SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2503.17309

LLM+MAP: Bimanual Robot Task Planning using Large Language Models and Planning Domain Definition Language

Abstract

Bimanual robotic manipulation provides significant versatility, but also presents an inherent challenge due to the complexity involved in the spatial and temporal coordination between two hands. Existing works predominantly focus on attaining human-level manipulation skills for robotic hands, yet little attention has been paid to task planning on long-horizon timescales. With their outstanding in-context learning and zero-shot generation abilities, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been applied and grounded in diverse robotic embodiments to facilitate task planning. However, LLMs still suffer from errors in long-horizon reasoning and from hallucinations in complex robotic tasks, lacking a guarantee of logical correctness when generating the plan. Previous works, such as LLM+P, extended LLMs with symbolic planners. However, none have been successfully applied to bimanual robots. New challenges inevitably arise in bimanual manipulation, necessitating not only effective task decomposition but also efficient task allocation. To address these challenges, this paper introduces LLM+MAP, a bimanual planning framework that integrates LLM reasoning and multi-agent planning, automating effective and efficient bimanual task planning. We conduct simulated experiments on various long-horizon manipulation tasks of differing complexity. Our method is built using GPT-4o as the backend, and we compare its performance against plans generated directly by LLMs, including GPT-4o, V3 and also recent strong reasoning models o1 and R1. By analyzing metrics such as planning time, success rate, group debits, and planning-step reduction rate, we demonstrate the superior performance of LLM+MAP, while also providing insights into robotic reasoning. Code is available at https://github.com/Kchu/LLM-MAP.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Kun Chu, Xufeng Zhao, Cornelius Weber, Stefan Wermter. 2025-03-21. LLM+MAP: Bimanual Robot Task Planning using Large Language Models and Planning Domain Definition Language. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17309

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO