Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Collision- and Reachability-Aware Multi-Robot Control with Grounded LLM Planners

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Verifiable-reward training lets small LLM planners beat much larger models on collision- and reachability-constrained robot tasks.

desk verdict Small LLMs grounded by RLVR genuinely beat much larger planners on these benchmarks, but the BoxNet2D verifier gap means the 'constraint awareness' headline is only partially earned. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20573 v2 pith:OVCHGI26 submitted 2025-05-26 cs.RO cs.AI

Jiabao Ji , Yongchao Chen , Yang Zhang , Ramana Rao Kompella , Chuchu Fan , Gaowen Liu , Shiyu Chang This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords reinforcementlearningwithverifiablerewardsLLMplanningmulti-robotcontrolcollisionavoidancereachabilityGRPOphysicalconstraintsbox-movingtasks
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 claims that a large language model can be taught to respect physical constraints during robot planning by training it with reinforcement learning in which rewards come only from verifiable simulation checks. The authors apply this recipe to two small open-weight models, a 3B non-reasoning model and a 4B reasoning model, and report that the resulting planners outperform much larger off-the-shelf LLMs on two multi-robot box-moving benchmarks. Their best planner reaches a first-try success rate (pass@1) of 0.87 on BoxNet2D and 0.53 on BoxNet3D, while the strongest baseline reaches 0.37 and 0.33. The reason to care is that the result suggests safe multi-robot planning can come from grounding a modest model in physical feedback rather than from scaling up the model alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the verifiable-reward function used for RLVR: $r(\mathbf{s}; \mathbf{q}, \mathbf{s}^*, \mathcal{C}) = r_{\text{format}} + r_{\text{execute}} - r_{\text{efficiency}}$, where $r_{\text{execute}}$ is a binary signal awarded only when the simulation verifies task completion and confirms reachability, robot-robot collision avoidance, and object-object collision avoidance. The feasibility checker—hand-coded geometric tests in BoxNet2D and a MuJoCo-simulated UR5e arm with an RRT motion planner in BoxNet3D—is the sole source of this signal, so the optimizer can only improve by producing plans the checker accepts. A supervised fine-tuning warmup on synthesized reasoning traces gives the policy an initial planning competence, and the efficiency penalty against an A* golden plan keeps solutions short; GRPO group-relative optimization converts these sparse successes into a consistent policy update.

What would settle it

Re-simulate or execute the trained planners' accepted plans in a higher-fidelity physics engine that includes constraints absent from the training checkers—arm joint limits, self-collision, dynamic obstacles, or object volumes—and measure how many plans that passed the original checks now violate a constraint. If a nontrivial fraction fail, the reported constraint awareness is an artifact of the simplified verifier rather than a general physical-reasoning ability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that RLVR—reinforcement learning with a binary verifiable reward—can make an LLM planner internalize reachability and collision constraints. During group-relative policy optimization (GRPO) training, a plan receives execution reward only if a simulator confirms that it completes the task and violates none of the physical constraints; format and efficiency terms shape the output but do not substitute for validity. After a supervised fine-tuning (SFT) warmup on synthetically reasoned plans, the 3B and 4B models learn to check whether targets are reachable, whether robot trajectories intersect, and whether objects collide, and this learned checking transfers to unseen robot layouts and perturbed coordinates. The paper reports Qwen3-4B-RL achieving pass@1 of 0.87 on BoxNet2D and 0.53 on BoxNet3D, versus 0.37 and 0.33 for the best baseline, GPT-o4mini. It further reports that RL-trained planners exceed the step efficiency of the A* reference on solved tasks and that reasoning-trace analysis shows more frequent and more accurate constraint checks after RL.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulator's feasibility checks are a faithful proxy for real physical constraint satisfaction, so a plan that passes them genuinely respects reachability and collision constraints rather than merely gaming a simplified checker.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 3B-4B open-weight LLM can outperform much larger and closed-source LLMs on multi-robot planning benchmarks once physical constraints are grounded through RLVR, so constraint grounding is a practical substitute for model scale in these tasks.
  • RL-trained planners keep higher success as the number of objects grows, with the gap over their SFT-only versions widening from 0.13 to 0.53 on BoxNet2D as boxes increase from 1 to 5, indicating better scalability.
  • Constraint-aware planners transfer to unseen geometry: Qwen3-4B-RL reaches 0.87 success on perturbed-coordinate BoxNet2D environments and 0.79 on randomized robot layouts, compared with 0.48 and 0.43 for the SFT-only version.
  • On solved tasks, the RL planners produce plans with fewer steps than the A* reference (negative StepDiff), and the efficiency penalty in the reward is required for this behavior and for maintaining parallelism.
  • Ablations show that both the SFT warmup and the textual reasoning trace are load-bearing: removing reasoning drops RL success from 0.58 to 0.39, and training without a warmup stalls after only format improvements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to apply the same reward recipe to constraints the paper did not encode—joint torque limits, dynamic obstacles, or communication latency—since the mechanism only requires a verifier that can unambiguously report success or failure.
  • The gap between BoxNet2D and BoxNet3D performance suggests that the fidelity of the feasibility checker, not model size, may set the ceiling on what an RL-grounded planner can learn; swapping the reward source for a richer simulator would directly test this.
  • If the generalization to unseen coordinates holds in other settings, RLVR against a physical simulator could become a general training signal for embodied agents' 'physical commonsense,' reducing the hand-written rules needed at inference time.
  • A deployment caution follows from the setup: the trained planner will only be as safe as the checker it trained against, so real-world use would likely need an independent runtime verifier rather than reliance on the model's displayed reasoning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework that combines supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) to ground small LLMs in physical constraints for multi-robot planning. The authors introduce two environments: BoxNet2D, a grid-based task with hand-coded geometric feasibility checks, and BoxNet3D, a MuJoCo-based environment with a UR5e arm and RRT low-level control. They show that Qwen2.5-3B and Qwen3-4B, after SFT warmup and GRPO-based RL, achieve substantially higher success rates on these tasks than large off-the-shelf LLMs such as GPT-o4mini, and that the learned behavior generalizes to unseen robot layouts and coordinates. The paper also reports reasoning-probing experiments suggesting that RL-trained models perform more reachability and collision checks than SFT-only models.

