Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

LoHoVLA: A Unified Vision-Language-Action Model for Long-Horizon Embodied Tasks

T0 review · 5 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 LoHoVLA claims that a single model emitting sub-task tokens then discrete action tokens outperforms hierarchical and action-only baselines on long-horizon simulated manipulation tasks.

desk verdict The internal control is the real result; the external claim against LoHoRavens is not yet supported, and the single-timestep premise narrows the 'long-horizon' framing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00411 v1 pith:KVR52WS4 submitted 2025-05-31 cs.RO cs.AI

Yi Yang , Jiaxuan Sun , Siqi Kou , Yihan Wang , Zhijie Deng This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords vision-language-actionmodelslong-horizontaskplanningroboticmanipulationclosed-loopcontrolsub-tasktokensdiscreteactiontabletopgeneralization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that a single vision-language-action model can handle long-horizon robotic tasks if it is trained to first say what it will do—a linguistic sub-task—and then generate the corresponding discrete action tokens. The claimed payoff is that one unified model beats both a two-module planner-controller pipeline and an action-only VLA on simulated tabletop tasks, including tasks never seen in training. A reader should care because long-horizon robot manipulation is usually split between planning and control modules, and a unified token stream would remove the coordination and integration problems that split designs introduce. The paper also claims the fix is cheap: rule-generated demonstrations plus a closed-loop rule that re-plans only after repeated failures.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the factorization $\pi_\theta(\hat{a}_t, \hat{g}_t \mid o_t, g) = \pi_\theta(\hat{a}_t \mid o_t, g, \hat{g}_t)\, \pi_\theta(\hat{g}_t \mid o_t, g)$, implemented by one autoregressive vision-language model whose language head emits both sub-task text and 1,024-bin discrete action tokens. This is supported by a two-stage fine-tuning schedule and by Algorithm 1's hierarchical closed-loop control, which re-plans a sub-task only after $K=2$ failures and otherwise re-predicts the action. The factorization is what lets language serve as explicit intermediate supervision without a separate planner module.

What would settle it

Take the same sub-task labels used for LoHoVLA and fine-tune the hierarchical baseline's planner on them; if a label-tuned planner-plus-controller matches or beats LoHoVLA, then the 'unified architecture' is not the source of the gain. A reader could check this by reusing the paper's own training and evaluation pipeline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that planning and control belong in one model. LoHoVLA autoregressively generates a linguistic sub-task token sequence from the current image and high-level goal, then continues with discretized action tokens for the robot. This factorization is trained on rule-annotated demonstrations. On the benchmark, it records the highest average score and success rate on nearly all seen tasks (for example, near-perfect performance on the matching-bowl task) and on all unseen tasks, whereas the action-only VLA baseline often scores near zero on reasoning-heavy tasks. The paper attributes the gain to the shared visual-language representation and to the closed-loop protocol that re-predicts actions frequently but re-plans only after $K=2$ failures.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes each sub-task is done in a single time step and that a reward oracle says whether that sub-task succeeded; real robots typically need several motions per sub-task and do not hand out rewards.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single generation pass that first writes a short sub-task sentence and then writes the action tokens is enough to outperform a separate planner-controller system on these tasks.
  • Training on extra tasks designed to prevent overfitting is what lets the model generalize to unseen task descriptions, not the backbone alone.
  • Deferring action supervision until after a planning-only fine-tuning stage protects planning ability; one-stage joint training hurts sub-task prediction.
  • Re-planning the sub-task only after two successive failures gives nearly the same score as re-planning after every failure, with fewer planner calls.
  • On reasoning-heavy tasks the model reaches high scores where action-only VLA baselines score near zero, so explicit sub-task language is doing real work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the evaluation gives a reward after every sub-task, the closed-loop controller has an oracle; a natural extension is to replace it with a learned success detector and re-tune $K$, which would test whether the threshold strategy survives real noisy feedback.
  • The sub-task tokens behave like a chain-of-thought for the action head; an ablation that removes or perturbs the generated sub-task at inference, keeping the same weights, would isolate whether the action head truly conditions on the language or mostly on the image.
  • Since sub-tasks are assumed to finish in one step, the model's 'planning' is next-subtask classification; extending the method to multi-step sub-tasks should be possible by predicting sequences of sub-task tokens and chunked actions, which the current architecture does not evaluate.
  • The simulator's object states are fully observable to the data generator, so sub-task labels are exact; real-world data collection would need a language annotator or a goal-state classifier, and label noise is an untested failure mode.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LoHoVLA, a unified vision-language-action model built on a PaliGemma backbone that generates linguistic sub-task tokens followed by discretized action tokens in a single autoregressive model. The model is trained on LoHoSet, a Ravens-simulator dataset of 20 long-horizon tasks and 3 pick-and-place primitives, and evaluated on the LoHoRavens benchmark. A closed-loop control mechanism re-plans the current sub-task only after K consecutive failures, and separate ablations analyze the closed-loop strategy, training-set expansion, and two-stage training. The main reported result is that LoHoVLA outperforms a vanilla VLA and the hierarchical LoHoRavens baseline on both seen and unseen tasks.

