Triple-S: A Collaborative Multi-LLM Framework for Solving Long-Horizon Implicative Tasks in Robotics

Fashe Li; Hexiao Li; Hongbin Gao; Jiqiang Liu; Qinghua Liu; Zixi Jia

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Triple-S: A Collaborative Multi-LLM Framework for Solving Long-Horizon Implicative Tasks in Robotics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-LLM Simplification-Solution-Summary loop lets policy-code robots complete 89% of long-horizon implicative tasks without fine-tuning.

desk verdict The pipeline and dataset are useful, but the headline generalization claim is not supported because the evaluation lets the updated demonstration library contain the test tasks. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.07421 v1 pith:EASO7XMP submitted 2025-08-10 cs.RO

Zixi Jia , Hongbin Gao , Fashe Li , Jiqiang Liu , Hexiao Li , Qinghua Liu This is my paper

classification cs.RO

keywords largelanguagemodelspolicycodegenerationlong-horizontasksimplicativeinstructionsin-contextlearningrobotmanipulationdemonstrationlibraryupdatemulti-LLMcollaboration

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 is trying to establish that LLMs can write reliable robot control code for long-horizon tasks whose instructions contain implicit references, if generation is split into three collaborating passes instead of one direct prompt. A Simplification LLM resolves underspecified expressions and decomposes the task; a Solution LLM writes policy code from retrieved demonstrations; a Summary LLM packages successful runs into new high-level APIs and refreshes the demonstration library. The authors argue this loop reduces the three error types that dominate such tasks—wrong API parameters, wrong comments, and wrong action sequencing—without modifying model parameters. If correct, it offers a training-free route to better performance on tasks requiring reasoning about relative position, color, shape, and partial observability. The claim is backed by a new benchmark, ablations, and simulation and real-robot experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Simplification-Solution-Summary loop itself. Formally, the Simplification LLM computes $x_{\text{low}} = f_{\text{LLM}}(\text{prompt}, x_{\text{high}})$, converting an implicative instruction into a minimal, de-implicit task. The Solution LLM then generates code from the context $[c, \text{API}, D_k, x_{\text{low}}]$, where $D_k$ is the top-k retrieved demonstrations. The Summary LLM takes verified code and produces new API calls and demonstrations, and a similarity-based delete rule prevents the library from serving outdated examples. The loop makes code generation easier by moving reasoning out of the code-writing step, and it makes later tasks easier by c

What would settle it

Run Triple-S on LDIP with a strict leave-one-task-out demonstration library: before evaluating each task, remove semantically similar demonstrations from the library and forbid updates from that task's successful runs. If success stays near 89%, the claimed generalization is real; if it falls toward the 76.50% no-update baseline, retrieval of target solutions is driving the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a closed-loop collaboration among three LLM roles, called Triple-S, improves the success rate of policy-code generation for long-horizon implicative tasks to 89% in both fully observable and partially observable settings. Stage 1 maps the original instruction to a de-implicit minimal task; Stage 2 retrieves top-k demonstrations by embedding similarity; Stage 3 generates and compiles code with error feedback; Stage 4 verifies execution and uses a Summary LLM to encapsulate successful code into reusable APIs and demonstrations, replacing outdated ones. The paper reports that this framework outperforms ChatGPT for Robotics, FLTRNN, and Voyager on success rate, state er