Significance. The paper makes a useful empirical contribution: it demonstrates that RLVR, using a simulated environment as an external verifier, can substantially improve the planning success of small LLMs on multi-robot tasks, and it provides a held-out generalization evaluation. The framework is clearly described, the code appears to be released, and the main comparisons are large in magnitude. The core idea of grounding LLM planners with verifiable physical-constraint rewards is timely and of interest to the robotics and LLM reasoning communities. However, the strength of the central claim about 'adhering to physical constraints' is limited by the incompleteness of the BoxNet2D verifier, and the abstract's characterization of the reward scheme is inaccurate. These issues are fixable but require careful re-framing and additional analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.2] The abstract states that 'only valid action plans that successfully complete a control task receive positive rewards,' but this is contradicted by the reward definition in Section 2.2. A plan that is well-formatted but violates physical constraints or fails the task still receives r_format(s) = 0.1 if it is no longer than the A* reference plan, because the efficiency penalty is zero when len(s) <= len(s*). The 2×r_format cap only ensures that a valid, successful plan outscores an invalid one; it does not make invalid plans non-positive. Please correct the abstract and the surrounding text, or modify the reward so that invalid plans cannot receive positive reward. This is load-bearing because the paper's framing relies on RLVR with binary success/failure signals.
  2. [Section 3 and Section 4.2] The BoxNet2D feasibility checker omits robot-object collision and swept-volume checks: an arm can move along a segment that passes through an object it is not carrying, or its swept volume can intersect another object, without affecting the reward. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 4.2 that 'some physical constraints remain missing' and that BoxNet3D 'exposes more limitations,' yet the headline success rates (0.87 on BoxNet2D vs. 0.53 on BoxNet3D) and the abstract's claim that small LLMs 'adhere to physical constraints' rest primarily on BoxNet2D. As it stands, the evidence supports adherence to a simplified geometric checker, not general physical-constraint awareness. Please add a robot-object swept-volume check to BoxNet2D, or report constraint-violation rates on the MuJoCo-based BoxNet3D for the trained planners, and temper the abstract and conclusion claims accordingly.
  3. [Table 2 and Section 4.1] The success metric is reported as a point estimate, and the definition of 'pass@1 over four trials per environment' is ambiguous. If 'pass@1' means one generation per environment, the meaning of 'four trials' is unclear; if success is counted when at least one of four generations succeeds, that is better described as pass@4. The test sets contain only 160–250 environments, so differences such as GPT-o4mini 0.11 vs. GPT-4o 0.10 on BoxNet3D are within sampling noise. Please clarify the protocol and report confidence intervals (e.g., binomial or bootstrap) for the main success-rate comparisons, particularly the headline numbers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Prompts in Appendix D (Listings 6 and 7)] The BoxNet3D prompts state 'First check that the proposed target lies within the circular band 0.5 < d < 0.8,' but the reachability rule earlier in the same prompt and the task description say '0.4 < d < 0.8.' This inconsistency should be resolved.
  2. [Table 4] The reasoning-behavior counts are produced by GPT-4o without validation or inter-annotator agreement. A small human-verified sample would strengthen the claim that RL changes reasoning behavior.
  3. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'RL-trained LLM planners produce more efficient plans than the A* search algorithm' relies on the A* implementation in the paper, which is not proven optimal (indeed, negative StepDiff suggests it is suboptimal). Please rephrase to 'fewer steps than the A* reference plan' or provide evidence of optimality.
  4. [Various] There are several typos and formatting issues, including 'Correspondance' in the author footnote, 'cannot cannot' in the collision rules, 'firt-person' in the prompts, and 'meas' instead of 'means' in Listing 6. A careful proofread is needed.
  5. [Appendix B.2] The description of the manually implemented BoxNet2D feasibility check is high-level ('calculating the relative geometric position of robot arms and objects'). Since the code is promised on GitHub, please reference the exact file and function for the feasibility check so that readers can verify what is and is not checked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the RLVR success signal comes from an external simulator verifier, and the generalization results are held-out evaluations; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the RLVR loop: r_execute awards 1 only when the simulator verifies that a plan achieves the goal and violates no checked constraints, and the LLM is trained with GRPO against this signal. The success rates in Table 2 are held-out pass@1 on separately generated test environments, so the result is not a fit to the test set. A* enters only to synthesize SFT warm-up data and to define the efficiency penalty r_efficiency; it does not set the success label, and the penalty only discourages plans longer than the A* plan, so the observed shorter-than-A* StepDiff is not forced by construction. The BoxNet2D verifier's incompleteness (e.g., missing robot-object swept-volume checks) is a validity limitation, not a circular reduction: the paper explicitly notes BoxNet3D 'exposes more limitations,' which is a benchmark-fidelity caveat rather than an equation-level self-reference. Self-citations to BoxNet [11], AutoTAMP [3], and related prior work are contextual and are not used to justify the empirical result; no uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter is imported from those citations. The generalization variants (Random Robot, New Coord) provide additional external checks that the learned behavior transfers to unseen configurations.