Significance. The strongest evidence in the paper is the internal comparison: an action-only vanilla VLA trained on the same LoHoSet, with no sub-task labels, performs dramatically worse on the reasoning-heavy tasks, while LoHoVLA's joint sub-task-and-action token generation achieves large margins on tasks B, E, F, I, and K. This is a credible demonstration that explicit next-sub-task supervision helps in this simulated long-horizon setting, and the LoHoSet dataset is a useful public resource. However, the headline external claim against the hierarchical LoHoRavens baseline is currently under-supported: Table 2 omits the baseline success rates, the baseline is trained and evaluated under a different protocol and data mix, and the closed-loop mechanism requires a per-step reward oracle that real robots do not have. The significance for real-world transfer is therefore not yet established, although the simulation-level contribution is solid and reproducible in principle.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 2] The claim that LoHoVLA achieves the highest success rate across nearly all tasks is not verifiable from Table 2, because every LoHoRavens baseline entry reports success rate as '-'. Only the average-score half of the comparison is given for the hierarchical baselines. Additionally, LoHoVLA and Vanilla VLA are trained on LoHoSet with 10 extra tasks and 10,000 primitive demonstrations per primitive (Section 4.1), while the LoHoRavens numbers appear to be quoted from a system trained and evaluated on its own data; no re-running on identical test episodes and evaluation metrics is described. Please re-run the LoHoRavens baselines under the same evaluation protocol, or restrict the external superiority claim to average score and explicitly state the data and evaluation differences.
  2. [Section 3.3, Algorithm 1] The closed-loop control mechanism in Algorithm 1 uses the environment's per-step reward r to decide whether to re-plan and resets the failure counter only when r>0. Section 3.3 states the assumption that the robot receives a positive reward upon completing a sub-task, but such a per-subtask success oracle is not available in most real manipulation settings. The Limitations section mentions only the single-timestep assumption and action discretization, so the reward-oracle assumption should be explicitly listed as a limitation, and an ablation using a vision-based success estimator would meaningfully strengthen the practical claim.
  3. [Section 3.1, Section 5 (Limitations)] The assumption that each sub-task can be completed within a single time step reduces the problem from multi-step sub-task execution to next-step sub-task classification followed by one motor command. This is explicitly stated in Section 3.1 and conceded in Limitations, but the paper's abstract and introduction repeatedly emphasize 'multi-step solutions' and 'long-horizon planning'. The planning capability actually demonstrated is sub-task sequencing, not multi-step look-ahead. Please reframe the conclusions to match this scope, and discuss how the formulation would change when a sub-task requires several primitive actions or prolonged contact.
  4. [Section 3.2, Table 1] Training labels and evaluation ground truth are both produced by the same manually designed rule-based pipeline in the Ravens simulator (Section 3.2), and the 'unseen' tasks F-K are generated from the same rule templates as the seen tasks. The strong generalization result may therefore reflect interpolation within one closed rule family rather than generalization to genuinely new task structures. A concrete test would be leave-one-out evaluation over the ten LoHoRavens long-horizon tasks, or evaluation on held-out tasks with novel object counts, spatial layouts, and dependency structures that are not expressible by the training rules.
  5. [Tables 2 and 3, Section 4.1] No error bars, seeds, or significance tests are reported for any of the main tables, despite the simulator's stochastic dropping probability p and observation noise described in Section 3.2. Since the abstract uses the word 'significantly', please report means and standard deviations over at least three seeds. In addition, the closed-loop threshold K=2 is a central design parameter but no sensitivity analysis is given; at minimum, report results for K=1, K=3, and K=5 to show that the advantage of strategy (c) does not hinge on this specific value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] The training description is internally inconsistent: Section 4.1 says the first stage uses 14 long-horizon tasks comprising 4 seen tasks and 10 additional tasks, while Section 4.2 says LoHoVLA and Vanilla VLA are trained on five seen tasks and ten additional tasks. Please clarify whether the pick-and-place primitive is part of the first stage or only the second stage.
  2. [Table 2] The table heading says 'average award (%)' but should be 'average reward (%)' or 'average score (%)' to match the text.
  3. [Section 4.2] On task A (pick-and-place primitive), Vanilla VLA scores 79.0/79.0 while LoHoVLA scores 77.5/77.5, so the statement 'outperforming all baselines' is not literally true for every task; the qualifier 'nearly all' is appropriate but should also appear in the surrounding discussion.
  4. [Appendix B, Figure 3] The sub-task planning success rate is measured with an LLM judge, but no agreement or validation of the judge against human annotations is reported, and the number of sampled timesteps per task is small (10). Please report judge reliability and the variance of the sampling.
  5. [Table 3] The column 'number of sub-task planning' lacks units and standard deviations; state explicitly that this is the average number of high-level planning calls per episode, and report per-episode variability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LoHoVLA's central empirical claim is not forced by construction; remaining concerns are comparison and evidence issues, not circular reductions.

full rationale

LoHoVLA's claimed derivation chain is an empirical training-and-evaluation loop, not a formal derivation. The dataset (Section 3.2) is generated by rule-based expert demonstrations in the Ravens simulator; the model is trained to predict sub-task tokens and discrete action tokens; evaluation (Section 4.2) measures task completion against the same simulator's ground truth. Nothing in this loop defines the output as the input: the model must still produce correct sub-task and action tokens, and the closed-loop retries in Algorithm 1 (K=2) only re-sample from the learned policy, which does not guarantee success. The 'single time step per sub-task' assumption (Section 3.1) narrows the notion of planning but is explicitly acknowledged in the Limitations section as impractical in real-time applications; it is a simplifying assumption, not a circular reduction. The sub-task planning metric in Section 4.4 uses manually enumerated ground-truth options generated by the same rule family as the training labels, making it a somewhat self-referential auxiliary diagnostic, but the headline claim rests on task-completion scores, which are not equivalent to the training labels by construction. Missing success-rate entries for the LoHoRavens baseline in Table 2 and the use of 10 extra training tasks for LoHoVLA are comparison and evidence concerns, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on three kinds of unpaid input: (1) a task structure assumption that collapses long-horizon planning into one-step sub-goal prediction with a reward oracle; (2) a rule-based data generator whose outputs serve as both training labels and evaluation ground truth, so generalization is measured inside the rule family that produced the training set; (3) an unnamed LLM judge for the planning metric. The only hand-tuned numeric parameter affecting the control claim is K=2, and the zone-match threshold used to define success is never specified. There are no invented physical entities; LoHoSet is a dataset artifact, not a postulated mechanism.

free parameters (5)
  • failure re-planning threshold K = 2
    Section 4.3: 'In our experiments, we set K=2.' The threshold decides when the model re-plans instead of retrying. Table 3 compares protocol variants but never sweeps K, so the central control design rests on one hand-set value.
  • action discretization resolution = 1,024 bins
    Section 3.3: actions are discretized into 1,024 uniform bins. Standard in RT-2/OpenVLA-style models rather than fitted, but the resolution is not ablated and the Limitations section says discrete actions limit precision.
  • two-stage training epoch split = 3 epochs text-only, then 1 epoch text+action (5 total)
    Section 3.4 and 4.4: stage one is 3 epochs of text-only training, stage two is 1 epoch with actions. The ablation compares one-stage vs two-stage as a whole, not the split point, so the exact schedule is a hand-set recipe.
  • zone-match overlap threshold = unspecified ('predefined threshold')
    Section 4.1: zone-match evaluation requires overlap above 'a predefined threshold' whose value is never stated; reported success rates on zone tasks depend on an unspecified constant.
  • end-effector dropping probability p = not stated
    Section 3.2: the simulator introduces 'a dropping probability p' to simulate uncertainty; the value is never reported, so the noise level of the evaluation environment is unspecified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Each sub-task is completable in exactly one time step, and a per-step reward indicates sub-task completion.
    Section 3.1: 'we assume that each sub-task can be completed within a single time step'; Algorithm 1 uses the per-step reward as the completion oracle. This premise collapses long-horizon planning to per-step sub-goal classification and is conceded as impractical in Section 5.
  • domain assumption Rule-based generation from full simulator state yields correct sub-task decompositions that serve as ground truth for both training labels and evaluation.
    Section 3.2: sub-tasks are 'collected... based on manually designed rules' with complete scene information; evaluation ground truth for both success and the planning metric comes from the same rule family, so training and test share one generator.
  • domain assumption An unspecified LLM reliably judges semantic equivalence between predicted and ground-truth sub-tasks.
    Appendix B: the sub-task planning success rate asks 'a large language model (LLM)' to judge semantic equivalence; the LLM is unnamed, so the planning-only results in Figure 3 depend on an unstated judge.
  • domain assumption The frozen image encoder and projection layer of PaliGemma suffice for Ravens orthographic top-down RGB-D inputs during fine-tuning.
    Section 3.4: the image encoder and linear projection are kept fixed during training; the paper does not ablate this choice or verify that frozen SigLIP features suffice for the top-down orthographic views used in LoHoSet.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LoHoVLA: A Unified Vision-Language-Action Model for Long-Horizon Embodied Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KVR52WS4

@misc{pith2026250600411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LoHoVLA: A Unified Vision-Language-Action Model for Long-Horizon Embodied Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KVR52WS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00411}
}
read the original abstract

Real-world embodied agents face long-horizon tasks, characterized by high-level goals demanding multi-step solutions beyond single actions. Successfully navigating these requires both high-level task planning (i.e., decomposing goals into sub-tasks) and low-level motion control (i.e., generating precise robot actions). While existing vision language action (VLA) models and hierarchical architectures offer potential in embodied tasks, the former often falter in planning, and the latter can suffer from coordination issues, both hampering performance. We introduce a new unified VLA framework for long-horizon tasks, dubbed LoHoVLA, to overcome these limitations. LoHoVLA leverages a large pretrained vision language model (VLM) as the backbone to jointly generate language and action tokens for sub-task generation and robot action prediction, respectively. This shared representation promotes better generalization across tasks. Additionally, LoHoVLA embraces a hierarchical closed-loop control mechanism to mitigate errors originating from both high-level planning and low-level control. To train LoHoVLA, we introduce LoHoSet, a dataset built on the Ravens simulator, containing 20 long-horizon tasks, each with 1,000 expert demonstrations composed of visual observations, linguistic goals, sub-tasks, and robot actions. Experimental results show that LoHoVLA significantly surpasses both hierarchical and standard VLA approaches on long-horizon embodied tasks in the Ravens simulator. These findings underscore the promise of unified architectures for advancing generalizable embodied intelligence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00411 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left top: Vanilla VLA directly maps high-level goals and observations to actions. Left bottom: The hierarchical architecture separates planning and execution— the planner infers sub-tasks, and the controller executes them. Right: LoHoVLA integrates high-level task planning and low-level motion control into a unified model. It uses an auto-regressive (AR) Transformer as its backbone and employs a hierarchical closed-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of the long-horizon LoHoSet. Object attributes like size, color, quantity, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Comparison of performance on unseen tasks between training with and without dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual examples of all tasks in the LoHoSet dataset, including 3 pick-and-place primitives [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Mastering PokeGym: Graph-Guided Multimodal Evolution at Test Time

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    The manuscript body introduces PokeGym, a vision-only automated 3D-game benchmark, while the abstract claims a G-EvoMAC method and 60.18% success rate absent from the body.

  2. LENS: LLM-guided Environment Simplification for Planning and Control in Clutter

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A vision-language-model-based prune-and-merge abstraction improves success and runtime for TAMP, contact-implicit MPC, and a VLA policy in cluttered tabletop manipulation.

  3. RoboStream: Weaving Spatio-Temporal Reasoning with Memory in Vision-Language Models for Robotics

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Training-free STF-Tokens plus a Causal Spatio-Temporal Graph let VLMs keep object permanence and action history, raising long-horizon robotic manipulation success far above reactive baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 23716–23736, 2022

    Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 23716–23736, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Openflamingo: An open- source framework for training large autoregressive vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01390, 2023

    Anas Awadalla, Irena Gao, Josh Gardner, Jack Hessel, Yusuf Hanafy, Wanrong Zhu, Kalyani Marathe, Yonatan Bitton, Samir Gadre, Shiori Sagawa, et al. Openflamingo: An open- source framework for training large autoregressive vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01390, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Rt-h: Action hierarchies using language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01823, 2024

    Suneel Belkhale, Tianli Ding, Ted Xiao, Pierre Sermanet, Quon Vuong, Jonathan Tompson, Yevgen Chebotar, Debidatta Dwibedi, and Dorsa Sadigh. Rt-h: Action hierarchies using language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01823, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Paligemma: A versatile 3b vlm for transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07726, 2024

    Lucas Beyer, Andreas Steiner, André Susano Pinto, Alexander Kolesnikov, Xiao Wang, Daniel Salz, Maxim Neumann, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Michael Tschannen, Emanuele Bugliarello, et al. Paligemma: A versatile 3b vlm for transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07726, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    π0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, et al. π0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Rt-2: Vision-language- action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choro- manski, 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

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Gr-2: A generative video-language-action model with web-scale knowledge for robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06158, 2024

    Chi-Lam Cheang, Guangzeng Chen, Ya Jing, Tao Kong, Hang Li, Yifeng Li, Yuxiao Liu, Hongtao Wu, Jiafeng Xu, Yichu Yang, et al. Gr-2: A generative video-language-action model with web-scale knowledge for robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06158, 2024

    arXiv

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Automating robot failure recovery using vision-language models with optimized prompts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03966, 2024

    Hongyi Chen, Yunchao Yao, Ruixuan Liu, Changliu Liu, and Jeffrey Ichnowski. Automating robot failure recovery using vision-language models with optimized prompts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03966, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Pali-3 vision language models: Smaller, faster, stronger.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09199, 2023

    Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Jialin Wu, Paul V oigtlaender, Basil Mustafa, Sebastian Goodman, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Piotr Padlewski, et al. Pali-3 vision language models: Smaller, faster, stronger.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09199, 2023

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Navila: Legged robot vision-language-action model for navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04453, 2024

    An-Chieh Cheng, Yandong Ji, Zhaojing Yang, Zaitian Gongye, Xueyan Zou, Jan Kautz, Erdem Bıyık, Hongxu Yin, Sifei Liu, and Xiaolong Wang. Navila: Legged robot vision-language-action model for navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04453, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Racer: Rich language-guided failure recovery policies for imitation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14674, 2024

    Yinpei Dai, Jayjun Lee, Nima Fazeli, and Joyce Chai. Racer: Rich language-guided failure recovery policies for imitation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14674, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model

    Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, Wenlong Huang, et al. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    A survey of embodied ai: From simulators to research tasks.IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, 6(2):230–244, 2022

    Jiafei Duan, Samson Yu, Hui Li Tan, Hongyuan Zhu, and Cheston Tan. A survey of embodied ai: From simulators to research tasks.IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, 6(2):230–244, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Plan-and-act: Improving planning of agents for long-horizon tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09572, 2025

    Lutfi Eren Erdogan, Nicholas Lee, Sehoon Kim, Suhong Moon, Hiroki Furuta, Gopala Anu- manchipalli, Kurt Keutzer, and Amir Gholami. Plan-and-act: Improving planning of agents for long-horizon tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09572, 2025. 11

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Sam2point: Segment any 3d as videos in zero-shot and promptable manners

    Ziyu Guo, Renrui Zhang, Xiangyang Zhu, Chengzhuo Tong, Peng Gao, Chunyuan Li, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Sam2point: Segment any 3d as videos in zero-shot and promptable manners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16768, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1 (2):3, 2022

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1 (2):3, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Look before you leap: Unveiling the power of gpt-4v in robotic vision-language planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17842, 2023

