Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

A general-purpose LLM planner using only observe, mark_point, and move_to solves 117 of 130 LIBERO manipulation tasks at PASS@5, without a VLA or task-specific policy.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-05 05:39 UTC pith:P5LBJ46H

load-bearing objection Candid and methodologically careful, but the 90% LIBERO headline rests on a modified observation setup and a best-of-five metric; the physical-world claim outruns the evidence. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.03924 v1 pith:P5LBJ46H submitted 2026-08-04 cs.RO

ETA: A New Agentic Paradigm for Embodied Tasks

Yitong Chen , Zezheng Huai , Sixian Li , Yubang Wang , Haozhe Zhang , Yifei Zhang , Hechang Chen , Jingjing Gong
show 2 more authors
Yu-Gang Jiang Xipeng Qiu
This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords embodied AILLM agenttool userobot manipulationLIBERO benchmarkclosed-loop controlself-improvementagentic paradigm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that robot capability need not come from task-specific policy training. It introduces the Embodied Task Agent (ETA) paradigm, in which a general-purpose language-model Planner chooses one Tool call at a time, an Interface gates and dispatches each call, and a World returns a fresh observation and a trusted receipt before the next decision. The authors release OpenETA, an implementation of this loop, and show that a strong planner using only three tools—observe, mark_point, and move_to—solves 117 of 130 LIBERO manipulation tasks at PASS@5 (90.0%), with 92 tasks solved on the first of five seeds. They also report a full-configuration baseline of 56/400 episode successes, constrained self-evolution experiments in which no candidate passed the promotion gate, and hardware integration that remains at interface level. If the simulated results transfer, the paradigm would decouple robot generality from robot-data coverage and make long-horizon execution auditable.

Core claim

The central claim is the ETA paradigm itself: an embodied agent should be organized as an Agent–Interface–World loop rather than an end-to-end observation-to-action model. The Planner proposes a single world-changing Tool call; the Interface validates structure, authority, and prerequisites before execution; the World executes and returns a fresh observation and host-attested receipt. This 'one action, then observe' invariant lets the agent verify outcomes, adapt its plan, and store experience without letting a model directly control the robot. OpenETA demonstrates the paradigm with a three-tool interface for lightweight plugin configurations—observe, mark_point, and move_to—where mark_point

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the ETA runtime invariant: execute only one world-changing action at a time, then obtain a fresh observation before the next state-dependent action. Around this invariant sit three roles—Planner (Agent), Interface (host-owned gate), and World (simulator or robot)—connected by trusted environment receipts and fresh-observation obligations. In the lightweight configuration, the whole physical interface reduces to three Tools: observe returns live images; mark_point turns a 2D pixel choice into a 3D World coordinate via ray casting in multi-view or single-view mode; move_to sends the gripper to a target pose and returns gripper aperture. The Interface blocks commands t

Load-bearing premise

The headline 90% PASS@5 depends on the LIBERO setup being modified with multiple synthesized camera views to produce high-quality point clouds; if the three-view geometry is not accurate, the mark_point ray casting that turns a 2D click into a 3D move target fails, and the paper's own physical depth tests show real sensors produce substantially less complete depth.

What would settle it

Re-run the OpenETA for Codex protocol on a real UR5e–Robotiq platform using only raw RealSense depth (D435i wrist plus L515 third-person) with no synthesized point clouds; if the agent cannot complete a single sponge-to-tray task, or if a simulated ablation that removes the added camera views collapses PASS@5 far below 90%, the generality claim is falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Robot manipulation for many tabletop tasks may be achievable with a general LLM planner and a three-tool interface, without training a task-specific VLA policy.
  • Task execution becomes auditable: every observation, command, receipt, and decision is logged in replayable trajectories, which supports debugging and regression testing.
  • Stronger general-purpose planners should keep improving embodied performance under the same physical interface, since Sol outperformed Luna and Terra without any robot-data change.
  • Self-improvement can be made safe in principle: proposed Skill or playbook updates are promoted only after deterministic checks, replay of the source success, and paired held-out evaluation.
  • If the simulation results transfer to hardware, the cost of deploying a new robot capability drops to calibrating sensors and revalidating the same Tool contracts rather than collecting robot-specific data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: run the same three-Tool protocol with future Planner versions and check whether PASS@5 improves with no Tool changes; the paper's Luna/Terra/Sol ordering predicts it will.
  • The observe–mark_point–move_to trio is a candidate universal control surface that could be ported to other embodiments; the paper only demonstrates a fixed-arm simulator and interface-level real-robot integration.
  • The paper's own depth findings suggest the fragile link is synthesized point-cloud geometry; a direct next experiment is to compare task success with real depth versus simulator depth under identical Tool contracts.
  • The null self-evolution result implies textual experience alone did not improve physical success in these tests, so future Skill mechanisms should couple each rule to a measurable stage change rather than global guidance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Embodied Task Agent (ETA), a paradigm in which a task-level Planner issues one structured Tool call at a time, an Interface gates and executes the call, and a World returns a fresh observation and a trusted receipt before the next decision. The authors release OpenETA as an open-source implementation with 44 Tools, and evaluate two configurations. In the full configuration on the 40-task LIBERO fixed matrix, episode success is 56/400 (14.0%) with GPT-5.6-Luna. In the lightweight Codex configuration using only observe, mark_point, and move_to, the strongest Planner (GPT-5.6-Sol) is reported to solve 117/130 tasks (90.0%) at PASS@5 and 92/130 at PASS@1. The paper also reports constrained self-evolution experiments in which no candidate passes the promotion gates, and a real-robot integration that is explicitly limited to interface-level evidence. The manuscript is unusually candid: it reports 22/40 tasks at 0/10, zero self-evolution promotions, simulator infrastructure contamination in 3 cells, and the interface-only status of hardware evidence.