Load-bearing premise

The headline success rates assume that the demonstration library does not leak the answer to a test task into the context: the library is refreshed from successful executions on the same LDIP tasks used for evaluation, and without an explicit held-out split, update gains could come from retrieving near-solutions rather than from generative generalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Without any model fine-tuning, Triple-S reaches 89% success on LDIP in both observable and partially observable scenarios, with lower state error than the CFR, FLTRNN, and Voyager baselines.
Removing the Simplification LLM is the largest single loss in the ablation: success rate drops 10.42% on short-horizon reasoning tasks and 43.81% on long-horizon reasoning tasks.
Append-Delete demonstration updates raise success rate from 76.50% to 89.00% after one update epoch, and to 91.25% after two, showing that forgetting outdated demonstrations matters at least as much as adding new ones.
Encapsulated APIs from simpler successful tasks can be reused to complete previously failed long-horizon tasks with fewer redundant code steps.
The same simplified prompts and demonstration library transfer from simulation to a real Dobot CR3 arm, outperforming Code as Policies and Promptbook on stack, place, and integration subtasks.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not report a strict held-out split for the demonstration library; its strongest testable implication is that the 89% figure should survive leave-one-task-out retrieval, where no demonstration for a test task is present before or during updates.
Because the framework is API-agnostic, the same simplify-retrieve-generate-summarize loop could transfer to other domains where long instructions combine implicit references with strict sequencing, such as tool-use agents or database query generation.
The slight drop from 91.25% to 90.21% at three update epochs suggests over-encapsulation is a real risk; tuning the similarity threshold and update cadence per task distribution is a natural follow-up.
A curriculum variant—ordering update epochs from simple to complex tasks—might grow the API library in a way that maximizes reuse for the hardest long-horizon cases; the paper does not test this ordering.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me save you the time. The Triple-S paper is a real attempt at a real problem—getting LLMs to write executable robot code for long-horizon tasks with implicit references—and the four-stage Simplification–Retrieval–Solution–Summary loop is clearly described. The LDIP dataset (500 observable + 97 partially observable placement tasks) is a reasonable contribution, and the real-world Dobot experiments, though limited, show the pipeline working end to end. The ablation in Fig. 7 gives the Simplification module genuine credit: removing it cuts long-horizon SR by 43.8%. That part of the evidence is fine.

The problem is the claim at the center of the new mechanism. The whole point of the demonstration-library update is that the system learns from success and generalizes to tasks it previously failed. But Section VI-C evaluates the update on 100 samples randomly drawn from LDIP—the same dataset used to build and refresh the library in Section IV-D. After one update epoch, the library plausibly contains a demonstration for the very task being tested. Since retrieval is cosine similarity over task descriptions, the Solution LLM is essentially getting the answer copied into its context. That would explain the 12.5% SR gain in Table II, and it directly undermines the abstract's 89% figure, which is exactly the one-epoch append-delete row. No held-out split is mentioned anywhere. This is not a nitpick; it is the difference between 'library stores successful solutions' and 'framework generalizes.'

There are also smaller issues: the 89% is a 100-task subset, not the full dataset; the full-dataset numbers in Table I are more credible but the initial library content is unspecified, so the baseline comparisons are under-documented. Hyperparameters like ε, k, and the deletion threshold are not reported, which makes replication harder. And the real-world results are 10 trials per task, enough for a pilot, not for strong claims.

So my take: the pipeline is worth knowing about, and the dataset could be useful to the community. But the paper as written does not establish the central generalization story. It needs a task-disjoint evaluation: build the library on one set, test on another, and report the numbers separately. That is a fixable flaw, and the authors have the code and dataset to do it. I'd send it to peer review, but with the expectation of major revision on the evaluation. Not something I'd cite until that's sorted.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Triple-S, a training-free, multi-LLM framework for generating policy code in long-horizon implicative robotic tasks. The pipeline has three LLM roles: a Simplification LLM that de-implicitizes and decomposes the user instruction, a Solution LLM that retrieves top-k demonstrations and generates code with compiler feedback, and a Summary LLM that encapsulates successful code into high-level APIs and updates the demonstration library. The authors introduce the LDIP dataset, containing 500 observable and 97 partially observable tasks, and report experiments in simulation and on a real Dobot CR3 arm, comparing against CFR, FLTRNN, and Voyager. The abstract claims a headline 89% success rate and state-of-the-art performance.

Significance. The framework is well-motivated: long-horizon implicative tasks require resolving underspecified references and sequencing actions, and the proposed Simplification-Solution-Summary loop is a plausible way to reduce API-parameter, comment, and sequencing errors without fine-tuning. The LDIP dataset fills a gap in code-based policy evaluation for implicative manipulation, and the release of code and data is a practical contribution. If the reported gains survive a clean held-out evaluation, the paper would be a useful empirical advance. However, as written, the central claims about generalization from the demonstration library are not supported by the experimental design, which is the main barrier to acceptance.

major comments (3)

