Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Structured Task Solving via Modular Embodied Intelligence: A Case Study on Rubik's Cube

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A modular pipeline solves Rubik's cube restoration on a real robot arm with 79% success.

desk verdict A plausible modular pipeline with a hidden load-bearing perception step; the 79% claim needs descriptor validation and code before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05607 v1 pith:A4A4ZTZJ submitted 2025-07-08 cs.RO

Chongshan Fan , Shenghai Yuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords Rubik'scuberestorationmodularembodiedintelligenceknowledgebasevision-languagemodellargelanguagepromptchainingsim-to-realtransferroboticmanipulation
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 claims that a modular pipeline—a symbolic knowledge base that computes group-theoretic restoration steps, a vision-language model that turns RGB-D images into a 3D semantic map, and a large language model that writes the robot control code—can solve Rubik's cube restoration on a seven-degree-of-freedom robotic arm. The reported end-to-end success rate is 79% across randomized configurations, with no demonstrations and no retraining. The paper also reports that this knowledge-base approach needs fewer average moves than a speedcubing method, a deep reinforcement learning solver, and a two-phase solver. The point is that structured symbolic tasks, which language models alone handle poorly, can be delegated to a dedicated solver while the language model handles the perception-to-code translation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 54-character cube descriptor: a flattened string in which each of the six faces contributes nine color characters in a fixed center-color order, such as 'DLLRULLFF...'. Everything downstream depends on this string being a faithful rendering of the physical cube. The knowledge base solves the group-theoretic restoration from the string, the language model converts each face-rotation command into code through prompt chaining, and motion planning runs on 3D maps built from RGB-D data; the descriptor is the only place where the continuous physical world is reduced to the discrete symbolic state the solver can consume.

What would settle it

Take a set of 200 physical scrambles with known ground-truth states, compare the pipeline's 54-character descriptor to the true state, and corrupt one sticker character before feeding the solver: if the end-to-end success rate stays near 79% despite descriptor mismatches or corrupted characters, the descriptor is not the load-bearing bottleneck, and the central claim would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Auto-RubikAI's central claim is that the task separates cleanly into three kinds of intelligence: symbolic computation, visual grounding, and code generation. A single 54-character string encodes the cube state in a fixed face order; this descriptor is produced by an open-vocabulary detector, a segmentation model, and center-color localization from RGB-D input. The knowledge base treats the descriptor as a group-theoretic state and outputs a move sequence of face-rotation commands. The language model, guided by a chain of prompts, decomposes each command into executable gripper-and-arm code, and the vision-language model builds interaction and ignore maps that a trajectory planner uses to find collision-free waypoints. The authors present the 79% success rate and the 18-move average solution length as evidence that this division of labor closes the loop between perception, reasoning, and execution without large datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes the 54-character cube descriptor read from RGB-D images accurately represents the actual cube state; the paper's failure analysis shows knowledge-base errors, dominated by color recognition, are the largest failure class, so a wrong descriptor sends the solver to the wrong state and the task fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported success rate holds, embodied agents can solve at least one class of structured symbolic tasks without demonstration data or task-specific fine-tuning.
  • LLM-only planners are insufficient for this task: the paper's comparison with an existing LLM-based embodied planner shows the planning phase fails because the language model cannot produce valid restoration sequences.
  • A symbolic solver can beat both human-oriented formulas and learned solvers on move count, so group-theoretic structure does not need to be relearned from data.
  • Prompt chaining can be retrieval-free: the language model turns high-level commands into executable subtask code using only static prompts and repeated parsing.
  • The error decomposition implies that improving perception, the largest failure class at 47.62% of failures, would raise overall success more than improving code generation or execution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is per-move verification: after each face rotation, the vision-language model could re-read the cube and compare against the predicted next descriptor, catching perception errors before they compound.
  • The architecture should transfer to other tasks that admit a compact symbolic state descriptor, such as wiring, connector calibration, and inspection, where the bottleneck is symbolic correctness rather than learned dexterity.
  • Because color recognition dominates the failure budget, a lighting-robust descriptor extractor would likely raise the 79% end-to-end success rate more than further prompt engineering.
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 Auto-RubikAI, a modular embodied planning system for Rubik's Cube restoration that combines a symbolic Knowledge Base (KB), a vision-language model (VLM), and a large language model (LLM). The KB computes restoration moves using a modified two-phase solver; the VLM (OWL-ViT plus SAM) builds a semantic 3D map from RGB-D data and produces a 54-character cube descriptor; the LLM (GPT-4) translates symbolic moves into executable robot code through prompt chaining. The authors report a 79% end-to-end success rate in real-world trials on a Franka Emika Panda arm, claim successful deployment in simulation and real world, and show that the KB reduces average solution steps compared with CFOP, DeepCubeA, and the standard two-phase method. The contribution is positioned as a data-free, interpretable alternative to demonstration-heavy embodied policy learning.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful and credible point: for a task with rigid symbolic structure, a dedicated solver module combined with an LLM for code generation and a VLM for perception can yield interpretable, data-free embodied planning. The paper rightly emphasizes that current LLMs cannot produce group-theoretic solution sequences directly, and the modular architecture is a sensible response. The comparison against DeepCubeA and CFOP is valuable in principle, and the claim of no demonstrations or retraining is a genuine strength. However, the significance is currently limited by the experimental reporting: the central perception-to-descriptor step is not validated, simulation results are absent despite being claimed, per-condition success rates are missing, and the code and prompts are not included. The contribution is therefore plausible but not yet established at the level that would support the paper's current claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [§IV-A, §IV-C, Fig. 7] The entire pipeline rests on the 54-character cube descriptor generated from RGB-D data by OWL-ViT, SAM, and center-color localization, yet no experiment measures descriptor accuracy against ground truth. The paper does not state how all six faces are observed with the D435i camera(s): whether multiple views are fused, the cube is re-grasped, or prior knowledge is used. Since a single misread sticker changes the permutation and makes the KB solve invalid, the 79% success rate is consistent with a system that succeeds only when perception happens to be correct. The paper's own failure analysis (Fig. 7) identifies KB errors, including color recognition failures, as the largest failure class (47.62% of 42 failures). Please add a descriptor-accuracy study with ground-truth comparison, specify the observation procedure, and report perception accuracy separately.
  2. [§V-C, §V-D.2, Table IV] The scramble-count specification is internally inconsistent: §V-C states experiments use 5, 10, 20, and 40 random scrambles, while §V-D.2 and Table IV report 10, 20, 30, and 40. In addition, Table IV appears empty in the submitted manuscript, and no per-condition success rates, sample sizes per condition, or confidence intervals are reported. The aggregate 158/200 figure does not allow the reader to assess how success depends on scramble difficulty, and the text's claim of a 90% 'knowledge base solving' success rate cannot be checked. Please reconcile the numbers, complete the table, and report per-group rates with statistical uncertainty.
  3. [§V-D.1, Table II] The baseline comparison is not controlled fairly. The text states that 'by adjusting the parameters of the two-phase methods, it is possible to solve the cube with even fewer steps' and that the modified two-phase method was adopted as the Knowledge Base. This means the proposed method is a tuned two-phase solver compared against untuned baselines, so the step-count reduction in Table II may be a parameter-tuning artifact rather than an architectural advantage. Please report the exact search parameters used for the baseline two-phase implementation, run the baseline with the same tuning budget, and, ideally, include a third column showing the two-phase solver with equivalent search settings.
  4. [§V-A, Abstract, Contributions] The abstract and contributions claim validation 'in both simulation and real-world settings' and 'effective Sim-to-Real adaptation without retraining,' but the experiments section contains no simulation results whatsoever. The only quantitative results are real-world trials (158/200 successes) and step-count comparisons on random scrambles. Either report the simulation experiments, including task success rates and any sim-to-real transfer metrics, or remove the simulation and Sim-to-Real claims from the abstract and contributions.
  5. [§V-D.2, Fig. 7, Section VI] The paper repeatedly states that code, prompts, and hardware modules will be released upon acceptance, but no code, prompt templates, or supplementary material is provided with this submission. Because the LLM-based code generation depends on the exact prompt chaining and the tuned KB parameters, the experiments cannot be reproduced or independently checked from the manuscript alone. Please include the prompts, the KB configuration, and the robot-control code as supplementary material or an anonymized repository in the revision.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§I] The phrase 'massive demonstration dataset [12]' is confusing: reference [12] is CubeRobot, a vision-language-model method for Rubik's Cube manipulation, not a demonstration dataset. Please rephrase and cite an appropriate reference for large robotic demonstration datasets.
  2. [Fig. 6] The vertical axis of the plots is labeled only 'Corresponding rate'; this should be 'color correspondence rate' or similar, and the caption should state what the short horizontal lines represent.
  3. [Table IV] Table IV is missing all numerical entries in the submitted version. Please ensure the rendered table contains the per-group success rates for KB solving, LLM code generation, and overall task success.
  4. [§IV-B] The example uses 'R3' with an Arabic numeral, but the notation is defined as numerical values 1, 2, 3; consider using 'R3' consistently and clarifying that 3 means a 270° clockwise rotation.
  5. [§I, Acknowledgements] Several funding grants are listed as 'XXXX' placeholders; the final version should contain actual grant identifiers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the end-to-end result is a measured outcome, and the Knowledge Base solver is an external algorithm applied to a perceived state descriptor.

full rationale

Auto-RubikAI's derivation chain is D (perception) -> KB/Kociemba -> S -> LLM code -> execution. The KB step is a standard, external solver (Kociemba's two-phase algorithm, ref [37]) applied to the 54-character descriptor; it is not defined in terms of the success metric, and the solution steps are not fitted to the reported success rate. The 79% end-to-end success is a measured outcome, and the paper's own failure analysis treats perception/KB errors as the dominant failure class, which is an acknowledged correctness limitation rather than a circular argument. The comparison against CFOP, DeepCubeA, and Two-Phase is an external benchmark; the fact that the chosen KB is a parameter-adjusted version of the Two-Phase baseline weakens the move-efficiency comparison as a fairness matter, but it does not make the derivation circular because KB outputs are not inferred from the baseline results. Self-citations ([11], [42]) appear only in related-work and background contexts and are not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is present.

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

The system contributes an integration of pretrained perception models, a standard solver, and prompt-based code generation. The central evaluation does not derive new equations, so the main burden falls on the reliability of those pretrained components and the unstated tuning choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Two-phase solver search parameters = unspecified (tuned to yield 17-19 average steps)
    The authors write that by adjusting the parameters of the two-phase method, the cube can be solved with even fewer steps, and the tuned version is adopted as the Knowledge Base and compared against the original.
  • Total cost map interaction/ignore weight = 2:1
    Selected by hand in the motion planner; it affects trajectory generation but not the solution-step comparisons.
  • LLM prompt example set = hand-crafted query-response pairs
    The prompt chain includes multiple examples that guide GPT-4's parsing; the paper does not specify how these examples were chosen or whether results are sensitive to them.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kociemba's two-phase algorithm returns a valid solution when given a correct cube descriptor.
    The Knowledge Base module is built on the two-phase solver and is assumed correct and reliable within its timeout; Section IV-A.
  • domain assumption The VLM pipeline (OWL-ViT plus SAM plus center-color localization) produces an accurate 54-character cube state from RGB-D images.
    The entire symbolic solve depends on this descriptor; the paper's own error analysis attributes 47.62% of failures to KB errors, which include color recognition failures; Sections IV-A, IV-C, V-D2.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 with the designed prompts reliably translates move instructions into executable robot actions.
    LLM code parsing is a core module with a 92.76% average success rate claim, but no code or prompt content is provided to verify this; Sections IV-B, V-D2.
  • domain assumption The gripper can physically perform each face rotation by gripping the corresponding layer of the 5.6 cm cube without slipping.
    The motion planner assumes each subtask can be executed as a rigid-layer rotation by the Franka Hand; execution errors account for 21.43% of failures; Sections I, IV-C, V-D2.
  • domain assumption RGB-D calibration and the static scene assumption hold in the real-world setup.
    Camera-to-robot calibration and depth accuracy are not described in detail but are required for waypoint generation; Section V-A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structured Task Solving via Modular Embodied Intelligence: A Case Study on Rubik's Cube." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4A4ZTZJ