Significance. If the central claim held as stated, the paper would be significant: a general-purpose LLM planner plus three minimal tools would solve the large majority of LIBERO manipulation tasks without any VLA or task-specific policy training, and the explicit Agent–Interface–World protocol would provide a rare combination of controllability and auditability. The paper's reproducibility apparatus is a genuine strength: frozen manifests, hashed contracts, deterministic table generation, a claim–evidence matrix, and explicit exclusion rules are all described in unusual detail. The self-evolution experiments, while negative, are also a strength because they enforce and demonstrate a non-regression gate for experience-driven updates. However, the headline simulation result is obtained under a modified observation setup with synthesized multi-view point clouds, and the paper's own hardware sections document that real depth is substantially less reliable. The physical-world significance claimed in the abstract and introduction is therefore not yet established, and the 90% PASS@5 number should be scoped accordingly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B.2 and §5.2.2] The Codex evaluation does not run on the stock LIBERO observation protocol. Appendix B.2 states: "Since Libero's fixed single third-person perspective is not convenient for synthesizing complete point clouds, we have added multiple camera views in Libero to synthesize high-quality point clouds." The three-tool loop relies on mark_point to convert a 2D pixel to a 3D coordinate, and the multi-view mode resolves depth from these synthesized point clouds. This means the most difficult part of embodied perception—estimating complete, accurate geometry from a single noisy sensor—is supplied by the simulator. Section 7.1 and Appendix G.3 report that real RealSense depth is "substantially less complete than simulator depth" and degrades pose estimates, and the hardware evidence is explicitly interface-level only. The abstract's claim of "117/130 (90.0%) on 130 LIBERO tasks" is therefore not a cl
  2. [§5.2.2, Fig. 4, Eq. (4)] The headline PASS@5 metric is a best-of-k task-level aggregate: a task counts as solved if any of the first five ordered seeds succeeds. For Sol, PASS@1 is 92/130 and PASS@5 is 117/130, so 25 additional tasks are credited only through repeated seeds. The paper does not report the underlying per-seed (per-episode) success rates for the Codex configuration, which makes it impossible to distinguish a reliable policy from one that succeeds sporadically across five attempts. Given that the paper identifies controllability as one of its three core capabilities, reporting the mean episode success over seeds (and ideally per-seed rates by suite) is necessary. At minimum, the text should state explicitly that PASS@5 is a best-of-five measure and should not be read as single-episode reliability. The full OpenETA fixed matrix reports only 14% episode success, but with a different planner and Tool s
  3. [§6 and Abstract] The abstract states that the ETA loop "allows the agent to ... turn successful and failed interactions into reusable experience," and the introduction lists self-improvement as a core capability. Section 6 reports that no candidate passed any promotion gate, that the exact-task playbook decreased success from 4/30 to 1/30, and that stage-local candidates failed to reproduce source successes. The paper honestly concludes that the evidence supports a mechanism claim, not a performance-improvement claim. That is a strength, but the abstract and conclusion should be adjusted so that the self-improvement pillar is not described as an achieved property. As written, the contribution list and abstract imply more than the evidence supports. The negative result should be mentioned in the abstract or at least in the introduction's statement of contributions, not only in §6 and §9.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq. (2)] The piecewise definition of a_t is typeset in a way that makes the two branches hard to read. The condition "gate(ct, ot, mt) = pass" should be set off clearly, and the action argument to dispatch should be explicit (dispatch(ct) presumably, not dispatch(at)).
  2. [§4.1/Tables 1, 9] The paper uses inconsistent capitalization for the same metric: "PASS@5" in the abstract, "Pass@k" in equations and tables, and "P@k" in Table 8. Please standardize.
  3. [§5.2.3] The subsection heading "Qualitative trace visualization for openeta" uses a lowercase project name; this appears to be a typo.
  4. [§2.1 and references] Several related works in §2.2 and §2.3 appear to share authors with the current paper (e.g., references [8], [19], [44]). It would be helpful to mark these as self-citations or otherwise disclose the overlap in the related-work discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the headline LIBERO results are fresh external-benchmark evaluations; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims—56/400 episodes for the full OpenETA fixed matrix and PASS@5 117/130 (90.0%) for the OpenETA-for-Codex configuration on 130 LIBERO tasks—are produced by running a frozen protocol against the external LIBERO benchmark with native task checkers and preregistered ordered seeds. The success metric is defined solely by the official environment reward (Appendix B.1, Eq. 4), and no equation in the paper is fitted to the outcome it is used to explain. The three-tool interface (observe, mark_point, move_to) is fixed before evaluation, and no VLA, task-specific policy, or learned parameter is trained on the evaluation tasks. The reported numbers are therefore fresh experimental observations, not quantities that reduce by construction to their inputs. The self-citations that share authors with this paper (refs. 8, 19, 44) appear in related-work discussion and future-work suggestions; they are not used as evidence for the reported success rates and are not load-bearing for any central claim. The constrained self-evolution section reports zero promotions, which cannot be a circular success story. The modified multi-view observation setup (Appendix B.2) and the documented real-depth degradation (Section 7.1, G.3) are genuine limitations on the physical-world generality of the simulation results, but they are validity/generalization concerns rather than circularity: the LIBERO task verifier remains external, and the agent's successes are not defined in terms of the synthesized point clouds. No uniqueness theorem, fitted parameter, or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with the required specificity, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