[§VI-C / §IV-D (Table II, Fig. 8)] The update-mechanism evaluation is confounded by library contamination. Section VI-C reports results on "100 test samples from LDIP" while, per Section IV-D, the library is updated with successful executions from the same task set. Since retrieval (Eq. 2) is cosine similarity over task descriptions, after one update epoch the library contains a demonstration generated for the very test task being evaluated. Table II's SR gain from 76.5% to 89.0% and the Fig. 8 claim about solving "previously failed tasks" are therefore compatible with exact-match retrieval rather than generalization to unseen tasks. The abstract's 89% figure is taken from this protocol. A task-disjoint split—where the library is built/updated only on training tasks and evaluated on held-out task descriptions—is required to support the "learned from success" contribution. I also recommend ablating the effect of removing t
[Abstract / §V-B (Tables I-II)] The paper's headline claim is inconsistent with its own full-dataset results. The abstract states "Triple-S successfully executes 89% of tasks in both observable and partially observable scenarios." This is not a result from Table I (the full LDIP dataset), where GPT-3.5 attains 93.75% (observable) and 95.88% (partially observable) and Llama3 attains 84.38%/81.96%. The 89% value is Table II, row 3, a 100-sample subset evaluated after one epoch of library updates. Using a subset/update-dependent number as the headline overstates the main result and obscures the more relevant full-dataset comparison. Please report a single, clearly specified held-out evaluation protocol for the headline number.
[§V-B / §IV-D (Tables I and III)] The claim of state-of-the-art performance in Table I is not yet supported because the paper does not specify whether the demonstration library used in those experiments contains demonstrations for the test tasks. If the initial library is constructed from successful runs on LDIP, or if the update mechanism is active during the Table I evaluation, then the comparison against CFR/FLTRNN/Voyager is not a clean generalization test. The same ambiguity affects the real-world experiments (§VI-D), which reuse "the same demonstrations and APIs as in the simulation after 1 epoch updates." Please state precisely which library state is used for each table, and provide results with a library constructed only from tasks disjoint from the evaluation set. This is necessary to separate the contribution of the Simplification/Solution/Summary loop from the contribution of retrieving memorized solutions.

minor comments (5)

[§IV-B / §IV-D] The embedding model is referred to as "all_datasets_v4_MiniLM-L6"; please verify the exact model name. Also specify the value of k (top-k) used in all experiments and the similarity threshold used for deletion in the library update.
[§V-A / Eq. (4)] The error threshold ε is never given numerically. Without it, success/failure labels—and therefore SR, Err, and ESR—are not reproducible. Please report ε and define how object/target states and gripper state are computed.
[§VI-A] "Validated against human judgment" is vague; specify the number of human judges, whether they were authors or independent annotators, and the agreement measure used to validate the complexity levels.
[§VI-C] "Each sample three times" is underspecified. Clarify whether these are independent LLM generations, independent library-update runs, or repeated evaluations with the same demonstrations, and report how variances are computed.
[§VI-D] Real-world results report 10 trials per task without error bars. Given the small sample, the "highest performance" claim should be qualified, and the procedure for transferring simulation demonstrations to the real-world API set should be described more precisely.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Demonstration-library updates are evaluated on the same LDIP tasks used to populate the library, so the headline 89% success rate may reflect retrieval of memorized solutions rather than generalization.

fitted input called prediction [Section IV-D (Reconstruction of API and Demonstration); Section VI-C (Impact of demonstration library updates), Table II]
"To further evaluate the impact of the demonstration update mechanism (Section IV-D) in the Triple-S framework, we randomly selected 100 test samples from LDIP and evaluated each sample three times, the results are shown in Tab. II. ... new demonstration undergo similarity-based retrieval against the original demonstration library. If the [task description] similarity exceeds a given threshold, the new demonstration is considered to correspond to the same task category, and the original demonstration is removed during the update process."

The 100 'test samples' are drawn from the same LDIP pool used to generate successful executions, and the update mechanism appends those successful executions' encapsulations back into the retrieval library. Retrieval (Eq. 2) computes cosine similarity between the minimal task xlow (derived from the test instruction) and each demonstration key. After one append epoch, the library can contain a demonstration whose task description is the same as (or near-duplicate of) the test task, so top-k retrieval returns the previously generated solution for that exact task. The Solution LLM then regenerates that code via ICL, so the reported +4% (append-only) and +12.5% (append-delete) SR gains, and the headline 89% (Table II row 3), measure retrieval of memorized solutions, not generalization to previ