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

The central claim relies on training-data generation via A*, the faithfulness of the simulator checks, and the transferability of RLVR hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced; the BoxNet2D and BoxNet3D environments are benchmarks rather than invented scientific entities.

free parameters (5)
  • format_reward_weight = 0.1
    Hand-chosen in Section 2.2; assigns positive reward to any correctly formatted plan, including invalid ones.
  • efficiency_penalty_coefficient = 0.1
    Hand-chosen multiplier in r_efficiency in Section 2.2; affects step length and parallelism of generated plans.
  • valid_plan_cap_factor = 2x r_format
    Hand-chosen cap in Section 2.2 that guarantees successful plans receive at least twice the format reward.
  • GRPO_group_size = 8 for BoxNet2D, batch 64 for BoxNet3D
    Training hyperparameter in Section 4.1; could influence RL stability and performance.
  • BoxNet3D_reachability_lower_bound = 0.4 or 0.5, inconsistent in prompts
    The environment boundary is ambiguous because Appendix D lists both values, affecting what the model learns as reachable.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math GRPO is a valid policy optimization algorithm for LLM fine-tuning and its hyperparameters transfer from math and coding domains.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 and B.1; not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The hand-implemented geometric checks in BoxNet2D and MuJoCo in BoxNet3D faithfully capture reachability and collision constraints.
    Section 3; the central claim about physical constraint awareness rests on these checks being faithful.
  • domain assumption A* search produces valid optimal or near-optimal plans used for SFT warmup and efficiency penalties.
    Sections 2.3 and B.3; if A* plans are incomplete or invalid, SFT data quality suffers.
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4o-mini-synthesized reasoning chains for the A* plans reflect the constraint-aware reasoning the paper wants to teach.
    Section 2.3; no evidence is given that the synthesized traces are correct beyond visual similarity.
  • domain assumption Success in the simulated environments indicates generic geometric reasoning rather than memorization of specific coordinate patterns.
    Section 4.2 generalization tests; assumption is supported but not conclusively proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collision- and Reachability-Aware Multi-Robot Control with Grounded LLM Planners." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OVCHGI26

