Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 76 references

Robot Operation of Home Appliances by Reading User Manuals

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ApBot claims a robot can operate novel appliances by reading user manuals if it builds a structured state-machine model and repairs it online from visual feedback, reporting large success-rate gains over direct vision-language policies.

desk verdict A useful integrated system for appliance operation from manuals, but the simulated benchmark's ground truth shares the same LVLM-generated pipeline as the model, so the headline numbers are likely optimistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20424 v2 pith:B4Z32FG6 submitted 2025-05-26 cs.RO cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY

Jian Zhang , Hanbo Zhang , Anxing Xiao , David Hsu This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.SYeess.SY
keywords homeapplianceoperationusermanualreadingstructuredsymbolicmodelstatemachinelargevision-languagemodelsclosed-loopupdateactiongroundingzero-shotrobotcontrol
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 claims that a robot can learn to operate a novel home appliance by reading its user manual, if it turns the manual into a structured symbolic model rather than asking a vision-language model to act directly. ApBot builds a state-machine model of each appliance—states, actions, transitions, and macro actions—with help from a vision-language model and syntax checks, grounds every symbolic action to a detected button or dial, and executes tasks as sequences of macro actions. When execution feedback shows the model does not match the real appliance, it explores the affected control to infer the true transition, updates the model, and replans. In a benchmark of 30 simulated appliances across six types, ApBot reports success rates of 0.86 to 1.00, while vision-language baselines drop to 0.22 to 0.80 as tasks involve more variables. The paper concludes that a structured internal representation plus online error correction is what makes this robust, and it lists its own limits: no touchscreens, no tactile feedback, imperfect grounding on soft-touch and icon-only buttons, and no manipulation skills for doors or plugs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the structured appliance model $M = \langle S, A, T, S_g\rangle$, a deterministic state machine over appliance variables (e.g., power, time, temperature, mode). Actions are split into go-to actions $A_g$, which lead directly to a predefined state, and neighborhood actions $A_n$, which move a variable one step and are assumed to cycle. A vision-language model generates $S$, $A$, and the macro actions from the manual; syntax checks guard the output; and executable code computes how many $A_n$ presses or which $A_g$ actions achieve a desired transition. A perception pipeline combining segmentation, open-vocabulary detection, and OCR, verified by vision-language checks, grounds each symbolic action to a bounding box and a primitive skill type (press, hold, or turn dial). The closed-loop updater is the repair mechanism: after each macro action, feedback is parsed and compared with the predicted state; on mismatch, the robot repeatedly applies the control until a value repeats, uses that trace to infer the true range, step size, and ordering, then re-derives the macro action and re-plans.

What would settle it

Run ApBot on an appliance whose step size or variable ordering is deliberately designed so that the exploration trace never repeats a state within the 25-step budget (for example, a control that increments 0, 3, 7, 12, ... with no wrap-around); if the closed-loop update then fails to converge and success drops to the open-loop level, the claim that visual feedback repairs modeling errors would be contradicted. A cheaper check is to corrupt the initial step size of one variable on an existing benchmark instance and measure whether successful recoveries fall below the reported rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ApBot's central claim is that the reliable way to turn a user manual into robot operation is to construct a structured, symbolic state machine of the appliance—states, executable actions, transitions, and macro actions—from the text, ground those actions to recognized control-panel elements, and then close the loop: after each macro action, parse the display or simulator feedback, compare it with the model's prediction, and when they mismatch, explore the control until a value repeats, infer the true transition, update the model, and re-plan. With that design the paper reports success rates of 0.98, 1.00, 0.96, 0.86, 0.88 and 0.90 on six appliance types, versus baselines as low as 0.22, and a 0.9 average success rate on nine real-robot tasks. Ablations show each ingredient matters: removing the structured model, replacing the code-computed button policy with language-model choices, or disabling closed-loop updates all degrade performance sharply, with the open-loop variant falling to 0.00 on the two most complex appliance types. The paper takes this as evidence that structured internal representation, not raw vision-language reasoning, is what makes zero-shot appliance operation robust.