This is an empirical systems paper, not a derivation: there are no fitted physical constants. The load-bearing choices are evaluation-design parameters (k=5, budgets), domain assumptions about the simulator and hosted models, and two new software mechanisms (trusted receipts, observation obligations). The central risk is that the headline result depends on perception quality that exists only in the modified simulator.

free parameters (2)
  • best-of-5 seed aggregation (PASS@5) = 5
    Headline 90% counts a task as solved if any of five ordered seeds succeeds; PASS@1 is 92/130 (70.8%), so the headline number depends on this choice.
  • per-suite episode budgets = 100-200 turns; 400 calls; 1800-3600 s; 10M tokens (Table 11)
    Author-chosen stopping budgets, up to 60 minutes per attempt, bound what counts as failure and shape the dominant episode_timeout class; they are not benchmark-mandated.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption LIBERO's official reward is a faithful and complete signal of physical task success
    Every success count (56/400, 117/130) reduces to the simulator reward relayed through OpenETA's receipt layer; the reward's semantics are not independently verified. Sections 5.1.2, B.7.
  • ad hoc to paper The added multi-view cameras and synthesized point clouds keep LIBERO comparable to the stock benchmark
    Appendix B.2 states multiple camera views were added to LIBERO to synthesize high-quality point clouds for observe; the abstract's '130 LIBERO tasks' phrasing does not disclose this protocol deviation.
  • domain assumption Hosted GPT-5.6-family planners are stable and reproducible at medium reasoning effort
    All results depend on proprietary hosted models; Appendix B.3 itself notes the request window 'if the hosted model is mutable'.
  • domain assumption The Interface's trusted-receipt and provenance checks cannot be bypassed by the planner model
    The claim that 'an ordinary Tool handler cannot mint official reward' (Section 4.2, F.2) is a software security assertion, not a proof; all success verdicts depend on it.
  • domain assumption Simulated depth and rendering in the modified LIBERO are accurate enough for mark_point ray casting
    Section 7.1 reports real depth was 'substantially less complete than simulator depth'; if simulated depth is much cleaner than physical depth, the perception results do not transfer to hardware.
invented entities (2)
  • Trusted environment receipt (host-attested official reward) no independent evidence
    purpose: Ensure only genuine simulator reward counts as task success and that planner models cannot fabricate verdicts
    New software mechanism; falsifiable only by auditing the released code. It is the load-bearing artifact behind every counted success, so the conceptual risk is high, but it is bounded because the code is claimed to be open source.
  • Fresh-observation obligation no independent evidence
    purpose: Enforce the runtime invariant that exactly one world-changing action happens before the next observation
    New architectural constraint on the agent loop; inspectable in code, not empirically verified here. It shapes all failure labels but adds no physical entity.

pith-pipeline@v1.4.0-daily-deepseek-medium · 30544 in / 24160 out tokens · 255391 ms · 2026-08-05T05:39:12.573380+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ETA: A New Agentic Paradigm for Embodied Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5LBJ46H

@misc{pith2026260803924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ETA: A New Agentic Paradigm for Embodied Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5LBJ46H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03924}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