@misc{pith2026250705607,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structured Task Solving via Modular Embodied Intelligence: A Case Study on Rubik's Cube},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4A4ZTZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05607}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents Auto-RubikAI, a modular autonomous planning framework that integrates a symbolic Knowledge Base (KB), a vision-language model (VLM), and a large language model (LLM) to solve structured manipulation tasks exemplified by Rubik's Cube restoration. Unlike traditional robot systems based on predefined scripts, or modern approaches relying on pretrained networks and large-scale demonstration data, Auto-RubikAI enables interpretable, multi-step task execution with minimal data requirements and no prior demonstrations. The proposed system employs a KB module to solve group-theoretic restoration steps, overcoming LLMs' limitations in symbolic reasoning. A VLM parses RGB-D input to construct a semantic 3D scene representation, while the LLM generates structured robotic control code via prompt chaining. This tri-module architecture enables robust performance under spatial uncertainty. We deploy Auto-RubikAI in both simulation and real-world settings using a 7-DOF robotic arm, demonstrating effective Sim-to-Real adaptation without retraining. Experiments show a 79% end-to-end task success rate across randomized configurations. Compared to CFOP, DeepCubeA, and Two-Phase baselines, our KB-enhanced method reduces average solution steps while maintaining interpretability and safety. Auto-RubikAI provides a cost-efficient, modular foundation for embodied task planning in smart manufacturing, robotics education, and autonomous execution scenarios. Code, prompts, and hardware modules will be released upon publication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05607 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed Auto-RubikAI method integrates LLM and VLMs, while also introducing a targeted Knowledge Base module designed for the unique scenarios of Rubik’s Cube restoration. Auto-RubikAI offers a solution approach for applying embodied intelligence methods to specialized problems. as Rubik’s Cube restoration, which involve not only precise manipulation but also deep structural reasoning [4]. Existing embodied age… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Overview of closed loop reasoning for solving abstract group theory and combinatorial mathematics problems based on vision language models. Building upon sensory image data, visual language models are employed to perform detection, segmentation, recognition, and localization tasks. Furthermore, interact maps and ignore maps are systematically constructed according to predefined constraints. Ultimately, a 3D environm… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. The variation curves of the average color correspondence rate across six surfaces at different restoration steps, derived from five competition record datasets using various restoration methods, are illustrated in the figure. As demonstrated in the graphical representation, the Knowledge Base method exhibits superior performance compared to other approaches. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agent ai: Surveying the horizons of multimodal interaction,

    Z. Durante, Q. Huang, N. Wake, R. Gong, J. S. Park, B. Sarkar, R. Taori, Y. Noda, D. Terzopoulos, Y. Choi et al. , “Agent ai: Surveying the horizons of multimodal interaction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03568, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Densefusion-1m: Merging vision experts for comprehensive multi - modal perception,

    X. Li, F. Zhang, H. Diao, Y. Wang, X. Wang, and L. Duan, “Densefusion-1m: Merging vision experts for comprehensive multi - modal perception,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 18 535–18 556, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Concept for the automated adaption of abstract planning domains for specific application cases in skills-based industrial robotics,