Load-bearing premise

That the model built from the manual is close enough to the truth that the closed-loop update can fix every error by repeatedly working the control until a state repeats, all within the task's step budget.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On tasks with more adjustable variables, ApBot's success holds up while end-to-end vision-language policies degrade sharply; e.g., on six-variable washing-machine tasks ApBot scores 0.90 versus 0.32 for the strongest raw-policy baseline.
  • Each of the three design choices—the structured model, the code-computed button policy, and the closed-loop update—is necessary; disabling the closed-loop update drops success to 0.00 on bread maker and washing machine.
  • Explicitly grounding symbolic actions to detected control elements adds about 18% average success over reasoning over raw images, and the grounding pipeline outperforms a state-of-the-art visual grounding model on control-panel elements.
  • The same pipeline transfers from simulation to a real robot arm on a blender, an induction cooker, and a water dispenser, completing tasks that require reading the manual and reasoning over multiple steps.
  • Because the model is symbolic, most failures are attributable: the paper's failure analysis finds 83.3% of the analyzed failures stem from modeling errors and 16.7% from action-grounding errors, pointing to where improvements should go next.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The repair loop is the main robustness engine, but its reach is bounded by the assumption that neighborhood actions are circular and that go-to transitions are mostly correct; appliances with non-circular controls (e.g., digit entry or irregular step-size sequences) would stress this exploration strategy and are a natural next test.
  • The three-stage recipe—symbolize a domain document, ground symbols to the interface, close the loop with observations—may transfer to other document-driven interactive devices such as thermostats, printers, lab equipment, and vehicle dashboards by swapping the domain-specific language.
  • Because the models are symbolic and updateable, repairs made on one appliance instance could seed better initial models for a new instance of the same appliance type, turning accumulated household experience into a prior for the zero-shot claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ApBot, a system that enables a robot to operate novel household appliances by reading their user manuals in a zero-shot manner. ApBot uses a large vision-language model (LVLM) to construct a structured symbolic appliance model (state variables, actions, and transitions) from the manual, grounds symbolic actions to visual control-panel elements via detection and LVLM-based matching, plans with macro actions extracted from the manual, and closes the loop by updating its model from visual or textual feedback during execution. The evaluation consists of a simulated benchmark with 6 appliance types, 30 instances, and 300 natural-language instructions, plus a real-robot deployment on three appliances with a Kinova Gen3 arm. The central claim is that ApBot achieves consistent and statistically significant improvements in task success rate over LVLMs used directly as control policies, with ablations showing that the structured model, the button policy, and closed-loop updates are each important.

