REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by
Assessing the Value of Visual Input: A Benchmark of Multimodal Large Language Models for Robotic Path Planning
T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Adding a grid image to text does not reliably improve LLM path planning, and performance collapses on large grids.
desk verdict Useful 15-model benchmark with a likely real scalability finding, but the central visual-vs-text comparison is confounded by a prompt change, so the headline conclusion about visual utility is not supported. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The key machinery is a controlled grid-navigation benchmark with three matched prompting conditions. Each problem instance is a procedurally generated grid (8x8 or 20x20) with a guaranteed solvable start-goal pair, randomly placed obstacles, and a precomputed BFS optimal path. The text-only conditions use zero-shot and one-example few-shot prompts describing grid size, coordinates, obstacle list, and rules; the multimodal condition supplies the same text plus a 512x512 pixel image in which obstacles appear as unlabeled non-white cells, with an explicit instruction to first visually confirm the obstacle list and then plan step by step. Output trajectories are parsed and validated against start, goal, adjacency, boundary, obstacle-avoidance, and no-revisit constraints, and scored by success rate, optimality rate, path length ratio, and suboptimality gap.
What would settle it
A matched-pair ablation that keeps the prompt text identical and only toggles the presence of the grid image would settle the claim: if success rates are statistically indistinguishable with and without the image, the paper's conclusion holds; if the image condition significantly outperforms, the conclusion that visual input is not universally dominant would be falsified. A complementary test would present the image alone without any textual obstacle coordinates to see whether models can derive the obstacle layout from pixels.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that, across fifteen contemporary multimodal large language models, adding a visual representation of the grid to a full textual description does not consistently increase the chance of producing a valid path, and that performance degrades sharply when grid size increases from 8x8 to 20x20. On 8x8 grids, mean success rates were roughly 18-24% for small and medium models and 33% for large models, with individual large models reaching about 55-60%; this still leaves most attempts invalid. On 20x20 grids, average success fell to 0-4% for small and medium models and only 4-5% for large models. When valid paths were produced on simpler grids, they were usually optimal or near-optimal, indicating that the bottleneck is generating a valid plan at all, not path quality. The authors interpret these patterns as current limitations in robust spatial reasoning, constraint adherence over longer horizons, and scalable multimodal integration.
Load-bearing premise
The study assumes the multimodal condition isolates the effect of the image, but that condition also adds extra instructions — visually confirm the obstacle list, then plan step by step — so the headline conclusion about visual utility is not uniquely attributable to the image.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Few-shot prompting helped small and medium models on 8x8 grids (success up from about 20-23% to 24-25%) but slightly hurt large models (down from 34% to 28%), so the benefit of in-context examples depends on model scale.
- On 20x20 grids, average success collapses to 0-5% even for the largest models, meaning current MLLMs are not dependable for longer-horizon planning tasks.
- Valid paths on simpler grids are of high quality, with optimality rates near 100% for small models and path length ratios close to 1.0 across conditions, so when these models commit to a path they usually follow it well.
- The multimodal condition produced comparable or slightly better path optimality for large models but did not consistently raise success rates, so visual input is not a reliable performance lever.
- Larger models achieve higher peak success but with large variance within size classes, so scale alone does not determine planning competence.
Reading between the lines
- The multimodal prompt adds two instructions that the text-only prompts do not contain — explicit visual confirmation of obstacles and a step-by-step planning directive — so the comparison does not isolate the image itself; a cleaner ablation would hold the instruction text identical across image and no-image conditions.
- If visual input is not consistently beneficial when a structured coordinate map already exists, robotics deployments that already possess a text-readable map may gain little from adding rendered images, which carry compute and latency costs.
- The sharp degradation between 8x8 and 20x20 suggests a testable scaling hypothesis: model success likely declines with path length and obstacle count; measuring success against these continuous variables could locate the failure threshold.
- A further test the paper leaves implicit is image-only prompting without the textual obstacle list, which would reveal whether MLLMs can extract obstacle geometry from pixels at all, a skill the current design always lets text supply.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper benchmarks 15 multimodal large language models on grid-based path planning for 8x8 and 20x20 grids, comparing text-only zero-shot prompting, text-only few-shot prompting, and multimodal (text plus image) prompting. It reports moderate success rates on simpler grids, near-zero success on larger grids, and no universal advantage of visual input over well-structured text, along with high optimality for successful paths. The stated conclusions are that current MLLMs are not reliable for scalable grid-based path planning and that visual input does not consistently improve over text alone.
