cui, X., Christianos, F., Zhang, H., Mguni, D.H., Wang, J.: Ask more, know better: Reinforce-learned prompt questions for decision making with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18127 (2023) 28

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Li, H., Yang, X., Wang, Z., Zhu, X., Zhou, J., Qiao, Y., Wang, X., Li, H., Lu, L., Dai, J.: Auto mc-reward: Automated dense reward design with large language models for minecraft, 16426–16435 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.03267 (2022)

    Inoue, Y., Ohashi, H.: Prompter: Utilizing large language model prompting for a data efficient embodied instruction following. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.03267 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 31199– 31212 (2022)

    Li, S., Puig, X., Paxton, C., Du, Y., Wang, C., Fan, L., Chen, T., Huang, D.-A., Aky¨ urek, E., Anandkumar, A.,et al.: Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 31199– 31212 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Daniel, K.: Thinking, Fast and Slow, (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 24824–24837 (2022)

    Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q.V., Zhou, D., et al.: Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 24824–24837 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07103 (2024)

    Jin, B., Xie, C., Zhang, J., Roy, K.K., Zhang, Y., Wang, S., Meng, Y., Han, J.: Graph chain-of-thought: Augmenting large language models by reasoning on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07103 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    ICLR (2024)

    Zhou, Y., Cui, C., Yoon, J., Zhang, L., Deng, Z., Finn, C., Bansal, M., Yao, H.: Analyzing and mitigating object hallucination in large vision-language models. ICLR (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08862 (2024)

    Sun, G., Jin, M., Wang, Z., Wang, C.-L., Ma, S., Wang, Q., Wu, Y.N., Zhang, Y., Liu, D.: Visual agents as fast and slow thinkers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08862 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Qi, B., Chen, X., Gao, J., Li, D., Liu, J., Wu, L., Zhou, B.: Interactive continual learning: Fast and slow thinking. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 12882–12892 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    Pang, J.-C., Yang, X.-Y., Yang, S.-H., Chen, X.-H., Yu, Y.: Natural language instruction-following with task-related language development and translation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    In: Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2023)

    Choi, W., Kim, W.K., Kim, S., Woo, H.: Efficient policy adaptation with con- trastive prompt ensemble for embodied agents. In: Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09368 (2023) 29

    Pang, J.-C., Yang, X.-Y., Yang, S.-H., Yu, Y.: Natural language-conditioned rein- forcement learning with inside-out task language development and translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09368 (2023) 29

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    In: The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (2023)

    Szot, A., Schwarzer, M., Agrawal, H., Mazoure, B., Metcalf, R., Talbott, W., Mackraz, N., Hjelm, R.D., Toshev, A.T.: Large language models as generalizable policies for embodied tasks. In: The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    COLM (2024)

    Zala, A., Cho, J., Lin, H., Yoon, J., Bansal, M.: Envgen: Generating and adapting environments via llms for training embodied agents. COLM (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Carta, T., Romac, C., Wolf, T., Lamprier, S., Sigaud, O., Oudeyer, P.-Y.: Ground- ing large language models in interactive environments with online reinforcement learning. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 3676–3713 (2023). PMLR

    2023

  26. [34]

    CoRL (2024)

    Zhou, H., Ding, M., Peng, W., Tomizuka, M., Shao, L., Gan, C.: Generalizable long-horizon manipulations with large language models. CoRL (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08997 (2024)

    Coleman, J., Krishnamachari, B., Iskarous, K., Rosales, R.: Llm-assisted rule based machine translation for low/no-resource languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08997 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16181 (2024)

    Zhang, S., Zheng, S., Ke, S., Liu, Z., Jin, W., Yuan, J., Yang, Y., Yang, H., Wang, Z.: How can llm guide rl? a value-based approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16181 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 34, 1273– 1286 (2021)

    Janner, M., Li, Q., Levine, S.: Offline reinforcement learning as one big sequence modeling problem. Advances in neural information processing systems 34, 1273– 1286 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

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

    2023

  31. [39]

    : A survey on evaluation of large language models

    Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. : A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 15(3), 1–45 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    : Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for education

    Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., K¨ uchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., G¨ unnemann, S., H¨ ullermeier, E.,et al. : Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and individual differences 1...