Significance. If the evaluation is sound, the paper makes a useful contribution: it demonstrates that a structured symbolic representation, combined with online model calibration, can substantially outperform unstructured LVLM-based policies for long-horizon appliance-operation tasks. The simulated study is systematic in several respects: 30 appliances, 300 instructions, manually labeled goal states, oracle optimal steps for SPL, and pairwise chi-square tests across methods. The real-robot deployment, while small, shows that the pipeline can operate physical appliances with only manual text and visual input. The paper also gives credit for its syntax-checking pipeline and for an honest failure analysis that attributes 83.3% of analyzed failures to modeling errors, which motivates the closed-loop update mechanism. The main significance risk is that the simulated ground-truth simulators are constructed by the same LVLM-prompting pipeline that builds ApBot's model, raising the possibility of shared generation bias; the real-world results are too limited to fully offset this concern.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D.3 and Appendix A.1/Prompt 7] The simulator used as the simulated ground truth is not independent of the model that ApBot constructs. Appendix D.3 states that each appliance is paired with a symbolic simulator implemented in Python, while Appendix A.1 shows that this simulator is generated in the same LVLM-prompted format as ApBot's model, and Prompt 7 explicitly asks the LVLM to implement a Simulator() object from the manual. Consequently, shared LVLM biases can be encoded in both the environment and the agent, which would inflate ApBot's success rates in Table 4 and Figure 4 and penalize the LVLM baselines. To support the central claim, the authors should either release the simulator code and the ApBot-generated models so that a reader can verify their independence, have each simulator's transitions independently verified by a human against the manual, or re-evaluate on an independently implemented simulation environment that is not derived from LVLM output.
  2. [Table 5 and Appendix G.2] The real-world evaluation is too limited to substitute for the simulated benchmark. It covers only three appliances and nine tasks; on the water dispenser ApBot achieves 0.7 success rate while the LLM-as-policy baseline achieves 1.0, and the aggregated difference (0.9 vs. 0.83) is not tested for statistical significance. In addition, the real-world tasks involve at most two target variables, whereas the simulated robustness claim is driven by five- and six-variable appliances such as the bread maker and washing machine. Please either expand the real-world evaluation to more complex appliances and tasks with significance tests, or temper the claim that ApBot robustly operates complex appliances to the simulated setting, presenting the real-robot results as demonstrations.
  3. [Section 6 and Appendix C] The failure analysis and ablations show that much of ApBot's performance rests on the closed-loop update: Section 6 reports that 83.3% of analyzed failures are modeling errors, and Figure 4 shows that disabling closed-loop updates reduces success to 0.00 on the bread maker and washing machine. However, Appendix C states that the update procedure assumes that An actions are circular and that go-to transitions are mostly correct, yet the paper does not report how often these assumptions were violated in the simulated or real experiments, nor how performance degrades when they fail. Since the central robustness claim depends on the update mechanism succeeding despite initially incorrect models, please quantify the frequency of assumption violations and provide failure cases where the model update itself converges to the wrong transition model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'These results suggest that a structured internal representations plays an important role' contains a subject-verb agreement error; it should be 'structured internal representations play' or 'a structured internal representation plays.'
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says 'Both performance and derivations are across appliance types'; the intended word is likely 'deviations' or 'standard deviations,' and the sentence should be clarified.
  3. [Section 4.3] The phrase 'More details can be founded in Appendix G' should read 'More details can be found in Appendix G.'
  4. [Prompt 6] The text 'you can use the given meata actions on numbers' contains a typo; it should be 'meta actions.'
  5. [Section 4.1 / Appendix D.4] The definition of 'Average Steps' in Table 4 is ambiguous: Appendix D.4 defines 'Average Step' as the number of macro actions excluding exploration, but the table heading 'Average Steps' could be confused with physical execution steps. Please use the same term in the table and the metric definition.
  6. [Section 3.3] The action-grounding module assumes high-recall control-element detection, but the paper does not report detector recall on the real robot or on the simulated control-panel images; a quantitative breakdown of detection, OCR, and LVLM verification failures would make the grounding results easier to interpret.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Simulated ground truth appears to be generated by the same LVLM pipeline that builds the model, making the headline simulation result partly a self-consistency test.

  1. other [Sec. 4.1 (Evaluation Benchmark); Appendix D.3; Appendix I (Prompt 7); Appendix A.1]
    "For automatic evaluation, each appliance in the benchmark is paired with a symbolic simulator that models true action effects and provides corresponding feedback to the algorithms. ... Your task is to implement a Simulator() object as an instance of the predefined Appliance() object that models all action effects of the appliance. ... Below is an example of the appliance model generated using ApBot for a dehumidifier. It includes a list of variables extracted from the manual, the macro actions, and transitions."

    The only documented procedure for producing a Python Simulator class is Prompt 7, which is also ApBot's model-construction step: Appendix A.1 shows the 'appliance model generated using ApBot' containing a 'class Simulator(Appliance)'. Appendix D.3 designates these symbolic simulators as the benchmark's ground truth ('models true action effects'). The success signal is therefore another output of the same LVLM-prompting process that generates the approximate model under test. Simulated success partly measures agreement between two samples of the same LVLM's interpretation of the manual; transition errors the LVLM would not produce are absent from the environment.