    L. Heuss, D. Gebauer, and G. Reinhart, “Concept for the automated adaption of abstract planning domains for specific application cases in skills-based industrial robotics,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 4233–4258, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Alphazero -inspired game learning: Faster training by using mcts only at test time,

    J. Scheiermann and W. Konen, “Alphazero -inspired game learning: Faster training by using mcts only at test time,” IEEE Transactions on Games, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 637–647, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Artificial intelligence in manufacturing and logistics systems: algorithms, applications, and case studies,

    C.-F. Chien, S. Dauze`re -Pe´ re`s, W. T. Huh, Y. J. Jang, and J. R. Morrison, “Artificial intelligence in manufacturing and logistics systems: algorithms, applications, and case studies,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 2730–2731, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Integrated task and motion planning,

    C. R. Garrett, R. Chitnis, R. Holladay, B. Kim, T. Silver, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano -Pe´rez, “Integrated task and motion planning,” Annual review of control, robotics, and autonomous systems , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 265–293, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Closed-loop placement planning for regrasping and reconstruction with single-view rgb-d images,

    Z. Chen, J. Liu, R. Chen, and J. Wang, “Closed-loop placement planning for regrasping and reconstruction with single-view rgb-d images,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Towards learning to play piano with dexterous hands and touch,

    H. Xu, Y. Luo, S. Wang, T. Darrell, and R. Calandra, “Towards learning to play piano with dexterous hands and touch,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 10 410–10 416

    work page 2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    The new dexterity adaptive humanlike robot hand: Employing a reconfigurable palm for robust grasping and dexterous manipulation,

    G. Gao, A. Dwivedi, and M. Liarokapis, “The new dexterity adaptive humanlike robot hand: Employing a reconfigurable palm for robust grasping and dexterous manipulation,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 10 310–10 316

    2023

  2. [10]

    Just round: Quantized observation spaces enable memory efficient learning of dynamic locomotion,

    L. Grossman and B. Plancher, “Just round: Quantized observation spaces enable memory efficient learning of dynamic locomotion,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 3002–3007

    2023

  3. [11]

    Air - embodied: An efficient active 3dgs -based interaction and reconstruc- tion framework with embodied large language model,

    Z. Qi, S. Yuan, F. Liu, H. Cao, T. Deng, J. Yang, and L. Xie, “Air - embodied: An efficient active 3dgs -based interaction and reconstruc- tion framework with embodied large language model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16019, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cuberobot: Grounding language in rubik’s cube manipulation via vision -language model,

    F. Wang, X. Yu, and W. Wu, “Cuberobot: Grounding language in rubik’s cube manipulation via vision -language model,” in Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, 2025, pp. 2181– 2186

    2025

  5. [13]

    Soft actor -critic: Off- policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,

    T. Haarnoja, A. Zhou, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Soft actor -critic: Off- policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,” in International conference on machine learning. Pmlr, 2018, pp. 1861–1870

    2018

  6. [14]

    What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation,

    A. Mandlekar, D. Xu, J. Wong, S. Nasiriany, C. Wang, R. Kulkarni, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, Y. Zhu, and R. Mart´ın -Mart´ın, “What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.03298, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Behavior transformers: Cloning k modes with one stone,

    N. M. Shafiullah, Z. Cui, A. A. Altanzaya, and L. Pinto, “Behavior transformers: Cloning k modes with one stone,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 22 955–22 968, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Dextreme: Transfer of agile in-hand manipulation from simulation to reality,

    A. Handa, A. Allshire, V. Makoviychuk, A. Petrenko, R. Singh, J. Liu, D. Makoviichuk, K. Van Wyk, A. Zhurkevich, B. Sundaralingam et al., “Dextreme: Transfer of agile in-hand manipulation from simulation to reality,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Language conditioned imitation learning over unstructured data,