    Yingdong Hu, Fanqi Lin, Tong Zhang, Li Yi, and Yang Gao. Look before you leap: Unveiling the power of gpt-4v in robotic vision-language planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17842, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608, 2022

    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

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    π0.5: a vision- language-action model with open-world generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16054, 2025

    Physical Intelligence, Kevin Black, Noah Brown, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, et al. π0.5: a vision- language-action model with open-world generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16054, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Rlbench: The robot learning benchmark & learning environment.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2): 3019–3026, 2020

    Stephen James, Zicong Ma, David Rovick Arrojo, and Andrew J Davison. Rlbench: The robot learning benchmark & learning environment.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2): 3019–3026, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Vima: General robot manipulation with multimodal prompts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03094, 2(3):6, 2022

    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, 2(3):6, 2022

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Prismatic vlms: Investigating the design space of visually-conditioned language models

    Siddharth Karamcheti, Suraj Nair, Ashwin Balakrishna, Percy Liang, Thomas Kollar, and Dorsa Sadigh. Prismatic vlms: Investigating the design space of visually-conditioned language models. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

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

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Interactive task planning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10645, 2023

    Boyi Li, Philipp Wu, Pieter Abbeel, and Jitendra Malik. Interactive task planning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10645, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Towards generalist robot policies: What matters in building vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14058, 2024

    Xinghang Li, Peiyan Li, Minghuan Liu, Dong Wang, Jirong Liu, Bingyi Kang, Xiao Ma, Tao Kong, Hanbo Zhang, and Huaping Liu. Towards generalist robot policies: What matters in building vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14058, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hamster: Hierarchical action models for open-world robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05485, 2025

    Yi Li, Yuquan Deng, Jesse Zhang, Joel Jang, Marius Memmel, Raymond Yu, Caelan Reed Garrett, Fabio Ramos, Dieter Fox, Anqi Li, et al. Hamster: Hierarchical action models for open-world robot manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05485, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [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. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9493–9500. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Aligning cyber space with physical world: A comprehensive survey on embodied ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06886, 2024

    Yang Liu, Weixing Chen, Yongjie Bai, Xiaodan Liang, Guanbin Li, Wen Gao, and Liang Lin. Aligning cyber space with physical world: A comprehensive survey on embodied ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06886, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017. 12

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Data-agnostic robotic long-horizon manipulation with vision-language-guided closed-loop feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21969, 2025

    Yuan Meng, Xiangtong Yao, Haihui Ye, Yirui Zhou, Shengqiang Zhang, Zhenshan Bing, and Alois Knoll. Data-agnostic robotic long-horizon manipulation with vision-language-guided closed-loop feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21969, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pivot: Iterative visual prompting elicits actionable knowledge for vlms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07872, 2024

    Soroush Nasiriany, Fei Xia, Wenhao Yu, Ted Xiao, Jacky Liang, Ishita Dasgupta, Annie Xie, Danny Driess, Ayzaan Wahid, Zhuo Xu, et al. Pivot: Iterative visual prompting elicits actionable knowledge for vlms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07872, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Open x- embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models: Open x-embodiment collaboration 0

    Abby O’Neill, Abdul Rehman, Abhiram Maddukuri, Abhishek Gupta, Abhishek Padalkar, Abraham Lee, Acorn Pooley, Agrim Gupta, Ajay Mandlekar, Ajinkya Jain, et al. Open x- embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models: Open x-embodiment collaboration 0. In2024 IEEE Internat...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InInternational conference on machine learning, pag...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters

    Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunji Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, pages 3...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Yell at your robot: Improving on-the-fly from language corrections.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12910, 2024

    Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, Zheyuan Hu, Tony Z Zhao, Archit Sharma, Karl Pertsch, Jianlan Luo, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Yell at your robot: Improving on-the-fly from language corrections.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12910, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation

    Mohit Shridhar, Lucas Manuelli, and Dieter Fox. Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation. InConference on robot learning, pages 894–906. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024

    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

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Karma: Augmenting embodied ai agents with long-and-short term memory systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14908, 2024

    Zixuan Wang, Bo Yu, Junzhe Zhao, Wenhao Sun, Sai Hou, Shuai Liang, Xing Hu, Yinhe Han, and Yiming Gan. Karma: Augmenting embodied ai agents with long-and-short term memory systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14908, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