When will robots have their ChatGPT moment? Such a breakthrough requires a general-purpose robot that can handle unfamiliar tasks in unfamiliar environments, remain controllable over long interactions, and learn from experience. Today's embodied systems largely follow an end-to-end observation-to-action path. Despite rapid progress, they remain far from this goal: their generalization depends heavily on the coverage of robot training data, while long task execution remains difficult to control and inspect. To realize this goal, we introduce the Embodied Task Agent (ETA), a new paradigm for extending digital agents into the physical world, and release OpenETA as its open-source implementation. ETA centers the robot around a Planner that chooses one Tool call at a time, an Interface that controls execution, and a World that returns the result and a fresh observation. This loop allows the agent to verify outcomes, adapt its plan, and turn successful and failed interactions into reusable experience. OpenETA provides replaceable Planners, composable Tools and Skills, auditable memory, replayable trajectories, and common interfaces for simulation and real robots. For Codex, OpenETA can operate as a lightweight plugin that exposes only observe, mark_point, and move_to.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao

    Shunyu Y ao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023 . OpenReview.net, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=WE_vluYUL-X

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Reflexion: language agents with verbal re- inforcement learning

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Y ao. Reflexion: language agents with verbal re- inforcement learning. In Alice Oh, Tristan Naumann, Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, and Sergey Levine, editors, Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing ...

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Voyager: An open- ended embodied agent with large language models

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. Voyager: An open- ended embodied agent with large language models. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. , 2024, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= ehfRiF0R3a

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    autoresearch: Autonomous research on language-model training

    Andrej Karpathy. autoresearch: Autonomous research on language-model training. GitHub repository, 2026. URL https://github.com/ karpathy/autoresearch

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    Hyperagents

    Jenny Zhang, Bingchen Zhao, Wannan Y ang, Jakob Foerster, Jeff Clune, Minqi Jiang, Sam Devlin, and Tatiana Shavrina. Hyperagents. CoRR, abs/2603.19461, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19461

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Tran, Radu Soricut, Anikait Singh, Jaspiar Singh, Pierre Sermanet, Pannag R

    Brianna Zitkovich, Tianhe Yu, Sichun Xu, Peng Xu, Ted Xiao, Fei Xia, Jialin Wu, Paul Wohlhart, Stefan Welker, Ayzaan Wahid, Quan Vuong, Vincent Vanhoucke, Huong T. Tran, Radu Soricut, Anikait Singh, Jaspiar Singh, Pierre Sermanet, Pannag R. Sanketi, Grecia Salazar, Michael S. Ryoo, Krista Reymann, Kanishka Rao, Karl Pertsch, Igor Mordatch, Henryk Michalew...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Sanketi, Quan Vuong, Thomas Kollar, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, Dorsa Sadigh, Sergey Levine, Percy Liang, and Chelsea Finn

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Paul Foster, Pannag R. Sanketi, Quan Vuong, Thomas Kollar, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, Dorsa Sadigh, Sergey Levine, Percy Liang, and Chelsea Finn. Open- vla: An open-source vision-language-action model. In Pulkit Agrawal, Oliver Kroemer,...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    World action models: The next frontier in embodied AI

    Siyin Wang, Junhao Shi, Zhaoyang Fu, Xinzhe He, Feihong Liu, Chenchen Y ang, Yikang Zhou, Zhaoye Fei, Jingjing Gong, Jinlan Fu, Mike Zheng Shou, Xuanjing Huang, Xipeng Qiu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. World action models: The next frontier in embodied AI. CoRR, abs/2605.12090, 2026. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2605.12090. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.12090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.12090 2026

  9. [9]

    LIBERO-PRO: towards robust and fair evaluation of vision-language-action models beyond memorization

    Xueyang Zhou, Y angming Xu, Guiyao Tie, Y ongchao Chen, Guowen Zhang, Duanfeng Chu, Pan Zhou, and Lichao Sun. LIBERO-PRO: towards robust and fair evaluation of vision-language-action models beyond memorization. CoRR, abs/2510.03827, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2510. 03827. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.03827

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.03827 2025

  10. [10]

    Claude plays robotics

    Shmuel Berman, Michael Ilie, Jia Deng, and Daniel Freeman. Claude plays robotics. Anthropic research post, 2026. URL https://www. anthropic.com/research/claude-plays-robotics . Accessed 2026-08-01

    work page 2026

  11. [11]

    Expel: LLM agents are experiential learners

    Andrew Zhao, Daniel Huang, Quentin Xu, Matthieu Lin, Y ong-Jin Liu, and Gao Huang. Expel: LLM agents are experiential learners. In Michael J. Wooldridge, Jennifer G. Dy, and Sriraam Natarajan, editors, Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2024, Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 20...

    2024

  12. [12]

    Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi S. M. Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, Wenlong Huang, Y evgen Chebotar, Pierre Sermanet, Daniel Duckworth, Sergey Levine, Vincent Vanhoucke, Karol Hausman, Marc Toussaint, Klaus Greff, Andy Zeng, Igor Mordatch, and Pete Florence. Palm-e: An embodied...