full rationale

The paper's main multi-LLM loop (Simplification-Solution-Summary) has independent content: ablations in Figure 7, comparisons in Table I, and real-world deployments in Table III do not reduce by construction to the demonstration-update mechanism. However, the update mechanism's central claim — that the framework 'generalize[s] to previously failed tasks' — is evaluated on 100 randomly selected LDIP samples while the library is being updated from successful executions on the same LDIP task pool. Because retrieval is by cosine similarity over task descriptions, once a successful demonstration for a test task is appended, that demonstration is the top match for its own test query, so the reported success-rate improvements and the abstract's 89% figure (which matches Table II row 3 exactly) can be explained by copying previously generated solutions rather than by generative generalization to unseen tasks. The paper does not document a held-out task split, and the Section VI-C note that 'epoch updates can only be performed in simulation (with labels)' acknowledges label dependence but not this contamination. The Section VII caveat about domain generalization is honest and not circular. Overall, the framework as a whole is not entirely circular, but the headline update-mechanism result is partially circular because the evaluation set feeds the memory it is tested against.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework's central claim depends on a number of unstated hyperparameters (epsilon, k, similarity threshold) and on an evaluation protocol that does not separate the demonstration library from the test set. The most important implicit premise is that the library contains no demonstrations of the evaluated tasks, which the paper never establishes.

free parameters (4)

error threshold epsilon = not reported
Eq. 4 defines task success via state error <= epsilon; epsilon is never specified, so success rates may be sensitive to its value.
top-k demonstrations k = not reported
Equation 2 retrieves top-k demonstrations; k is not given in the paper, and it controls how much context the Solution LLM receives.
similarity threshold for library deletion = not reported
Section IV-D removes old demonstrations when new [task description] similarity exceeds a threshold; the threshold is not reported.
number of update epochs = 1, 2, 3 in Table II
The demonstration library update is iterated and evaluated at different epochs; the chosen epoch materially changes SR (76.5% to 91.25%) and is effectively tuned on the test set.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Task success is correctly measured by the state-error criterion in Eq. 4.
The paper never reports epsilon or validates that this geometric error corresponds to semantic task completion.
domain assumption Retrieved demonstrations from the library provide correct guidance for unseen tasks.
Section IV-B and C rely on cosine similarity over MiniLM embeddings to select helpful examples; no ablation shows retrieval quality.
ad hoc to paper The demonstration library is not contaminated with the test tasks.
The paper does not document a held-out split; Section VI-C builds the library from LDIP successes, making contamination likely.
domain assumption Simulation-learned APIs and demonstrations transfer to the real robot.
Section VI-D applies the same library from simulation to the Dobot CR3; the paper attributes the performance drop to perception errors rather than API mismatch.

invented entities (1)

Encapsulated high-level APIs (e.g., stack_object_on_object)
purpose: Summary LLM creates these to wrap successful low-level code sequences and reduce sequencing errors.
These are software additions introduced and used only within the framework; no external benchmark confirms their correctness beyond the paper's own trials.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Triple-S: A Collaborative Multi-LLM Framework for Solving Long-Horizon Implicative Tasks in Robotics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EASO7XMP

@misc{pith2026250807421,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Triple-S: A Collaborative Multi-LLM Framework for Solving Long-Horizon Implicative Tasks in Robotics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EASO7XMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07421}
}

read the original abstract

Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to write policy code for controlling robots has gained significant attention. However, in long-horizon implicative tasks, this approach often results in API parameter, comments and sequencing errors, leading to task failure. To address this problem, we propose a collaborative Triple-S framework that involves multiple LLMs. Through In-Context Learning, different LLMs assume specific roles in a closed-loop Simplification-Solution-Summary process, effectively improving success rates and robustness in long-horizon implicative tasks. Additionally, a novel demonstration library update mechanism which learned from success allows it to generalize to previously failed tasks. We validate the framework in the Long-horizon Desktop Implicative Placement (LDIP) dataset across various baseline models, where Triple-S successfully executes 89% of tasks in both observable and partially observable scenarios. Experiments in both simulation and real-world robot settings further validated the effectiveness of Triple-S. Our code and dataset is available at: https://github.com/Ghbbbbb/Triple-S.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.07421 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The Triple-S Framework: it takes implicative user instructions as input and outputs executable policy code. In Stage 1, the user’s long-horizon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Key actions of the Triple-S framework while executing long-horizon implicative tasks (only critical actions are displayed). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The update of API and Demonstration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Examples of environment observations and linguistic instructions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Performance of each method as task complexity increases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Ablation performance of the Triple-S on the four sub-tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Encapsulation from successful tasks assist previously failed tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Experiment set up TABLE III SUCCESS RATE OF TASK EXECUTION ON THE REAL-WORLD ROBOT. Task Code as Policy Promptbook Triple-S Ins. Env. Ins. Env. Ins. Env. Object-stack 4/10 5/10 5/10 5/10 8/10 7/10 Object-place 6/10 6/10 6/10 7/10 10/10 8/10 Integration 2/10 3/10 3/10 4…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