full rationale

Apart from the simulator-provenance issue, the derivation chain is otherwise self-contained: the closed-loop model updates use observed feedback (simulator textual messages or real images) to correct transition models, which is legitimate feedback-based estimation rather than circular fitting; action-grounding evaluation uses manually labeled ground truth; and the real-world Kinova deployments provide independent, if limited, evidence. The paper's own failure analysis (Sec. 6: 83.3% modeling errors) shows the benchmark simulator is not literally identical to the evaluated model, so the circularity is partial rather than total. The central concern is that the 'true action effects' in the simulation benchmark are not shown to be independent of the LVLM that also constructs ApBot's model; if the simulators were produced by the same prompt pipeline, the measured advantage reflects shared interpretation bias. This is a load-bearing validity issue for the paper's strongest quantitative claim, and the lack of released code/data prevents verification. I do not find evidence of self-citation load-bearing circularity, uniqueness-import, or fitted-parameter-as-prediction.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are mostly evaluation thresholds and prompt defaults that do not determine the core comparison in an obvious way. The main axioms are domain assumptions about appliance behavior and VLM capability; the circularity and wrap-around assumptions are empirically motivated but not proven.

free parameters (3)
  • Detection confidence thresholds and IoU threshold = 0.5 box threshold, 0.5 text threshold, 0.05 contrast, 0.1 IoU, 0.9 mask confidence (Table 2)
    These thresholds are hand-chosen; they affect grounding quality and hence the central result, but are not fitted to the test set.
  • Maximum reasoning steps = 25
    Chosen for the success metric; a different budget would change success rates.
  • Default duration for hold actions = 10 s (simulation), 3 s (if unspecified in prompt)
    Used in baselines and system; affects hold-task success.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Appliance behavior is a deterministic state machine with transitions of only two types, Tg (go-to) and Tn (neighbor).
    Section 3.1 states this; the whole model construction and planning depend on it. It excludes touchscreens and appliances with random or continuous hold behavior.
  • domain assumption Control panel elements can be clearly detected with high recall by the three-detector pipeline.
    Section 3.3 states this assumption; failures the paper itself reports (soft-touch panels, icon-only buttons) occur when it fails.
  • domain assumption An actions (e.g., +, -) are circular: repeatedly executing them eventually cycles through the variable's full range.
    Appendix C, state estimation and model updates section, bases the exploration strategy on this empirical observation.
  • domain assumption Go-to transitions Tg are mostly correct, so only An transitions need updating.
    Appendix C states this empirical finding; the closed-loop update procedure relies on it.
  • domain assumption LVLMs (GPT-4o) can extract a partially correct appliance model from a manual with syntax checking and in-context examples.
    Section 3.2 assumes this; the paper's failure analysis showing 83.3% modeling errors indicates the assumption is only partially satisfied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robot Operation of Home Appliances by Reading User Manuals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B4Z32FG6

@misc{pith2026250520424,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robot Operation of Home Appliances by Reading User Manuals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B4Z32FG6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20424}
}
read the original abstract