@misc{pith2026250520573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collision- and Reachability-Aware Multi-Robot Control with Grounded LLM Planners},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OVCHGI26}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20573}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in various robot control tasks. However, their deployment in real-world applications remains constrained. Even state-ofthe-art LLMs, such as GPT-o4mini, frequently produce invalid action plans that violate physical constraints, such as directing a robot to an unreachable location or causing collisions between robots. This issue primarily arises from a lack of awareness of these physical constraints during the reasoning process. To address this issue, we propose a novel framework that integrates reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) to incentivize knowledge of physical constraints into LLMs to induce constraints-aware reasoning during plan generation. In this approach, only valid action plans that successfully complete a control task receive positive rewards. We applied our method to two small-scale LLMs: a non-reasoning Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct and a reasoning Qwen3-4B. The experiment results demonstrate that constraint-aware small LLMs largely outperform large-scale models without constraints, grounded on both the BoxNet task and a newly developed BoxNet3D environment built using MuJoCo. This work highlights the effectiveness of grounding even small LLMs with physical constraints to enable scalable and efficient multi-robot control in complex, physically constrained environments.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Maria Fox and Derek Long. Pddl2. 1: An extension to pddl for expressing temporal planning domains. Journal of artificial intelligence research, 20:61–124, 2003

    2003

  2. [2]

    Temporal and modal logic

    E Allen Emerson. Temporal and modal logic. InFormal models and semantics, pages 995–1072. Elsevier, 1990

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    Auto- tamp: Autoregressive task and motion planning with llms as translators and checkers

    Yongchao Chen, Jacob Arkin, Charles Dawson, Yang Zhang, Nicholas Roy, and Chuchu Fan. Auto- tamp: Autoregressive task and motion planning with llms as translators and checkers. In 2024 IEEE International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 6695–6702. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Code-as-symbolic-planner: Foundation model-based robot planning via symbolic code generation

    Yongchao Chen, Yilun Hao, Yang Zhang, and Chuchu Fan. Code-as-symbolic-planner: Foundation model-based robot planning via symbolic code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2503.01700, 2025. 10 Constraint Grounded Multi-Robot Planner Preprint

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Deepcoder: A fully open-source 14b coder at o3-mini level

    Michael Luo, Sijun Tan, Roy Huang, Ameen Patel, Alpay Ariyak, Qingyang Wu, Xiaoxiang Shi, Rachel Xin, Colin Cai, Maurice Weber, Ce Zhang, Li Erran Li, Raluca Ada Popa, and Ion Stoica. Deepcoder: A fully open-source 14b coder at o3-mini level

  7. [8]

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, Y. K. Li, Y. Wu, and Daya Guo. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathemati- cal reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2402.03300, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [9]

    Code-r1: Reproducing r1 for code with reliable rewards

    Jiawei Liu and Lingming Zhang. Code-r1: Reproducing r1 for code with reliable rewards. 2025

    2025

Show all 49 references
  1. [10]

    Audere: Automated strategy decision and realization in robot planning and control via llms

    Yue Meng, Fei Chen, Yongchao Chen, and Chuchu Fan. Audere: Automated strategy decision and realization in robot planning and control via llms. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2504.03015, 2025

    2025

  2. [11]

    Yongchao Chen, Jacob Arkin, Yang Zhang, Nicholas Roy, and Chuchu Fan. Scalable multi-robot collaboration with large language models: Centralized or decentralized systems? In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 4311–4317. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  3. [12]

    Le, Sergey Levine, and Yi Ma

    Tianzhe Chu, Yuexiang Zhai, Jihan Yang, Shengbang Tong, Saining Xie, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V . Le, Sergey Levine, and Yi Ma. Sft memorizes, rl generalizes: A comparative study of foundation model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2501.17161, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Roco: Dialectic multi-robot collaboration with large language models, 2023

    Zhao Mandi, Shreeya Jain, and Shuran Song. Roco: Dialectic multi-robot collaboration with large language models, 2023

    2023

  5. [14]

    Multi-agent motion planning from signal temporal logic specifications

    Dawei Sun, Jingkai Chen, Sayan Mitra, and Chuchu Fan. Multi-agent motion planning from signal temporal logic specifications. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(2):3451–3458, 2022

    2022

  6. [15]

    Gcbf+: A neural graph control barrier function framework for distributed safe multi-agent control

    Songyuan Zhang, Oswin So, Kunal Garg, and Chuchu Fan. Gcbf+: A neural graph control barrier function framework for distributed safe multi-agent control. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