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Sukhatme, Gautam Salhotra, Ge Y an, Giulio Schiavi, Gregory Kahn, Hao Su, Haoshu Fang, Haochen Shi, Heni Ben Amor, Henrik I

    Open X.-Embodiment Collaboration, Abhishek Padalkar, Acorn Pooley, Ajinkya Jain, Alex Bewley, Alexander Herzog, Alex Irpan, Alexander Khazatsky, Anant Raj, Anikait Singh, Anthony Brohan, Antonin Raffin, Ayzaan Wahid, Ben Burgess-Limerick, Beomjoon Kim, Bernhard Schölkopf, Brian Ichter, Cewu Lu, Charles Xu, Chelsea Finn, Chenfeng Xu, Cheng Chi, Chenguang Hu...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.08864 2023

  14. [14]

    Sanketi, Dorsa Sadigh, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine

    Dibya Ghosh, Homer Rich Walke, Karl Pertsch, Kevin Black, Oier Mees, Sudeep Dasari, Joey Hejna, Tobias Kreiman, Charles Xu, Jianlan Luo, Y ou Liang Tan, Lawrence Yunliang Chen, Quan Vuong, Ted Xiao, Pannag R. Sanketi, Dorsa Sadigh, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy. In Dana Kulic, Gentiane Venture, Kostas E. Bek...

    work page doi:10.15607/rss.2024.x 2024

  15. [15]

    CoRR, abs/2410.24164, 2024

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Szymon Jakubczak, Tim Jones, Liyiming Ke, Sergey Levine, Adrian Li-Bell, Mohith Mothukuri, Suraj Nair, Karl Pertsch, Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, James Tanner, Quan Vuong, Anna Walling, Haohuan Wang, and Ury Zhilinsky.π0: A visio...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.24164 2024

  16. [16]

    GR00T N1: an open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots

    Johan Bjorck, Fernando Castañeda, Nikita Cherniadev, Xingye Da, Runyu Ding, Linxi Fan, Yu Fang, Dieter Fox, Fengyuan Hu, Spencer Huang, Joel Jang, Zhenyu Jiang, Jan Kautz, Kaushil Kundalia, Lawrence Lao, Zhiqi Li, Zongyu Lin, Kevin Lin, Guilin Liu, Edith LLontop, Loic Magne, Ajay Mandlekar, Avnish Narayan, Soroush Nasiriany, Scott Reed, Y ou Liang Tan, Gu...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14734 2025

  17. [17]

    FAST: efficient action tokenization for vision-language-action models

    Karl Pertsch, Kyle Stachowicz, Brian Ichter, Danny Driess, Suraj Nair, Quan Vuong, Oier Mees, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. FAST: efficient action tokenization for vision-language-action models. CoRR, abs/2501.09747, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2501.09747. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.09747

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.09747 2025

  18. [18]

    Physical Intelligence, Kevin Black, Noah Brown, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Manuel Y . Galliker, Dibya Ghosh, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Szymon Jakubczak, Tim Jones, Liyiming Ke, Devin LeBlanc, Sergey Levine, Adrian Li-Bell, Mohith Mothukuri, Suraj Nair, Karl Pertsc...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.16054 2025

  19. [19]

    CoRE-VLA: Towards Scalable and Robust Vision-Language-Action Modeling via Conditional Routing of Experts

    Haozhe Zhang, Sixian Li, Yifei Zhang, Zezheng Huai, Hao Chen, Chunhua Shen, Jingjing Gong, and Xipeng Qiu. Core-vla: Towards scalable and robust vision-language-action modeling via conditional routing of experts, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03693

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    World action models are zero-shot policies

    Seonghyeon Y e, Yunhao Ge, Kaiyuan Zheng, Shenyuan Gao, Sihyun Yu, George Kurian, Suneel Indupuru, Y ou Liang Tan, Chuning Zhu, Jiannan Xiang, Ayaan Malik, Kyungmin Lee, William Liang, Nadun Ranawaka, Jiasheng Gu, Yinzhen Xu, Guanzhi Wang, Fengyuan Hu, Avnish Narayan, Johan Bjorck, Jing Wang, Gwanghyun Kim, Dantong Niu, Ruijie Zheng, Yuqi Xie, Jimmy Wu, Q...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.15922 2026

  21. [21]

    Shenyuan Gao, William Liang, Kaiyuan Zheng, Ayaan Malik, Seonghyeon Y e, Sihyun Yu, Wei-Cheng Tseng, Yuzhu Dong, Kaichun Mo, Chen-Hsuan Lin, Qianli Ma, Seungjun Nah, Loic Magne, Jiannan Xiang, Yuqi Xie, Ruijie Zheng, Dantong Niu, Y ou Liang Tan, K. R. Zentner, George Kurian, Suneel Indupuru, Pooya Jannaty, Jinwei Gu, Jun Zhang, Jitendra Malik, Pieter Abbe...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06949 2026

  22. [22]

    Joshi, Kyle Jeffrey, Rosario Jauregui Ruano, Jasmine Hsu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Byron David, Andy Zeng, and Chuyuan Kelly Fu