Significance. If the central comparison were valid, this would be a useful benchmark for a timely question: whether visual input helps multimodal LLMs in spatial planning tasks. The paper has clear strengths: a broad set of 15 models, a well-defined validity-checking procedure, BFS-generated ground truth, and a dramatic scalability result. However, as presented, the headline claim about the value of visual input is not supported because the multimodal condition differs from the text-only conditions in more than just the presence of the image. The near-zero success on 20x20 grids is robust and interesting, but the visual-versus-text comparison, which is the paper's main contribution, is confounded.
major comments (3)
- [§3.3.2, Fig. 1iv] The multimodal condition is not a controlled test of visual input. The multimodal prompt in Fig. 1iv asks the model to "First, confirm if the visual obstacles match the Bomb list in the text. Then, using BOTH text and image, generate the path list..." while the text-only prompts in Fig. 1ii–iii ask only for direct path generation. The comparison therefore varies two factors at once: image presence and an added verification/chain-of-thought instruction. Since such instructions are known to change LLM behavior independently of the image, the conclusion in §5 that "the benefit of visual modality was not universally dominant over well-structured textual input" is not supported by the data. A text-only condition with the same two-step instruction, or a multimodal condition with the text-only wording, is needed before any claim about visual utility can be made.
- [§3.1, §3.3.2, Fig. 1iii] The prompts leak the optimal path length. The few-shot example in Fig. 1iii includes "Optimal Path Length: 8", and §3.3.2 states that the multimodal textual input included "the optimal path length ... consistent with the information provided in text-only experiments." If the environment description given to the model contains the BFS-computed optimal length, the model can count steps and restrict output to paths of that exact length, which inflates the optimality rates reported in Tables 2–4 and undermines the claim that successful paths are "of high quality" as evidence of planning ability. The optimal path length should be removed from all prompts, or its inclusion must be justified as an intended part of the task.
- [§3.1, §4.3] The statistical basis for cross-strategy comparisons is insufficient. Each condition uses only 20 fixed grid instances with a single run per instance, and no confidence intervals are reported. For a rate near 25%, the standard error with N=20 is about 9.7 percentage points, so the differences cited in §4.3 (e.g., Text FS 24% vs Text ZS 23% for Small models, Multimodal 33% vs Text ZS 34% for Large models) are consistent with chance. The main scalability finding (near-zero success on 20x20 grids) is robust, but the "some benefits" and "not universally dominant" comparisons need either more instances, repeated sampling, or explicit uncertainty quantification.
minor comments (5)
- [Fig. 1] Figure 1 is dense and mixes code snippets with descriptive text; a table of the three prompt templates would improve readability and make the differences between conditions easier to verify.
- [§4.2] Section 4.2 contains only a single qualitative sentence; either move the quantitative results there or merge it with Section 4.3 to avoid a placeholder section.
- [Table 1] The paper does not list API model versions, access dates, or exact parameter counts for the models; reporting these would improve reproducibility, especially for proprietary models whose behavior changes over time.
- [§3.4] The "dedicated extraction routine" is described but not released; providing the prompts, generated images, and parse code would strengthen the benchmark's reproducibility.
- [References] There are minor typographical issues in the references, such as "V oice" and "V ol." with stray spaces; a careful proofreading pass would resolve these.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the benchmark measures model outputs directly; no fitted parameter, self-citation, or redefined term forces the conclusions.
full rationale
The paper is an empirical benchmark, not a derivation. It reports measured success rates, optimality rates, and path-length ratios obtained by parsing and validating LLM outputs against procedurally generated ground-truth grids. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then renamed as a prediction; the metrics are defined independently of the models being tested, and the central claims (moderate success on small grids, degradation on large grids, no universal visual advantage) are summaries of those measurements. The only self-citations are related-work references ([3], [7], [8], [9]) and they are not load-bearing: none is used to justify a method, a uniqueness theorem, or an ansatz. The text-vs-multimodal comparison is confounded because the multimodal prompt (Fig. 1iv) adds a visual-confirmation and chain-of-thought instruction absent from the text-only prompts, so differences cannot be cleanly attributed to the image; however, that is an experimental-design validity threat, not circular reasoning. The success rates are observed outcomes, not constructed from the prompt definitions. Thus no circular step satisfies the required standard of being reducible, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Grid path planning is a representative proxy for robotic path planning.
