Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Towards No-Code Programming of Cobots: Experiments with Code Synthesis by Large Code Models for Conversational Programming

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.11041 v4 pith:JIRH6AMW submitted 2024-09-17 cs.CL cs.RO

classification cs.CLcs.RO
keywords codeassemblyrobotslanguagellmsprogrammingtaskcobots
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

While there has been a lot of research recently on robots in household environments, at the present time, most robots in existence can be found on shop floors, and most interactions between humans and robots happen there. ``Collaborative robots'' (cobots) designed to work alongside humans on assembly lines traditionally require expert programming, limiting ability to make changes, or manual guidance, limiting expressivity of the resulting programs. To address these limitations, we explore using Large Language Models (LLMs), and in particular, their abilities of doing in-context learning, for conversational code generation. As a first step, we define RATS, the ``Repetitive Assembly Task'', a 2D building task designed to lay the foundation for simulating industry assembly scenarios. In this task, a `programmer' instructs a cobot, using natural language, on how a certain assembly is to be built; that is, the programmer induces a program, through natural language. We create a dataset that pairs target structures with various example instructions (human-authored, template-based, and model-generated) and example code. With this, we systematically evaluate the capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs for synthesising this kind of code, given in-context examples. Evaluating in a simulated environment, we find that LLMs are capable of generating accurate `first order code' (instruction sequences), but have problems producing `higher-order code' (abstractions such as functions, or use of loops).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. From Templates to Natural Language: Generalization Challenges in Instruction-Tuned LLMs for Spatial Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning LLMs on synthetic instructions transfers well to simple spatial tasks but degrades on regular, repetitive layouts when instructions are human-authored.

Pith tools