Operating home appliances, among the most common tools in every household, is a critical capability for assistive home robots. This paper presents ApBot, a robot system that operates novel household appliances by "reading" their user manuals. ApBot faces multiple challenges: (i) infer goal-conditioned partial policies from their unstructured, textual descriptions in a user manual document, (ii) ground the policies to the appliance in the physical world, and (iii) execute the policies reliably over potentially many steps, despite compounding errors. To tackle these challenges, ApBot constructs a structured, symbolic model of an appliance from its manual, with the help of a large vision-language model (VLM). It grounds the symbolic actions visually to control panel elements. Finally, ApBot closes the loop by updating the model based on visual feedback. Our experiments show that across a wide range of simulated and real-world appliances, ApBot achieves consistent and statistically significant improvements in task success rate, compared with state-of-the-art large VLMs used directly as control policies. These results suggest that a structured internal representations plays an important role in robust robot operation of home appliances, especially, complex ones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20424 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ApBot enables robots to operate diverse, novel household appliances from natural lan￾guage instructions with manuals and visual observations in a zero-shot manner. It follows open￾ended instructions to generate grounded multi-step actions for complex appliance operation. Abstract: Operating home appliances, among the most common tools in every household, is a critical capability for assistive home robots. This paper… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of ApBot. The key of ApBot is the appliance model built from a textual manual, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of action grounding with visual observations. Actions Grounding. To get the executable action aˆ = (a, b, σ), we need to do visual grounding, i.e., an injection from symbolic actions A to boxes B, and identify the manipulation type σ for each a ∈ A. To do so, we first query LVLMs to assign an action a ∈ A for each b ∈ B, i.e., a mapping from B to A. Inversely, now, each a may: (1) have a unique box b; (2) h… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overall performance of home appliance operation, including average task success rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Snapshots of our system operating an induction cooker and a water dispenser. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: p-value matrix of all method pairs by χ 2 -test. What is the benefit of explicit action grounding? Our proposed method to ground actions can boost the overall performance of home appliance operation by 18% on av￾erage by comparison with the performance between LLM as p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of action ground￾ing performance between our method and Molmo. Standard deviation is across different appliance types. We deploy our method on a Kinova Gen3 arm and demon￾strate its applicability to three household appliances: a blender, an induction cooker,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Appliances in our benchmark. (a) Appliance Types. (b) All Instances of Bread Maker. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An example user manual for the Bread Maker. (a) Control panel. (b) Unstructured step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Performance of home appliance operation by appliance type, including average task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Performance of home appliance operation by appliance type, including average task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: p-value matrix of all method pairs by χ 2 -test on different appliance types. appliance types, particularly on appliances with symbolic, iconic, or multi-word text labels, where a structured grounding procedure performs better. We illustrate an online model update exa…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Average task success rate (SR) by increasing variable size conditioned on appliance type. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of action grounding performance between our method and Molmo on preci [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The real-world framework In our real-world robotic system, we implement a framework that enables a manipulator to interact with physical appliances by pressing buttons accurately and robustly, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The pressing details To reduce the contact area and improve precision, the robot aligns its gripper with the surface normal at a slight tilt. The pressing trajectory is generated in two stages: first, the end-effector moves to a position directly above the button; the…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The real world setting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Snapshots of our system performing various tasks on real appliances. Each row shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_18.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jiang, N

    Y . Jiang, N. Walker, J. Hart, and P. Stone. Open-world reasoning for service robots. In Pro- ceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling , volume 29, pages 725–733, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Manuals library

    ManualsLib. Manuals library. https://www.manualslib.com/, 2025. Accessed April 22, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Digital library of free & borrowable texts, movies, music & wayback ma- chine

    Internet Archive. Digital library of free & borrowable texts, movies, music & wayback ma- chine. https://archive.org/, 2025. Accessed April 22, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou, et al. Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022. 9

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Deitke, C

    M. Deitke, C. Clark, S. Lee, R. Tripathi, Y . Yang, J. S. Park, M. Salehi, N. Muennighoff, K. Lo, L. Soldaini, et al. Molmo and pixmo: Open weights and open data for state-of-the-art multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17146, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Hurst, A

    A. Hurst, A. Lerer, A. P. Goucher, A. Perelman, A. Ramesh, A. Clark, A. Ostrow, A. Welihinda, A. Hayes, A. Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Wang, C.-H

    W.-J. Wang, C.-H. Huang, I.-H. Lai, and H.-C. Chen. A robot arm for pushing elevator buttons. In Proceedings of SICE Annual Conference 2010, pages 1844–1848. IEEE, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    A. A. Abdulla, H. Liu, N. Stoll, and K. Thurow. A robust method for elevator operation in semi- outdoor environment for mobile robot transportation system in life science laboratories. In 2016 IEEE 20th Jubilee International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES), pages 45–50. IEEE, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Nguyen, T