    2023

  33. [41]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712 (2023) 30

    Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y.T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al.: Sparks of artificial gen- eral intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712 (2023) 30

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09345 (2024)

    Zhai, Y., Yang, T., Xu, K., Dawei, F., Yang, C., Ding, B., Wang, H.: Enhanc- ing decision-making for llm agents via step-level q-value models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09345 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050 (2023)

    Lightman, H., Kosaraju, V., Burda, Y., Edwards, H., Baker, B., Lee, T., Leike, J., Schulman, J., Sutskever, I., Cobbe, K.: Let’s verify step by step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    ACL (2023)

    Qiao, S., Ou, Y., Zhang, N., Chen, X., Yao, Y., Deng, S., Tan, C., Huang, F., Chen, H.: Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. ACL (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05221 (2024)

    Hao, S., Gu, Y., Luo, H., Liu, T., Shao, X., Wang, X., Xie, S., Ma, H., Samavedhi, A., Gao, Q., et al.: Llm reasoners: New evaluation, library, and analysis of step- by-step reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05221 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 22199–22213 (2022)

    Kojima, T., Gu, S.S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., Iwasawa, Y.: Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 22199–22213 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    ICLR (2023)

    Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., Zhou, D.: Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. ICLR (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 (2021)

    Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., et al.: Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16582 (2023)

    Yao, Y., Li, Z., Zhao, H.: Beyond chain-of-thought, effective graph-of-thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16582 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06207 (2023)

    Yao, F., Tian, C., Liu, J., Zhang, Z., Liu, Q., Jin, L., Li, S., Li, X., Sun, X.: Thinking like an expert: Multimodal hypergraph-of-thought (hot) reasoning to boost foundation modals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06207 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    : Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models

    Besta, M., Blach, N., Kubicek, A., Gerstenberger, R., Podstawski, M., Giani- nazzi, L., Gajda, J., Lehmann, T., Niewiadomski, H., Nyczyk, P., et al. : Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. In: Proceed- ings of the AAAI Conference on Artifici...

    2024

  44. [52]

    ICLR (2024)

    Chen, Z., Sun, R., Liu, W., Hong, Y., Gan, C.: Genome: generative neuro-symbolic visual reasoning by growing and reusing modules. ICLR (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    EMNLP (2024) 31

    You, H., Sun, R., Wang, Z., Chen, L., Wang, G., Ayyubi, H.A., Chang, K.-W., Chang, S.-F.: Idealgpt: Iteratively decomposing vision and language reasoning via large language models. EMNLP (2024) 31

    2024

  46. [54]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Wu, P., Xie, S.: V?: Guided visual search as a core mechanism in multimodal llms. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 13084–13094 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Jacovi, A., Goldberg, Y.: Towards faithfully interpretable nlp systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness? ACL (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pp

    Hua, W., Zhang, Y.: System 1+ system 2= better world: Neural-symbolic chain of logic reasoning. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pp. 601–612 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    NeurIPS Workshop (2024)

    Christakopoulou, K., Mourad, S., Matari´ c, M.: Agents thinking fast and slow: A talker-reasoner architecture. NeurIPS Workshop (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    NeurIPS (2024)

    Liu, J., Liu, M., Wang, Z., Lee, L., Zhou, K., An, P., Yang, S., Zhang, R., Guo, Y., Zhang, S.: Robomamba: Multimodal state space model for efficient robot reasoning and manipulation. NeurIPS (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05206 (2023)

    Hagendorff, T., Fabi, S., Kosinski, M.: Thinking fast and slow in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05206 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Miech, A., Alayrac, J.-B., Laptev, I., Sivic, J., Zisserman, A.: Thinking fast and slow: Efficient text-to-visual retrieval with transformers, 9826–9836 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    In: ICML, pp

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., Krueger, G., Sutskever, I.: Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: ICML, pp. 8748–8763 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research(TMLR) (2024)

    Pignatelli, E., Ferret, J., Geist, M., Mesnard, T., Hasselt, H., Pietquin, O., Toni, L.: A survey of temporal credit assignment in deep reinforcement learning. Transactions on Machine Learning Research(TMLR) (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Artificial intelligence 112(1- 2), 181–211 (1999)

    Sutton, R.S., Precup, D., Singh, S.: Between mdps and semi-mdps: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning. Artificial intelligence 112(1- 2), 181–211 (1999)

    1999

  56. [64]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 10 (1997)

    Parr, R., Russell, S.: Reinforcement learning with hierarchies of machines. Advances in neural information processing systems 10 (1997)

    1997

  57. [65]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01382 (2024)

    Vafa, K., Rambachan, A., Mullainathan, S.: Do large language models perform the way people expect? measuring the human generalization function. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01382 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19630 (2024)

    Saba, W.S.: Llms’ understanding of natural language revealed. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19630 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16563 (2023) 32

    BAAI, P.: Plan4mc: Skill reinforcement learning and planning for open-world minecraft tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16563 (2023) 32

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 18343–18362 (2022)