- ad hoc to paper The only meaningful difference between text-only and multimodal conditions is the presence of the image.
- standard math BFS-computed optimal path length is ground truth.
- domain assumption The rendered 512x512 image is an accurate visual encoding of the grid with S, G, and obstacles.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Assessing the Value of Visual Input: A Benchmark of Multimodal Large Language Models for Robotic Path Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7DKBTABM
@misc{pith2026250712391,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Assessing the Value of Visual Input: A Benchmark of Multimodal Large Language Models for Robotic Path Planning},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7DKBTABM}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12391}
}
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) show potential for enhancing robotic path planning. This paper assesses visual input's utility for multimodal LLMs in such tasks via a comprehensive benchmark. We evaluated 15 multimodal LLMs on generating valid and optimal paths in 2D grid environments, simulating simplified robotic planning, comparing text-only versus text-plus-visual inputs across varying model sizes and grid complexities. Our results indicate moderate success rates on simpler small grids, where visual input or few-shot text prompting offered some benefits. However, performance significantly degraded on larger grids, highlighting a scalability challenge. While larger models generally achieved higher average success, the visual modality was not universally dominant over well-structured text for these multimodal systems, and successful paths on simpler grids were generally of high quality. These results indicate current limitations in robust spatial reasoning, constraint adherence, and scalable multimodal integration, identifying areas for future LLM development in robotic path planning.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Why Do MLLMs Struggle with Spatial Understanding? A Systematic Analysis from Data to Architecture
Spatial understanding in multimodal LLMs plateaus quickly as training data grows, and position encoding in the visual encoder is the more influential factor.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
A survey on large language model based autonomous agents
L. Wang, C. Ma, X. Feng, Z. Zhang, H. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Chen et al., “A survey on large language model based autonomous agents”, Frontiers of Com- puter Science, V ol. 18, No. 6, pp. 186345, 2024
work page 2024
-
[2]
Large language models for robotics: Opportunities, challenges, and perspectives
J. Wang, E. Shi, H. Hu, C. Ma, Y . Liu, X. Wang, Y . Yao, X. Liu, B. Ge, and S. Zhang., “Large language models for robotics: Opportunities, challenges, and perspectives”, Journal of Automation and Intelli- gence, V ol. 4, No. 1, pp. 52–64, 2025
work page 2025
-
[3]
J. Colan, A. Davila, Y . Yamada, and Y . Hasegawa, “Human-Robot collaboration in surgery: Advances and challenges towards autonomous surgical assis- tants”, IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN), 2025
work page 2025
-
[4]
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”, Inter- national conference on machine learning , pp. 9118– 9147, 2022
work page 2022
-
[5]
Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordances
B. Ichter, A. Brohan, Y . Chebotar, et al., “Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordances”, Proceedings of The 6th Conference on Robot Learning, V ol. 205, pp. 287–318, 2023
work page 2023
-
[6]
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”, 2023 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 11523–11530, 2023
work page 2023
-
[7]
V oice con- trol interface for surgical robot assistants
A. Davila, J. Colan, and Y . Hasegawa, “V oice con- trol interface for surgical robot assistants”, 2024 In- ternational Symposium on Micro-NanoMehatronics and Human Science (MHS) , pp. 1–5, 2024
work page 2024
-
[8]
LLM-based ambiguity detection in natural language instructions for collaborative surgical robots
A. Davila, J. Colan, and Y . Hasegawa, “LLM-based ambiguity detection in natural language instructions for collaborative surgical robots”, 2025 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robot and Human Interac- tive Communication (ROMAN), 2025
work page 2025
Show all 23 references
-
[9]
Toward autonomous robotic minimally invasive surgery: A hybrid framework combining task-motion planning and dynamic behavior trees