    H. Nguyen, T. Deyle, M. Reynolds, and C. Kemp. Pps-tags: Physical, perceptual and semantic tags for autonomous mobile manipulation. In Proceedings of the IROS Workshop on Semantic Perception for Mobile Manipulation, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    D. Zhu, T. Li, D. Ho, T. Zhou, and M. Q. Meng. A novel ocr-rcnn for elevator button recog- nition. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 3626–3631. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    J. Liu, Y . Fang, D. Zhu, N. Ma, J. Pan, and M. Q.-H. Meng. A large-scale dataset for bench- marking elevator button segmentation and character recognition. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 14018–14024. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Yuguchi, T

    A. Yuguchi, T. Nakamura, M. Toyoda, M. Yamada, P. Tulathum, M. Aubert, G. A. Garcia Ri- cardez, J. Takamatsu, and T. Ogasawara. Toward robot-agnostic home appliance operation: a task execution framework using motion primitives, ontology, and gui. Advanced Robotics, 36 (11):548...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Verzic, A

    N. Verzic, A. Chadaga, and J. Hart. Recovering missed detections in an elevator button seg- mentation task. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 13355–13362. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    F. Wang, G. Chen, and K. Hauser. Robot button pressing in human environments. In 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , pages 7173–7180. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Sukhoy and A

    V . Sukhoy and A. Stoytchev. Learning to detect the functional components of doorbell buttons using active exploration and multimodal correlation. In 2010 10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, pages 572–579. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    S. Yang, O. Nachum, Y . Du, J. Wei, P. Abbeel, and D. Schuurmans. Foundation models for decision making: Problems, methods, and opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04129 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. X. Liu, Z. Yang, B. Schornstein, S. Liang, I. Idrees, S. Tellex, and A. Shah. Lang2ltl: Translating natural language commands to temporal specification with large language models. In Workshop on Language and Robotics at CoRL 2022, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    B. Liu, Y . Jiang, X. Zhang, Q. Liu, S. Zhang, J. Biswas, and P. Stone. Llm+ p: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11477, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    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 2024 IEEE International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 6695–6702. IEEE, 2024. 10

    2024

  12. [20]

    B. Vu, T. Migimatsu, and J. Bohg. Coast: Constraints and streams for task and motion plan- ning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08572, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    K. Lin, C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, M. Pavone, and J. Bohg. Text2motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans. Autonomous Robots, 47(8):1345–1365, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Liang, W

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

    2023

  15. [23]

    Singh, V

    I. Singh, V . Blukis, A. Mousavian, A. Goyal, D. Xu, J. Tremblay, D. Fox, J. Thomason, and A. Garg. Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 11523– 11530. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Schick, J

    T. Schick, J. Dwivedi-Yu, R. Dess `ı, R. Raileanu, M. Lomeli, E. Hambro, L. Zettlemoyer, N. Cancedda, and T. Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68539–68551, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Y . Yin, Z. Wang, Y . Sharma, D. Niu, T. Darrell, and R. Herzig. In-context learning enables robot action prediction in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12782, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y . Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. Chen, A. Xiao, and D. Hsu. Llm-state: Expandable state representation for long-horizon task planning in the open world. CoRR, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Shinn, F

    N. Shinn, F. Cassano, A. Gopinath, K. Narasimhan, and S. Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 8634–8652, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    C. H. Song, J. Wu, C. Washington, B. M. Sadler, W.-L. Chao, and Y . Su. Llm-planner: Few- shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 2998–3009, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Nottingham, Y

    K. Nottingham, Y . Razeghi, K. Kim, J. Lanier, P. Baldi, R. Fox, and S. Singh. Selective per- ception: Optimizing state descriptions with reinforcement learning for language model actors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.11922, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Jiang, B