    Brian Ichter, Anthony Brohan, Y evgen Chebotar, Chelsea Finn, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Daniel Ho, Julian Ibarz, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Sergey Levine, Y ao Lu, Carolina Parada, Kanishka Rao, Pierre Sermanet, Alexander Toshev, Vincent Vanhoucke, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Peng Xu, Mengyuan Y an, Noah Brown, Michael Ahn, Omar...

    work page 2022

  23. [24]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2023, London, UK, May 29 - June 2, 2023 , pages 9493–9500. IEEE, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10160591. URL https://d...

    arXiv 2023

  24. [25]

    Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models

    Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Y evgen Chebotar, Pierre Sermanet, Tomas Jackson, Noah Brown, Linda Luu, Sergey Levine, Karol Hausman, and Brian Ichter. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models. In Karen Liu, Dana Kulic, and Jeffrey Ichn...

    work page 2022

  25. [26]

    Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities

    Sai Vemprala, Rogerio Bonatti, Arthur Bucker, and Ashish Kapoor. Chatgpt for robotics: Design principles and model abilities. IEEE Access, 12:55682–55696, 2024. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3387941. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3387941

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [27]

    Instruct2act: Mapping multi-modality instructions to robotic actions with large language model

    Siyuan Huang, Zhengkai Jiang, Hao Dong, Yu Qiao, Peng Gao, and Hongsheng Li. Instruct2act: Mapping multi-modality instructions to robotic actions with large language model. CoRR, abs/2305.11176, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2305.11176. URL https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2305.11176

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.11176 2023

  27. [28]

    Text2motion: from natural language instructions to feasible plans

    Kevin Lin, Christopher Agia, Toki Migimatsu, Marco Pavone, and Jeannette Bohg. Text2motion: from natural language instructions to feasible plans. Auton. Robots , 47(8):1345–1365, 2023. doi: 10.1007/S10514-023-10131-7. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10514-023-10131-7

    doi:10.1007/s10514-023-10131-7 2023

  28. [29]

    Reid, and Niko Sünderhauf

    Krishan Rana, Jesse Haviland, Sourav Garg, Jad Abou-Chakra, Ian D. Reid, and Niko Sünderhauf. Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable task planning. CoRR, abs/2307.06135, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2307.06135. URL https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.06135

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.06135 2023

  29. [30]

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

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Ruohan Zhang, Yunzhu Li, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. Voxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models. In Jie Tan, Marc Toussaint, and Kourosh Darvish, editors, Conference on Robot Learning, CoRL 2023, 6-9 November 2023, Atlanta, GA, USA , volume 229 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pag...

    work page 2023

  30. [31]

    Creative robot tool use with large language models

    Mengdi Xu, Peide Huang, Wenhao Yu, Shiqi Liu, Xilun Zhang, Y aru Niu, Tingnan Zhang, Fei Xia, Jie Tan, and Ding Zhao. Creative robot tool use with large language models. CoRR, abs/2310.13065, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2310.13065. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2310.13065

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.13065 2023

  31. [32]

    MOKA: open-world robotic manipulation through mark-based visual prompting

    Kuan Fang, Fangchen Liu, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. MOKA: open-world robotic manipulation through mark-based visual prompting. In Dana Kulic, Gentiane Venture, Kostas E. Bekris, and Enrique Coronado, editors, Robotics: Science and Systems XX, Delft, The Netherlands, July 15-19, 2024 , 2024. doi: 10.15607/RSS.2024.XX.062. URL https://doi.org/10.1560...

    work page doi:10.15607/rss.2024.xx.062 2024

  32. [33]

    Copa: General robotic manipulation through spatial constraints of parts with foundation models

    Haoxu Huang, Fanqi Lin, Yingdong Hu, Shengjie Wang, and Y ang Gao. Copa: General robotic manipulation through spatial constraints of parts with foundation models. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, October 14-18, 2024 , pages 9488–9495. IEEE, 2024. doi: 10.1109/IROS58592.2024...

    arXiv 2024

  33. [34]

    Rekep: Spatio-temporal reasoning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation

    Wenlong Huang, Chen Wang, Yunzhu Li, Ruohan Zhang, and Li Fei-Fei. Rekep: Spatio-temporal reasoning of relational keypoint constraints for robotic manipulation. In Pulkit Agrawal, Oliver Kroemer, and Wolfram Burgard, editors,Conference on Robot Learning, 6-9 November 2024, Munich, Germany, volume 270 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4573...

    work page 2024

  34. [35]

    Omnimanip: Towards general robotic manipula- tion via object-centric interaction primitives as spatial constraints

    Mingjie Pan, Jiyao Zhang, Tianshu Wu, Yinghao Zhao, Wenlong Gao, and Hao Dong. Omnimanip: Towards general robotic manipula- tion via object-centric interaction primitives as spatial constraints. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, CVPR 2025, Nashville, TN, USA, June 11-15, 2025 , pages 17359–17369. Computer Vision Foundati...

    arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    Roboscript: Code generation for free-form manipulation tasks across real and simulation