    2025

  7. [16]

    Be- yond sight: Finetuning generalist robot policies with heterogeneous sensors via language grounding

    Joshua Jones, Oier Mees, Carmelo Sferrazza, Kyle Stachowicz, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Be- yond sight: Finetuning generalist robot policies with heterogeneous sensors via language grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2501.04693, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Z. Z. Ren, Zhihong Shao, Junxiao Song, Huajian Xin, Haocheng Wang, Wanjia Zhao, Liyue Zhang, Zhe Fu, Qihao Zhu, Dejian Yang, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Shirong Ma, Hongxuan Tang, Yuxuan Liu, Wenjun Gao, Daya Guo, and Chong Ruan. Deepseek-prover-v2: Advancing formal mathematical rea...

    2025 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control

    Emanuel Todorov, Tom Erez, and Yuval Tassa. Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control. pages 5026–5033, 2012

    2012

  10. [19]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017

    2017

  11. [20]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework

    Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2409.19256, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Beyond a*: Better planning with transformers via search dynamics bootstrapping

    Lucas Lehnert, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Paul Mcvay, Michael Rabbat, and Yuandong Tian. Beyond a*: Better planning with transformers via search dynamics bootstrapping. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2402.14083, 2024. 11 Constraint Grounded Multi-Robot Planner Preprint

    2024 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Dualformer: Controllable fast and slow thinking by learning with randomized reasoning traces

    DiJia Su, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Michael Rabbat, Yuandong Tian, and Qinqing Zheng. Dualformer: Controllable fast and slow thinking by learning with randomized reasoning traces. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  15. [24]

    Lee, and Sanjeev Arora

    Noam Razin, Zixuan Wang, Hubert Strauss, Stanley Wei, Jason D. Lee, and Sanjeev Arora. What makes a reward model a good teacher? an optimization perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2503.15477, 2025

    2025

  16. [25]

    Leveraging pre- trained large language models to construct and utilize world models for model-based task planning

    Lin Guan, Karthik Valmeekam, Sarath Sreedharan, and Subbarao Kambhampati. Leveraging pre- trained large language models to construct and utilize world models for model-based task planning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:79081–79094, 2023

    2023

  17. [26]

    Errors are useful prompts: Instruction guided task programming with verifier-assisted iterative prompting

    Marta Skreta, Naruki Yoshikawa, Sebastian Arellano-Rubach, Zhi Ji, Lasse Bjørn Kristensen, Kourosh Darvish, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Florian Shkurti, and Animesh Garg. Errors are useful prompts: Instruction guided task programming with verifier-assisted iterative prompting. arXiv pr...

    2023 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Lew, Tim Vieira, and Timothy J

    João Loula, Benjamin LeBrun, Li Du, Ben Lipkin, Clemente Pasti, Gabriel Grand, Tianyu Liu, Yahya Emara, Marjorie Freedman, Jason Eisner, Ryan Cotterell, Vikash Mansinghka, Alexander K. Lew, Tim Vieira, and Timothy J. O’Donnell. Syntactic and semantic control of large language ...

    2025

  19. [28]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied 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 embodied control. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9493–9500. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  20. [29]

    Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Daniel Ho, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, A

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Daniel Ho, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, A. Irpan, Eric Jang, Rosario M Jauregui Ruano, Kyle Jeffrey, Sally Jesmonth...

    2022

  21. [30]

    Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models

    Ishika Singh, Valts Blukis, Arsalan Mousavian, Ankit Goyal, Danfei Xu, Jonathan Tremblay, Dieter Fox, Jesse Thomason, and Animesh Garg. Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automatio...

    2023

  22. [31]

    Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans

    Kevin Lin, Christopher Agia, Toki Migimatsu, Marco Pavone, and Jeannette Bohg. Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2303.12153, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Towards efficient llm grounding for embodied multi-agent collaboration

    Yang Zhang, Shixin Yang, Chenjia Bai, Fei Wu, Xiu Li, Zhen Wang, and Xuelong Li. Towards efficient llm grounding for embodied multi-agent collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14314, 2024

    2024

  24. [33]

    Embodied llm agents learn to cooperate in organized teams

    Xudong Guo, Kaixuan Huang, Jiale Liu, Wenhui Fan, Natalia Vélez, Qingyun Wu, Huazheng Wang, Thomas L Griffiths, and Mengdi Wang. Embodied llm agents learn to cooperate in organized teams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12482, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Enhancing multi-robot semantic navigation through multimodal chain-of-thought score collaboration