    H. Jiang, B. Huang, R. Wu, Z. Li, S. Garg, H. Nayyeri, S. Wang, and Y . Li. Roboexp: Action- conditioned scene graph via interactive exploration for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15487, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. Ao, F. Wu, Y . Wu, A. Swikir, and S. Haddadin. Llm as bt-planner: Leveraging llms for behavior tree generation in robot task planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10444, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H. Zhou, Y . Lin, L. Yan, J. Zhu, and H. Min. Llm-bt: Performing robotic adaptive tasks based on large language models and behavior trees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05134, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    X. Chen, Y . Cai, Y . Mao, M. Li, W. Yang, W. Xu, and J. Wang. Integrating intent understanding and optimal behavior planning for behavior tree generation from human instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07474, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    K. Rana, J. Haviland, S. Garg, J. Abou-Chakra, I. D. Reid, and N. Suenderhauf. Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable task planning. CoRR, 2023. 11

    2023

  28. [36]

    M. Ahn, A. Brohan, N. Brown, Y . Chebotar, O. Cortes, B. David, C. Finn, C. Fu, K. Gopalakr- ishnan, K. Hausman, et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Huang, F

    W. Huang, F. Xia, T. Xiao, H. Chan, J. Liang, P. Florence, A. Zeng, J. Tompson, I. Mordatch, Y . Chebotar, et al. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. S. Raman, V . Cohen, I. Idrees, E. Rosen, R. Mooney, S. Tellex, and D. Paulius. Cape: Corrective actions from precondition errors using large language models. In 2024 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 14070–14077. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    S. Wang, M. Han, Z. Jiao, Z. Zhang, Y . N. Wu, S.-C. Zhu, and H. Liu. Llmˆ 3: Large lan- guage model-based task and motion planning with motion failure reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11552, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S. Lin, A. Grastien, and P. Bercher. Towards automated modeling assistance: An efficient approach for repairing flawed planning domains. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pages 12022–12031, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    S. Lin, A. Grastien, and P. Bercher. Planning domain repair as a diagnosis problem. In 33rd International Workshop on Principle of Diagnosis–DX 2022, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    S. S. Raman, V . Cohen, E. Rosen, I. Idrees, D. Paulius, and S. Tellex. Planning with large lan- guage models via corrective re-prompting. In NeurIPS 2022 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    W. Lu, R. K. Luu, and M. J. Buehler. Fine-tuning large language models for domain adaptation: Exploration of training strategies, scaling, model merging and synergistic capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03444, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Zhang, Z

    X. Zhang, Z. Altaweel, Y . Hayamizu, Y . Ding, S. Amiri, H. Yang, A. Kaminski, C. Esselink, and S. Zhang. Dkprompt: Domain knowledge prompting vision-language models for open- world planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17659, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Zheng, H

    J. Zheng, H. Hong, X. Wang, J. Su, Y . Liang, and S. Wu. Fine-tuning large language models for domain-specific machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15061, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    B. Wang, Z. Wang, X. Wang, Y . Cao, R. A Saurous, and Y . Kim. Grammar prompting for domain-specific language generation with large language models. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Nguyen, J

    D. Nguyen, J. Chen, Y . Wang, G. Wu, N. Park, Z. Hu, H. Lyu, J. Wu, R. Aponte, Y . Xia, et al. Gui agents: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13501, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    S. Wang, W. Liu, J. Chen, Y . Zhou, W. Gan, X. Zeng, Y . Che, S. Yu, X. Hao, K. Shao, et al. Gui agents with foundation models: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04890, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Li and Y

    G. Li and Y . Li. Spotlight: Mobile ui understanding using vision-language models with a focus. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Cheng, Q

    K. Cheng, Q. Sun, Y . Chu, F. Xu, Y . Li, J. Zhang, and Z. Wu. Seeclick: Harnessing gui grounding for advanced visual gui agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10935, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Z. Wu, Z. Wu, F. Xu, Y . Wang, Q. Sun, C. Jia, K. Cheng, Z. Ding, L. Chen, P. P. Liang, et al. Os- atlas: A foundation action model for generalist gui agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23218, 2024. 12