    Junting Chen, Y ao Mu, Qiaojun Yu, Tianming Wei, Silang Wu, Zhecheng Yuan, Zhixuan Liang, Chao Y ang, Kaipeng Zhang, Wenqi Shao, Yu Qiao, Huazhe Xu, Mingyu Ding, and Ping Luo. Roboscript: Code generation for free-form manipulation tasks across real and simulation. CoRR, abs/2402.14623, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2402.14623. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arX...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.14623 2024

  36. [37]

    Robocodex: Multimodal code generation for robotic behavior synthesis

    Y ao Mu, Junting Chen, Qinglong Zhang, Shoufa Chen, Qiaojun Yu, Chongjian Ge, Runjian Chen, Zhixuan Liang, Mengkang Hu, Chaofan Tao, Peize Sun, Haibao Yu, Chao Y ang, Wenqi Shao, Wenhai Wang, Jifeng Dai, Yu Qiao, Mingyu Ding, and Ping Luo. Robocodex: Multimodal code generation for robotic behavior synthesis. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine...

    work page 2024

  37. [38]

    Ok-robot: What really matters in integrating open-knowledge models for robotics.CoRR, abs/2401.12202, 2024

    Peiqi Liu, Y aswanth Orru, Chris Paxton, Nur Muhammad (Mahi) Shafiullah, and Lerrel Pinto. Ok-robot: What really matters in integrating open-knowledge models for robotics.CoRR, abs/2401.12202, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2401.12202. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2401.12202

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.12202 2024

  38. [39]

    Manipulate-anything: Automating real-world robots using vision-language models

    Jiafei Duan, Wentao Yuan, Wilbert Pumacay, Yi Ru Wang, Kiana Ehsani, Dieter Fox, and Ranjay Krishna. Manipulate-anything: Automating real-world robots using vision-language models. In Pulkit Agrawal, Oliver Kroemer, and Wolfram Burgard, editors, Conference on Robot Learning, 6-9 November 2024, Munich, Germany, volume 270 of Proceedings of Machine Learning...

    work page 2024

  39. [40]

    Reflective planning: Vision-language models for multi-stage long-horizon robotic manipulation

    Yunhai Feng, Jiaming Han, Zhuoran Y ang, Xiangyu Yue, Sergey Levine, and Jianlan Luo. Reflective planning: Vision-language models for multi-stage long-horizon robotic manipulation. CoRR, abs/2502.16707, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2502.16707. URL https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2502.16707. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.16707 2025

  40. [41]

    Sastry, Yuke Zhu, Ken Goldberg, and Linxi ”Jim” Fan

    Max Fu, Justin Yu, Karim El-Refai, Ethan Kou, Haoru Xue, Huang Huang, Wenli Xiao, Guanzhi Wang, Feifei Li, Guanya Shi, Jiajun Wu, Shankar S. Sastry, Yuke Zhu, Ken Goldberg, and Linxi ”Jim” Fan. Cap-x: A framework for benchmarking and improving coding agents for robot manipulation. CoRR, abs/2603.22435, 2026. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2603.22435. URL https://doi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.22435 2026

  41. [42]

    Aspire: Agentic skills discovery for robotics, 2026

    Runyu Lu, Yubo Wu, Ethan Kou, Letian Fu, Wenli Xiao, Ajay Mandlekar, Yinzhen Xu, Guanya Shi, Ken Goldberg, Ang Chen, Mosharaf Chowdhury, Yuke Zhu, Linxi ”Jim” Fan, and Guanzhi Wang. Aspire: Agentic skills discovery for robotics, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2607.00272

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [43]

    VIA: Visual Interface Agent for Robot Control

    Hengyuan Hu, Priya Sundaresan, Jensen Gao, and Dorsa Sadigh. Via: Visual interface agent for robot control, 2026. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2607.11119

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [44]

    Advancing Omnimodal Embodied Agents from Isolated Skills to Everyday Physical Autonomy

    Junhao Shi, Zezheng Huai, Siyin Wang, Jia Chen, Yubang Wang, Zhaoye Fei, Hechang Chen, Jingjing Gong, Xipeng Qiu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Advancing omnimodal embodied agents from isolated skills to everyday physical autonomy. CoRR, abs/2606.27251, 2026. doi: 10.48550/ ARXIV.2606.27251. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.27251

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.27251 2026

  44. [45]

    SAM 3: Segment anything with concepts

    Nicolas Carion, Laura Gustafson, Yuan-Ting Hu, Shoubhik Debnath, Ronghang Hu, Didac Suris, Chaitanya Ryali, Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Haitham Khedr, Andrew Huang, Jie Lei, Tengyu Ma, Baishan Guo, Arpit Kalla, Markus Marks, Joseph Greer, Meng Wang, Peize Sun, Roman Rädle, Triantafyllos Afouras, Effrosyni Mavroudi, Katherine Xu, Tsung-Han Wu, Yu Zhou, Liliane ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.16719 2025