K. Fozilov, J. Colan, K. Sekiyama, and Y . Hasegawa, “Toward autonomous robotic minimally invasive surgery: A hybrid framework combining task-motion planning and dynamic behavior trees”, IEEE Access, V ol. 11, pp. 91206–91224, 2023
2023
-
[10]
Exploring embodied mul- timodal large models: Development, datasets, and future directions
S. Chen, Z. Wu, K. Zhang, C. Li, B. Zhang, F. Ma, F. R. Yu, and Q. Li., “Exploring embodied mul- timodal large models: Development, datasets, and future directions”, Information Fusion , pp. 103198, 2025
2025
-
[11]
Multimodal Fusion and Vision-Language Models: A Survey for Robot Vision
X. Han, S. Chen, Z. Fu, Z. Feng, L. Fan, D. An, C. Wang, L. Guo, W. Meng, X. Zhang, and R. Xu., “Multimodal Fusion and Vision-Language Models: A Survey for Robot Vision”, arXiv:2504.02477, 2025
2025
-
[12]
PaLM- E: An Embodied Multimodal Language Model
D. Driess, F. Xia, M. S. M. Sajjadi et al., “PaLM- E: An Embodied Multimodal Language Model”, arXiv:2303.03378, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[13]
Rt-2: Vision- language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control
A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y . Chebotar, X. Chen, K. Choromanski, T. Ding et al., “Rt-2: Vision- language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control”, arXiv:2307.15818, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[14]
VIMA: General Robot Manipulation with Multimodal Prompts
Y . Jiang, A. Gupta, Z. Zhang, G. Wang, Y . Dou, Y . Chen, L. Fei-Fei, A. Anandkumar, Y . Zhu, and L. Fan., “VIMA: General Robot Manipulation with Multimodal Prompts”, arXiv:2210.03094, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[15]
LLM-A*: Large Language Model En- hanced Incremental Heuristic Search on Path Plan- ning
S. Meng, Y . Wang, C.-F. Yang, N. Peng, and K.- W. Chang., “LLM-A*: Large Language Model En- hanced Incremental Heuristic Search on Path Plan- ning”, arXiv:2407.02511, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[16]
LLM-Advisor: An LLM Benchmark for Cost-efficient Path Planning across Multiple Terrains
L. Xiao and T. Yamasaki., “LLM-Advisor: An LLM Benchmark for Cost-efficient Path Planning across Multiple Terrains”, arXiv:2503.01236, 2025
2025
-
[17]
LLM-Enhanced Path Planning: Safe and Efficient Autonomous Navi- gation with Instructional Inputs
P. Doma, A. Arab, and X. Xiao., “LLM-Enhanced Path Planning: Safe and Efficient Autonomous Navi- gation with Instructional Inputs”, arXiv:2412.02655, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[18]
Guide- LLM: An Embodied LLM Agent and Text-Based Topological Map for Robotic Guidance of People with Visual Impairments
S. Song, S. Kodagoda, A. Gunatilake, M. G. Carmichael, K. Thiyagarajan, and J. Martin., “Guide- LLM: An Embodied LLM Agent and Text-Based Topological Map for Robotic Guidance of People with Visual Impairments”, arXiv:2410.20666, 2025
-
[19]
From Text to Space: Mapping Ab- stract Spatial Models in LLMs during a Grid-World Navigation Task
N. Martorell., “From Text to Space: Mapping Ab- stract Spatial Models in LLMs during a Grid-World Navigation Task”, arXiv:2502.16690, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[20]
A Call for New Recipes to Enhance Spatial Reasoning in MLLMs
H. Zhang, C. Li, W. Wu, S. Mao, Y . Xia, I. Vuli´c, Z. Zhang, L. Wang, T. Tan, and F. Wei., “A Call for New Recipes to Enhance Spatial Reasoning in MLLMs”, arXiv:2504.15037, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[21]
Mitigating Cross-Modal Distraction and Ensuring Geometric Feasibility via Affordance- Guided, Self-Consistent MLLMs for Food Prepara- tion Task Planning
Y .-H. Shen, C.-Y . Wu, Y .-R. Yang, Y .-L. Tai, and Y .-T. Chen., “Mitigating Cross-Modal Distraction and Ensuring Geometric Feasibility via Affordance- Guided, Self-Consistent MLLMs for Food Prepara- tion Task Planning”, arXiv:2503.13055, 2025
2025
-
[22]
Can Large Lan- guage Models be Good Path Planners? A Bench- mark and Investigation on Spatial-temporal Reason- ing
M. Aghzal, E. Plaku, and Z. Yao., “Can Large Lan- guage Models be Good Path Planners? A Bench- mark and Investigation on Spatial-temporal Reason- ing”, arXiv:2310.03249, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[23]
Embodied- Bench: Comprehensive Benchmarking Multi-modal Large Language Models for Vision-Driven Embod- ied Agents
R. Yang, H. Chen, J. Zhang, et al., “Embodied- Bench: Comprehensive Benchmarking Multi-modal Large Language Models for Vision-Driven Embod- ied Agents”, arXiv:2502.09560, 2025
2025 arXiv
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.