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    B. Gou, R. Wang, B. Zheng, Y . Xie, C. Chang, Y . Shu, H. Sun, and Y . Su. Navigating the digital world as humans do: Universal visual grounding for gui agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05243, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Y . Lu, J. Yang, Y . Shen, and A. Awadallah. Omniparser for pure vision based gui agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00203, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H. He, W. Yao, K. Ma, W. Yu, Y . Dai, H. Zhang, Z. Lan, and D. Yu. Webvoyager: Building an end-to-end web agent with large multimodal models. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 6864–6890, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    J. Y . Koh, R. Lo, L. Jang, V . Duvvur, M. Lim, P.-Y . Huang, G. Neubig, S. Zhou, R. Salakhutdi- nov, and D. Fried. Visualwebarena: Evaluating multimodal agents on realistic visual web tasks. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2024

  48. [56]

    Y . Qin, Y . Ye, J. Fang, H. Wang, S. Liang, S. Tian, J. Zhang, J. Li, Y . Li, S. Huang, et al. Ui-tars: Pioneering automated gui interaction with native agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12326 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Lewis, E

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K¨uttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rockt¨aschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:9459–9474, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Brand and P

    D. Brand and P. Zafiropulo. On communicating finite-state machines. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 30(2):323–342, 1983

    1983

  51. [59]

    Brown, B

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  52. [60]

    Kirillov, E

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, et al. Segment anything. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Minderer, A

    M. Minderer, A. Gritsenko, and N. Houlsby. Scaling open-vocabulary object detection. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:72983–73007, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    EasyOCR: Ready-to-use OCR with 80+ supported languages

    JaidedAI. EasyOCR: Ready-to-use OCR with 80+ supported languages. https://github. com/JaidedAI/EasyOCR, 2020

    2020

  55. [63]

    J. Yang, H. Zhang, F. Li, X. Zou, C. Li, and J. Gao. Set-of-mark prompting unleashes extraor- dinary visual grounding in gpt-4v. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11441, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    S. Yu, K. Lin, A. Xiao, J. Duan, and H. Soh. Octopi: Object property reasoning with large tactile-language models. In Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    on", "off

    A. Xiao, N. Janaka, T. Hu, A. Gupta, K. Li, C. Yu, and D. Hsu. Robi butler: Remote multimodal interactions with household robot assistant. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20548, 2024. 13 A Example of the Appliance Model and Simulation A.1 Structured Appliance Model Example Below is ...

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Missing Variable: Every step should adjust some variables

  59. [67]

    Empty or Non-Existent Action: Each step should contain at least one valid action

  60. [68]

    Action Coverage: Every action in A should appear in some macro actions

  61. [69]

    Every variable defined in the state space S should appear in some macro actions

    Variable Coverage. Every variable defined in the state space S should appear in some macro actions

  62. [70]

    Duplicate Action Sequences: We check if there are possibly duplicate action sequences (e.g., set a variable to a specified value twice)

  63. [71]

    Number-Pad Action Compatibility: Number-pad actions should not appear when mod- eling appliances without a number pad

  64. [72]

    Input String Reset: The appliance with a number pad should reset the input string of the number pad whenever it switches away

  65. [73]

    Action-Variable Consistency: Actions should only adjust associated variables

  66. [74]

    Set the humidity to 50%

    Goal Validity: Sg should be fully specified, i.e., each variable should be assigned or inten- tionally ignored. C Details of State Estimation and Model Updates State Estimation. The robot estimates the appliance state using two feedback modalities. In sim- ulation, textual fee...

    2024

  67. [75]

    <Your reasoning>

    and LLM as policy w/ grounded actions (Prompt 2). The remaining ablation methods share the same prompts as ApBot. For ApBot, we provide prompts for three sections: (1) Build appliance models; (2) Update appliance models using closed-loop feedback; (3) Action grounding. To buil...

  68. [100]

    100"). ,→ ,→ class Simulator(Appliance): def reset(self): ... def press_start_button(self): self.feature.update_progress(

    to string (e.g. "100"). ,→ ,→ class Simulator(Appliance): def reset(self): ... def press_start_button(self): self.feature.update_progress("press_start_button") current_feature = self.feature.current_value[0] if current_feature == "speed_cook": self.assign_variable_to_next(self...

    2000

Pith tools

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