    Fan, L., Wang, G., Jiang, Y., Mandlekar, A., Yang, Y., Zhu, H., Tang, A., Huang, D.-A., Zhu, Y., Anandkumar, A.: Minedojo: Building open-ended embodied agents with internet-scale knowledge. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 18343–18362 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    In: Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (2019)

    Reimers, N.: Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In: Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    ICLR (2022)

    Hafner, D.: Benchmarking the spectrum of agent capabilities. ICLR (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Kant, Y., Ramachandran, A., Yenamandra, S., Gilitschenski, I., Batra, D., Szot, A., Agrawal, H.: Housekeep: Tidying virtual households using commonsense reasoning. In: European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 355–373 (2022). Springer

    2022

  64. [72]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Girdhar, R., El-Nouby, A., Liu, Z., Singh, M., Alwala, K.V., Joulin, A., Misra, I.: Imagebind: One embedding space to bind them all. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 15180– 15190 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34, 18459–18473 (2021)

    Liu, H., Abbeel, P.: Behavior from the void: Unsupervised active pre-training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34, 18459–18473 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Neurocomputing 418, 139–147 (2020)

    Li, J., Shi, X., Li, J., Zhang, X., Wang, J.: Random curiosity-driven exploration in deep reinforcement learning. Neurocomputing 418, 139–147 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Oh, J., Guo, Y., Singh, S., Lee, H.: Self-imitation learning. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 3878–3887 (2018). PMLR

    2018

  68. [76]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 36, 34892–34916 (2023)

    Liu, H., Li, C., Wu, Q., Lee, Y.J.: Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems 36, 34892–34916 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592 (2023)

    Zhu, D., Chen, J., Shen, X., Li, X., Elhoseiny, M.: Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision- language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    5 technical report

    Yang, A., Yang, B., Zhang, B., Hui, B., Zheng, B., Yu, B., Li, C., Liu, D., Huang, F., Wei, H., et al.: Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    Grattafiori, A., Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Vaughan, A., et al.: The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196 33 (2024)

    Guo, D., Zhu, Q., Yang, D., Xie, Z., Dong, K., Zhang, W., Chen, G., Bi, X., Wu, Y., Li, Y., et al.: Deepseek-coder: When the large language model meets programming–the rise of code intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14196 33 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Mine iron

    Du, Y., Leibo, J.Z., Islam, U., Willis, R., Sunehag, P.: A review of cooperation in multi-agent learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05162 (2023) 34 A Experiment details A.1 Experiment implementation details A.1.1 Task details Task 1: Craft stone sword. Process steps: 7. Step d...

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    All steps are performed by the RL agent

    – crafting a stone sword. All steps are performed by the RL agent. Out-of-domain task: Figure 9 illustrates the visual process of an OOD task (Task

  75. [83]

    In this task, craft iron pickaxe and mine diamond performed by the VLM as the auxiliary performer, demonstrating their connectivity

    – Mine diamond. In this task, craft iron pickaxe and mine diamond performed by the VLM as the auxiliary performer, demonstrating their connectivity. 38 Find trees Chop trees Place crafting table Make wood pickaxe Find stone Mine stone Make stone sword Fig. 8: Visible process o...

  76. [84]

    Example Task — A sample of how a goal can be decomposed

  77. [85]

    Action Space — A list of available actions the agent can execute

  78. [86]

    item Hint instruction- Some hint what you need

    Current Goal — Your target task to generate a subtask plan for. item Hint instruction- Some hint what you need. Please follow the example format strictly. Your output should be: • Step-by-step • Action-based • Goal-oriented • Only using actions listed in the Action Space Examp...

  79. [87]

    Find Tree (tree location) – Move to the nearest tree

  80. [88]

    Action Space • ... • ... Current Goal (Example) Goal: Craft a wooden sword Output Plan:

  81. [89]

    You’ve just generated a step-by-step action plan to accomplish the following goal: Goal: Build a simple wooden house with a door and a roof

    B.2 VLM as self-reflection Self-Reflection Prompt: Plan Evaluation You are a self-reflective Crafter task planner. You’ve just generated a step-by-step action plan to accomplish the following goal: Goal: Build a simple wooden house with a door and a roof. Original Plan:

  82. [90]

    Output Format: • Strengths: What’s good about the plan • Weaknesses: Potential issues or inefficiencies • Revised Plan (if needed): A better version of the task plan 41

    Now analyze your plan and answer the following: • Are there any missing steps, incorrect action dependencies, or unrealistic assump- tions? • Is the action sequence optimal in terms of efficiency and resource use? • Are all required materials and tools obtained before they are...

Pith tools

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