    C. Lynch and P. Sermanet, “Language conditioned imitation learning over unstructured data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.07648, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling,

    L. Chen, K. Lu, A. Rajeswaran, K. Lee, A. Grover, M. Laskin, P. Abbeel, A. Srinivas, and I. Mordatch, “Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling,” Advances in neural information pro - cessing systems, vol. 34, pp. 15 084–15 097, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al., “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Socratic models: Composing zero -shot multimodal reasoning with language,

    A. Zeng, M. Attarian, B. Ichter, K. Choromanski, A. Wong, S. Welker, F. Tombari, A. Purohit, M. Ryoo, V. Sindhwani et al., “Socratic models: Composing zero -shot multimodal reasoning with language,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00598, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Voxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,

    W. Huang, C. Wang, R. Zhang, Y. Li, J. Wu, and L. Fei-Fei, “Voxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05973, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Rt-2: Vision-language- action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,

    A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y. Chebotar, X. Chen, K. Choroman- ski, T. Ding, D. Driess, A. Dubey, C. Finn et al., “Rt-2: Vision-language- action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Pali -x: On scaling up a multilingual vision and language model,

    X. Chen, J. Djolonga, P. Padlewski, B. Mustafa, S. Changpinyo, J. Wu, C. R. Ruiz, S. Goodman, X. Wang, Y. Tay et al., “Pali -x: On scaling up a multilingual vision and language model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18565, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    π0: A vision -languageaction flow model for general robot control,

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichter et al., “ π0: A vision -languageaction flow model for general robot control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 5, 2024

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. Vo, M. Szafraniec, V. Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El -Nouby et al. , “Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Sigmoid loss for language image pre -training,

    X. Zhai, B. Mustafa, A. Kolesnikov, and L. Beyer, “Sigmoid loss for language image pre -training,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 11 975–11 986

    2023

  20. [28]

    Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation,

    M. Shridhar, L. Manuelli, and D. Fox, “Cliport: What and where pathways for robotic manipulation,” in Conference on robot learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 894–906

    2022

  21. [29]

    Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model,

    D. Driess, F. Xia, M. S. Sajjadi, C. Lynch, A. Chowdhery, B. Ichter, A. Wahid, J. Tompson, Q. Vuong, T. Yu et al., “Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models,

    I. Singh, V. Blukis, A. Mousavian, A. Goyal, D. Xu, J. Tremblay, D. Fox, J. Thomason, and A. Garg, “Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 11 523–11 530

    2023

  23. [31]

    Roboagent: Generalization and efficiency in robot manipu - lation via semantic augmentations and action chunking,

    H. Bharadhwaj, J. Vakil, M. Sharma, A. Gupta, S. Tulsiani, and V. Kumar, “Roboagent: Generalization and efficiency in robot manipu - lation via semantic augmentations and action chunking,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,

    A. Brohan, Y. Chebotar, C. Finn, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, D. Ho, J. Ibarz, A. Irpan, E. Jang, R. Julian et al., “Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” in Conference on robot learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 287–318

    2023

  25. [33]

    Palm: Scal- ing language modeling with pathways,

    A. Chowdhery, S. Narang, J. Devlin, M. Bosma, G. Mishra, A. Roberts, P. Barham, H. W. Chung, C. Sutton, S. Gehrmann et al., “Palm: Scal- ing language modeling with pathways,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 24, no. 240, pp. 1–113, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control,

    J. Liang, W. Huang, F. Xia, P. Xu, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, P. Florence, and A. Zeng, “Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 9493–9500

    2023

  27. [35]

    Code llama: Open foundation models for code,

    B. Roziere, J. Gehring, F. Gloeckle, S. Sootla, I. Gat, X. E. Tan, Y. Adi, J. Liu, R. Sauvestre, T. Remez et al. , “Code llama: Open foundation models for code,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12950, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    (2023) Cfop method