Planning with large language models via corrective re-prompting,

S. S. Raman, V . Cohen, E. Rosen, I. Idrees, D. Paulius, and S. Tellex, “Planning with large language models via corrective re-prompting,” 2022, arXiv:2211.09935

arXiv 2022
[2]

Tidybot: Personalized robot assistance with large language models,

J. Wu et al., “Tidybot: Personalized robot assistance with large language models,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., 2023, pp. 3546–3553

work page 2023
[3]

Navgpt: Explicit reasoning in vision and-language navigation with large language models,

G. Zhou, Y . Hong, and Q. Wu, “Navgpt: Explicit reasoning in vision and-language navigation with large language models,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 2024, pp. 7641–7649

work page 2024
[4]

Visual language maps for robot navigation,

C. Huang, O. Mees, A. Zeng, and W. Burgard, “Visual language maps for robot navigation,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., 2023, pp. 10608–10615

work page 2023
[5]

Text2motion: from natural language instructions to feasible plans,

K. Lin, C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, M. Pavone, and J. Bohg, “Text2motion: from natural language instructions to feasible plans,” Auton. Robots, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1345–1365, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Scaling up and distilling down: Language-guided robot skill acquisition,

H. Ha, P. Florence, and S. Song, “Scaling up and distilling down: Language-guided robot skill acquisition,” in Proc. Conf. Robot Learn., 2023, pp. 3766–3777

work page 2023
[7]

RT-2: vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,

B. Zitkovich et al., “RT-2: vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” in Proc. Conf. Robot Learn., 2023, pp. 2165–2183

work page 2023
[8]

Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model,

D. Driess et al., “Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., 2023, pp. 8469–8488

work page 2023

Show all 32 references

[9]

Vision-language foundation models as effective robot imitators,

X. Li et al., “Vision-language foundation models as effective robot imitators,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Representations, 2024

2024
[10]

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

A. Zeng et al., “Socratic models: Composing zero-shot multimodal reasoning with language,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Representations, 2023

2023
[11]

Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models,

W. Huang et al., “Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models,” in Proc. Conf. Robot Learn., 2022, pp. 1769–1782

2022
[12]

Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models,

C. H. Song, B. M. Sadler, J. Wu, W. Chao, C. Washington, and Y . Su, “Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., 2023, pp. 2986–2997

2023
[13]

Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control,

J. Liang et al., “Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., 2023, pp. 9493–9500

2023
[14]

CaStL: Constraints as Specifications through LLM Translation for Long-Horizon Task and Motion Planning,

W. Guo, Z. K. Kingston, and L. E. Kavraki, “CaStL: Constraints as Specifications through LLM Translation for Long-Horizon Task and Motion Planning,” 2024, arXiv:2410.22225

2024 arXiv
[15]

Generating machine-executable plans from end user’s natural-language instructions,

R. Liu and X. Zhang, “Generating machine-executable plans from end user’s natural-language instructions,” Knowl. Based Syst., vol. 140, pp. 15–26, 2018

2018
[16]

Programming in natural language with fuse: Synthesizing methods from spoken utterances using deep natural language understanding,

S. Weigelt, V . Steurer, T. Hey, and W. F. Tichy, “Programming in natural language with fuse: Synthesizing methods from spoken utterances using deep natural language understanding,” in Proc. 58th Annu. Meeting Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 2020, pp. 4280–4295

2020
[17]

Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts,

N. F. Liu et al., “Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts,” Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, vol. 12, pp. 157–173, 2024

2024
[18]

Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,

W. Huang, P. Abbeel, D. Pathak, and I. Mordatch, “Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., 2022, pp. 9118–9147

2022
[19]

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

B. Ichter et al., “Do as I can, not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” in Proc. Conf. Robot Learn., 2022, pp. 287–318

2022
[20]

Saycanpay: Heuristic planning with large language models using learnable domain knowl edge,