    Zhixuan Shen, Haonan Luo, Kexun Chen, Fengmao Lv, and Tianrui Li. Enhancing multi-robot semantic navigation through multimodal chain-of-thought score collaboration. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 14664–14672, 2025

    2025

  26. [35]

    Simplerl- zoo: Investigating and taming zero reinforcement learning for open base models in the wild

    Weihao Zeng, Yuzhen Huang, Qian Liu, Wei Liu, Keqing He, Zejun Ma, and Junxian He. Simplerl- zoo: Investigating and taming zero reinforcement learning for open base models in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2503.18892, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Competitive programming with large reasoning models

    OpenAI. Competitive programming with large reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2502.06807, 2025. 12 Constraint Grounded Multi-Robot Planner Preprint

    2025 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning

    Bowen Jin, Hansi Zeng, Zhenrui Yue, Dong Wang, Hamed Zamani, and Jiawei Han. Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2503.09516, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Agentic reasoning and tool integration for llms via reinforcement learning

    Joykirat Singh, Raghav Magazine, Yash Pandya, and Akshay Nambi. Agentic reasoning and tool integration for llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01441, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Agile: A novel reinforcement learning framework of llm agents

    Peiyuan Feng, Yichen He, Guanhua Huang, Yuan Lin, Hanchong Zhang, Yuchen Zhang, and Hang Li. Agile: A novel reinforcement learning framework of llm agents. Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  31. [40]

    Introducing operator, 2024

    OpenAI. Introducing operator, 2024. Accessed: 2025-03-23

    2024

  32. [41]

    Medvlm-r1: Incentivizing medical reasoning capability of vision- language models (vlms) via reinforcement learning

    Jiazhen Pan, Che Liu, Junde Wu, Fenglin Liu, Jiayuan Zhu, Hongwei Bran Li, Chen Chen, Cheng Ouyang, and Daniel Rueckert. Medvlm-r1: Incentivizing medical reasoning capability of vision- language models (vlms) via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19634, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Vlm-r1: A stable and generalizable r1-style large vision-language model

    Haozhan Shen, Peng Liu, Jingcheng Li, Chunxin Fang, Yibo Ma, Jiajia Liao, Qiaoli Shen, Zilun Zhang, Kangjia Zhao, Qianqian Zhang, et al. Vlm-r1: A stable and generalizable r1-style large vision-language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07615, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Thinkprune: Pruning long chain-of-thought of llms via reinforcement learning

    Bairu Hou, Yang Zhang, Jiabao Ji, Yujian Liu, Kaizhi Qian, Jacob Andreas, and Shiyu Chang. Thinkprune: Pruning long chain-of-thought of llms via reinforcement learning. 2025

    2025

  35. [44]

    Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking

    Eric Zelikman, Georges Raif Harik, Yijia Shao, Varuna Jayasiri, Nick Haber, and Noah Goodman. Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

    2024

  36. [45]

    V-star: Training verifiers for self-taught reasoners

    Arian Hosseini, Xingdi Yuan, Nikolay Malkin, Aaron Courville, Alessandro Sordoni, and Rishabh Agarwal. V-star: Training verifiers for self-taught reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06457, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  38. [47]

    inf") if num_matched != len(self.target_positions): # Not all target objects were found or matched return float(

    John Schulman, Philipp Moritz, Sergey Levine, Michael Jordan, and Pieter Abbeel. High-dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02438, 2015. 13 Constraint Grounded Multi-Robot Planner Preprint. A. Limitations and Societal ...

    2015 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Wait", "Hmm

    **Thinking Process with `<think>` Tags**: - Enclose your entire reasoning sequence in `<think>` ... `</think>` tags. - Make sure you have explicit checks, e.g. collision checks, range feasibility, and confirmations of correctness. You can start the explicit checks with "Wait",...

    2000

  40. [50]

    Let me see

    **First-Person Perspective** : Write your internal thoughts as if you are personally making the decisions:↩→ - Use phrases like "Let me see...", "Wait, is that correct?", "I should check collisions first...", "Can I parallel two robot movements to make the plan more efficient?...

  41. [51]

    Wait", "Hmm

    **Thinking Process with `<think>` Tags**: - Enclose your entire reasoning sequence in `<think>` ... `</think>` tags. - Make sure you have explicit checks, e.g. collision checks, range feasibility, and confirmations of correctness. You can start the explicit checks with "Wait",...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.