    SpeedSolving. (2023) Cfop method. SpeedSolving. [Online]. Available: ⟨https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=CFOP_ method⟩

    2023

  29. [37]

    Solve rubik’s cube with cube explorer,

    H. Kociemba, “Solve rubik’s cube with cube explorer,” url - https://kociemba.org/cube.htm, 2025, accessed: 2025-05-19

    2025

  30. [38]

    Finding optimal solutions to rubik’s cube using pattern databases,

    R. E. Korf, “Finding optimal solutions to rubik’s cube using pattern databases,” in AAAI/IAAI, 1997, pp. 700–705

    1997

  31. [39]

    Solving the rubik’s cube with approximate policy iteration,

    S. McAleer, F. Agostinelli, A. Shmakov, and P. Baldi, “Solving the rubik’s cube with approximate policy iteration,” in International Con- ference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Solving the rubik’s cube with deep reinforcement learning and search,

    F. Agostinelli, S. McAleer, A. Shmakov, and P. Baldi, “Solving the rubik’s cube with deep reinforcement learning and search,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 356–363, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Solving rubik’s cube with a robot hand,

    I. Akkaya, M. Andrychowicz, M. Chociej, M. Litwin, B. McGrew, A. Petron, A. Paino, M. Plappert, G. Powell, R. Ribas et al., “Solving rubik’s cube with a robot hand,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.07113, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mmaud: A comprehensive multi-modal anti-uav 12 dataset for modern miniature drone threats,

    S. Yuan, Y. Yang, T. H. Nguyen, T.-M. Nguyen, J. Yang, F. Liu, J. Li, H. Wang, and L. Xie, “Mmaud: A comprehensive multi-modal anti-uav 12 dataset for modern miniature drone threats,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 2745–2751

    2024

  35. [43]

    Deep reinforcement learning that matters,

    P. Henderson, R. Islam, P. Bachman, J. Pineau, D. Precup, and D. Meger, “Deep reinforcement learning that matters,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Sim-to-real robot learning from pixels with progressive nets,

    A. A. Rusu, M. Vecˇer´ık, T. Rotho¨ rl, N. Heess, R. Pascanu, and R. Hadsell, “Sim-to-real robot learning from pixels with progressive nets,” in Conference on robot learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 262–270

    2017

  37. [45]

    Scalable deep reinforcement learning for vision -based robotic manipulation,

    D. Kalashnikov, A. Irpan, P. Pastor, J. Ibarz, A. Herzog, E. Jang, D. Quillen, E. Holly, M. Kalakrishnan, V. Vanhoucke et al., “Scalable deep reinforcement learning for vision -based robotic manipulation,” in Conference on robot learning. PMLR, 2018, pp. 651–673

    2018

  38. [46]

    A survey of methods for explaining black box models,

    R. Guidotti, A. Monreale, S. Ruggieri, F. Turini, F. Giannotti, and D. Pedreschi, “A survey of methods for explaining black box models,” ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1–42, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Simple open-vocabulary object detection,

    M. Minderer, A. Gritsenko, A. Stone, M. Neumann, D. Weissenborn, A. Dosovitskiy, A. Mahendran, A. Arnab, M. Dehghani, Z. Shen et al., “Simple open-vocabulary object detection,” in European conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 728–755

    2022

  40. [48]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y. Lo et al., “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  41. [49]

    Gsm -symbolic: Understanding the limitations of math - ematical reasoning in large language models,

    I. Mirzadeh, K. Alizadeh, H. Shahrokhi, O. Tuzel, S. Bengio, and M. Farajtabar, “Gsm -symbolic: Understanding the limitations of math - ematical reasoning in large language models,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    Reasoning limitations of multimodal large language models. a case study of bongard problems,

    M. Małkin´ski, S. Pawlonka, and J. Man´ dziuk, “Reasoning limitations of multimodal large language models. a case study of bongard problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01173, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.