  45. [46]

    Anygrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains

    Haoshu Fang, Chenxi Wang, Hongjie Fang, Minghao Gou, Jirong Liu, Hengxu Y an, Wenhai Liu, Yichen Xie, and Cewu Lu. Anygrasp: Robust and efficient grasp perception in spatial and temporal domains. IEEE Trans. Robotics , 39(5):3929–3945, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2023. 3281153. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2023.3281153

    arXiv 2023

  46. [47]

    Contact-graspnet: Efficient 6-dof grasp generation in cluttered scenes

    Martin Sundermeyer, Arsalan Mousavian, Rudolph Triebel, and Dieter Fox. Contact-graspnet: Efficient 6-dof grasp generation in cluttered scenes. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2021, Xi’an, China, May 30 - June 5, 2021 , pages 13438–13444. IEEE, 2021. doi: 10.1109/ICRA48506.2021.9561877. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA4850...

    arXiv 2021

  47. [48]

    Anyplace: Learning generalized object placement for robot manipulation

    Yuchi Zhao, Miroslav Bogdanovic, Chengyuan Luo, Steven Tohme, Kourosh Darvish, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Florian Shkurti, and Animesh Garg. Anyplace: Learning generalized object placement for robot manipulation. CoRR, abs/2502.04531, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2502.04531. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.04531

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04531 2025

  48. [49]

    Ratliff, and Dieter Fox

    Balakumar Sundaralingam, Siva Kumar Sastry Hari, Adam Fishman, Caelan Reed Garrett, Karl Van Wyk, Valts Blukis, Alexander Millane, Helen Oleynikova, Ankur Handa, Fabio Ramos, Nathan D. Ratliff, and Dieter Fox. Curobo: Parallelized collision-free minimum-jerk robot motion generation. CoRR, abs/2310.17274, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2310.17274. URL https://d...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.17274 2023

  49. [50]

    curobov2: Dynamics-aware motion generation with depth-fused distance fields for high-dof robots

    Balakumar Sundaralingam, Adithyavairavan Murali, and Stan Birchfield. curobov2: Dynamics-aware motion generation with depth-fused distance fields for high-dof robots. CoRR, abs/2603.05493, 2026. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2603.05493. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2603.05493

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.05493 2026

  50. [51]

    LIBERO: benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning

    Bo Liu, Yifeng Zhu, Chongkai Gao, Yihao Feng, Qiang Liu, Yuke Zhu, and Peter Stone. LIBERO: benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning. In Alice Oh, Tristan Naumann, Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, and Sergey Levine, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processin...

    work page 2023

  51. [52]

    put the alphabet-soup can in the basket

    Gemini Robotics Team. Gemini robotics: Bringing AI into the physical world. CoRR, abs/2503.20020, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2503.20020. 20 A A Pick-and-Place Task Is an Evidence Chain Consider “put the alphabet-soup can in the basket.” Before grasping, the robot must determine which scene instance the instruction denotes. In a scene with similar pa...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [53]

    Frozen condition task 1, seed 3; no playbook task 1, seed 3; exact-scope playbook loaded

    work page

  53. [54]

    Trusted verdict official success = 1 official success = 0

    work page

  54. [55]

    Terminal state environment completion (environment) episode wall-time exhaustion (episode_timeout)

    work page

  55. [56]

    Resources 26 turns, 26 calls, 1093.8 s 51 turns, 51 calls, 1801.0 s

    work page

  56. [57]

    It does not prove that one playbook sentence is the unique physical cause of timeout; that would require rule-trigger instrumentation or a finer intervention

    Mechanical verdict successful control arm resource_exhausted; pair is baseline_only; reject pro- motion This pair establishes that, under frozen conditions, the candidate fails to reproduce baseline reward and consumes more resources, so the promotion gate must reject it. It does not prove that one playbook sentence is the unique physical cause of timeout...

    work page

  57. [58]

    Frozen condition task 2, seed 0; candidate hidden task 2, seed 0; reviewed candidate visible

    work page

  58. [59]

    Shared prefix segmentation → grasp estimation → contact → attachment PASS → placement estimate same as baseline

    work page

  59. [60]

    Release and reward no valid placement release; official success = 0 no valid placement release; official success = 0

    work page

  60. [61]

    Invariant evidence 0 violations 1 open_before_attachment_failure_or_placement_ release

    work page

  61. [62]

    Terminal/resources episode_timeout; 42 turns / 42 calls / 1801.1 s status_report; 34 turns / 33 calls / 980.2 s

    work page

  62. [63]

    no observed success gain

    Mechanical verdict resource_exhausted premature_release_or_invariant; replay fails, held-out not scheduled, promotion rejected The valid pair has 0 infrastructure exclusions, so it is eligible for task-level diagnosis. Operator interruption, provider exhaustion, or shared-environment failure would instead invalidate the entire pair. The evidence is suffici...

    work page