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

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Diffusion-vla: Scaling robot foundation models via unified diffusion and autoregression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03293, 2024

    Junjie Wen, Minjie Zhu, Yichen Zhu, Zhibin Tang, Jinming Li, Zhongyi Zhou, Chengmeng Li, Xiaoyu Liu, Yaxin Peng, Chaomin Shen, et al. Diffusion-vla: Scaling robot foundation models via unified diffusion and autoregression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03293, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Dexvla: Vision-language model with plug-in diffusion expert for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05855, 2025

    Junjie Wen, Yichen Zhu, Jinming Li, Zhibin Tang, Chaomin Shen, and Feifei Feng. Dexvla: Vision-language model with plug-in diffusion expert for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05855, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Embodied task planning with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01848, 2023

    Zhenyu Wu, Ziwei Wang, Xiuwei Xu, Jiwen Lu, and Haibin Yan. Embodied task planning with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01848, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Guiding long-horizon task and motion planning with vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02193, 2024

    Zhutian Yang, Caelan Garrett, Dieter Fox, Tomás Lozano-Pérez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. Guiding long-horizon task and motion planning with vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02193, 2024. 13

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning

    Tianhe Yu, Deirdre Quillen, Zhanpeng He, Ryan Julian, Karol Hausman, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning. InConference on robot learning, pages 1094–1100. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08693, 2024

    Michał Zawalski, William Chen, Karl Pertsch, Oier Mees, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08693, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Transporter networks: Rearranging the visual world for robotic manipulation

    Andy Zeng, Pete Florence, Jonathan Tompson, Stefan Welker, Jonathan Chien, Maria Attarian, Travis Armstrong, Ivan Krasin, Dan Duong, Vikas Sindhwani, et al. Transporter networks: Rearranging the visual world for robotic manipulation. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 726–7...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Lohoravens: A long-horizon language- conditioned benchmark for robotic tabletop manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12020, 2023

    Shengqiang Zhang, Philipp Wicke, Lütfi Kerem ¸ Senel, Luis Figueredo, Abdeldjallil Naceri, Sami Haddadin, Barbara Plank, and Hinrich Schütze. Lohoravens: A long-horizon language- conditioned benchmark for robotic tabletop manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12020, 2023

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Vlabench: A large-scale benchmark for language-conditioned robotics manipulation with long-horizon reasoning tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18194, 2024

    Shiduo Zhang, Zhe Xu, Peiju Liu, Xiaopeng Yu, Yuan Li, Qinghui Gao, Zhaoye Fei, Zhangyue Yin, Zuxuan Wu, Yu-Gang Jiang, et al. Vlabench: A large-scale benchmark for language-conditioned robotics manipulation with long-horizon reasoning tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18194, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Erra: An embodied representation and reasoning architecture for long-horizon language- conditioned manipulation tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8(6):3230–3237, 2023

    Chao Zhao, Shuai Yuan, Chunli Jiang, Junhao Cai, Hongyu Yu, Michael Yu Wang, and Qifeng Chen. Erra: An embodied representation and reasoning architecture for long-horizon language- conditioned manipulation tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8(6):3230–3237, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Cot-vla: Visual chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22020, 2025

    Qingqing Zhao, Yao Lu, Moo Jin Kim, Zipeng Fu, Zhuoyang Zhang, Yecheng Wu, Zhaoshuo Li, Qianli Ma, Song Han, Chelsea Finn, et al. Cot-vla: Visual chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22020, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Isr-llm: Iterative self-refined large language model for long-horizon sequential task planning

    Zhehua Zhou, Jiayang Song, Kunpeng Yao, Zhan Shu, and Lei Ma. Isr-llm: Iterative self-refined large language model for long-horizon sequential task planning. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2081–2088. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Put the [OBJ] on the [OBJ]

    Yuke Zhu, Josiah Wong, Ajay Mandlekar, Roberto Martín-Martín, Abhishek Joshi, Soroush Nasiriany, and Yifeng Zhu. robosuite: A modular simulation framework and benchmark for robot learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.12293, 2020. 14 A LoHoSet pick-and-place-primitive pick-and-pla...

    2009 arXiv

Pith tools

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