R. Hazra, P. Z. D. Martires, and L. D. Raedt, “Saycanpay: Heuristic planning with large language models using learnable domain knowl edge,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 2024, pp. 20123–20133

2024
[21]

LLM+P: Empowering Large Language Models with Optimal Planning Proficiency,

B. Liu et al., "LLM+P: Empowering Large Language Models with Optimal Planning Proficiency," 2023, arXiv:2304.11477

2023 arXiv
[22]

DELTA: Decomposed Efficient Long-Term Robot Task Planning using Large Language Models,

Y . Liu, L. Palmieri, S. Koch, I. Georgievski, and M. Aiello, "DELTA: Decomposed Efficient Long-Term Robot Task Planning using Large Language Models," 2024, arXiv:2404.03275

2024 arXiv
[23]

AutoTAMP: Autoregressive Task and Motion Planning with LLMs as Translators and Checkers,

Y . Chen, J. Arkin, C. Dawson, Y . Zhang, N. Roy, and C. Fan, "AutoTAMP: Autoregressive Task and Motion Planning with LLMs as Translators and Checkers," in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., 2024, pp. 6695-6702

2024
[24]

Code llama: Open foundation models for code,

B. Rozière et al., “Code llama: Open foundation models for code,” 2023, arXiv:2308.12950

2023 arXiv
[25]

Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities,

S. Vemprala, R. Bonatti, A. Bucker, and A. Kapoor, “Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 55682–55696, 2024

2024
[26]

V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models,

G. Wang et al., “V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models,” Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2024

2024
[27]

FLTRNN: faithful long-horizon task planning for robotics with large language models,

J. Zhang et al., “FLTRNN: faithful long-horizon task planning for robotics with large language models,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., 2024, pp. 6680–6686

2024
[28]

How to prompt your robot: A promptbook for manipulation skills with code as policies,

M. G. Arenas et al., “How to prompt your robot: A promptbook for manipulation skills with code as policies,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., 2024, pp. 4340–4348

2024
[29]

Interactive planning using large language models for partially observable robotic tasks,

L. Sun et al., “Interactive planning using large language models for partially observable robotic tasks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., 2024

2024
[30]

robopal: A Simulation Framework based Mujoco,

H. Zhou, Y . Huang, Y . Zhao, and Y . Lu, “robopal: A Simulation Framework based Mujoco,” Apr. 2024

2024
[31]

Enhancing the llm-based robot manipulation through human-robot collaboration,

H. Liu et al., “Enhancing the llm-based robot manipulation through human-robot collaboration,” IEEE Robotics Autom. Lett., vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 6904–6911, 2024

2024
[32]

Yolov10: Real-time end-to-end object detection,

A. Wang et al., “Yolov10: Real-time end-to-end object detection,” inProc.Conf. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 2025, pp. 107984-108011

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Planning with large language models via corrective re-prompting,

S. S. Raman, V . Cohen, E. Rosen, I. Idrees, D. Paulius, and S. Tellex, “Planning with large language models via corrective re-prompting,” 2022, arXiv:2211.09935

arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Tidybot: Personalized robot assistance with large language models,

J. Wu et al., “Tidybot: Personalized robot assistance with large language models,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., 2023, pp. 3546–3553

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Navgpt: Explicit reasoning in vision and-language navigation with large language models,

G. Zhou, Y . Hong, and Q. Wu, “Navgpt: Explicit reasoning in vision and-language navigation with large language models,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 2024, pp. 7641–7649

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Visual language maps for robot navigation,

C. Huang, O. Mees, A. Zeng, and W. Burgard, “Visual language maps for robot navigation,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., 2023, pp. 10608–10615

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Text2motion: from natural language instructions to feasible plans,

K. Lin, C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, M. Pavone, and J. Bohg, “Text2motion: from natural language instructions to feasible plans,” Auton. Robots, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1345–1365, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Scaling up and distilling down: Language-guided robot skill acquisition,

H. Ha, P. Florence, and S. Song, “Scaling up and distilling down: Language-guided robot skill acquisition,” in Proc. Conf. Robot Learn., 2023, pp. 3766–3777

work page 2023

[7] [7]

RT-2: vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,

B. Zitkovich et al., “RT-2: vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control,” in Proc. Conf. Robot Learn., 2023, pp. 2165–2183

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model,

D. Driess et al., “Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., 2023, pp. 8469–8488

work page 2023