Learning from Trials and Errors: Reflective Test-Time Planning for Embodied LLMs
Organizations: Stanford University · Northwestern University
Abstract
Embodied LLMs endow robots with high-level task reasoning, but they cannot reflect on what went wrong or why, turning deployment into a sequence of independent trials where mistakes repeat rather than accumulate into experience. Drawing upon human reflective practitioners, we introduce Reflective Test-Time Planning, which integrates two modes of reflection: reflection-in-action, where the agent uses test-time scaling to generate and score multiple candidate actions using internal reflections before execution; and reflection-on-action, which uses test-time training to update both its internal reflection model and its action policy based on external reflections after execution. We also include retrospective reflection, allowing the agent to re-evaluate earlier decisions and perform model updates with hindsight for proper long-horizon credit assignment. Experiments on our newly-designed Long-Horizon Household benchmark and MuJoCo Cupboard Fitting benchmark show significant gains over baseline models, with zero-shot generalization to photorealistic HM3D environments and real-robot experiments on a Franka Panda arm. Ablations confirm that reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action are mutually dependent, and that retrospective reflection achieves better credit assignment than step-wise external feedback at lower computational overhead. Qualitative analyses further highlight behavioral correction through reflection.
Figures & tables
| Baselines | Reflective Test-Time Planning Ablations | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reflexion | Self-Refine | ReflectVLM | PPO | DreamerV3 | 3DLLM-Mem | w/o RIA/ROA | w/o RIA | w/o ROA | w/o Act. | w/o Int. | Ours | |
| Fitting | 8.51% | 10.6% | 2.12% | 0% | 4.26% | 10.6% | 0% | 33.5% | 6.38% | 25.5% | 12.8% | 44.7% |
| Selection | 8.82% | 11.8% | 5.88% | 2.94% | 11.8% | 14.7% | 17.6% | 5.88% | 11.8% | 26.5% | 8.82% | 32.4% |
| Preparation | 15.9% | 12.7% | 14.3% | 7.94% | 11.1% | 9.52% | 11.1% | 3.17% | 19.0% | 20.6% | 17.5% | 31.7% |
| Hybrid | 6.45% | 9.68% | 6.45% | 3.23% | 12.9% | 9.68% | 12.9% | 3.23% | 12.9% | 16.1% | 9.68% | 25.8% |
| Average | 9.92% | 11.20% | 7.19% | 3.53% | 10.02% | 11.13% | 10.40% | 11.45% | 12.52% | 22.18% | 12.20% | 33.65% |
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| w/o RIA w/o ROA | Ours (Full) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vanilla | Same Time Budget | ||
| Fitting | 0.00% | 0.00% | 44.7% |
| Selection | 17.6% | 14.7% | 32.4% |
| Preparation | 11.1% | 12.7% | 31.7% |
| Hybrid | 6.45% | 6.45% | 25.8% |
| Average | 8.79% | 8.46% | 33.65% |
| Configuration | Success | Overhead |
|---|---|---|
| Ours (full) | 33.7% | 1.00 |
| +Parallel Scoring + KV Cache | 33.0% | 0.85 |
| +Batched Retro-Reflection | 33.5% | 0.66 |
| +TTT Early-Stop | 32.3% | 0.60 |
| +QLoRA | 32.0% | 0.52 |
| +Multi-GPU Parallelism | 31.5% | 0.45 |
| Setting | Factual | Causal | Useful |
|---|---|---|---|
| In-domain (BEHAVIOR) | 98 | 95 | 99 |
| Out-of-domain (HM3D) | 96 | 96 | 95 |
| Method | HM3D | Cleanup | Rearrange |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ours w/ | 19.5% | 40.0% | 26.7% |
| Ours w/ Human Oracle | 21.9% | 40.0% | 33.3% |
| Method | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|
| Zero-SFT, w/o RIA & ROA | 0.0 |
| Zero-SFT, w/ RIA & ROA | 0.0 |
| Zero-SFT, Few-Shot In-Context, w/o RIA & ROA | 1.3 |
| Zero-SFT, Few-Shot In-Context, w/ RIA & ROA | 2.1 |
| Ours, w/o RIA & ROA | 10.4 |
| Ours (Full) | 33.7 |
| Model | Sem. Sim. | Human Eval | Format Parse | Fit % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen2-VL 2B (no SFT) | 0.59 | 76 | 0.19 | 4.7 |
| Qwen2.5-VL 3B (no SFT) | 0.73 | 89 | 0.27 | 8.0 |
| Qwen2.5-VL 7B (no SFT) | 0.75 | 91 | 0.31 | 11.9 |
| Qwen2-VL 2B + SFT | — | — | 0.95 | 48.5 |
| Qwen2.5-VL 3B + SFT | — | — | 0.99 | 60.2 |
| Qwen2.5-VL 7B + SFT | — | — | 0.99 | 52.7 |
| Metric | BEHAVIOR | HM3D (OOD) |
|---|---|---|
| Revision Direction (%) | 99 | 95 |
| Human Eval — Factual | 98 | 96 |
| Human Eval — Causal | 95 | 96 |
| Human Eval — Useful | 99 | 95 |
| Method | Fit | Sel. | Prep. | Hybrid | Avg. | Overhead |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LG-MCTS | 14.9 | 14.7 | 15.8 | 16.1 | 15.4 | 5–8 |
| Ours w/o TTT | 6.4 | 11.8 | 19.0 | 12.9 | 12.5 | 0.5 |
| Ours | 44.7 | 32.4 | 31.7 | 25.8 | 33.7 | 1 |
| Instruction Type | Fit | Sel. | Prep. | Hybrid | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-Generated (current) | 44.7 | 32.4 | 31.7 | 25.8 | 33.7 |
| Human-Written | 42.5 | 33.6 | 25.7 | 27.4 | 32.3 |
| Method | Fit | Sel. | Prep. | Hybrid | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5 | 19.2 | 23.5 | 17.4 | 22.6 | 20.7 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 14.9 | 20.5 | 20.6 | 22.6 | 19.7 |
| Qwen2.5 | 12.8 | 14.6 | 14.3 | 15.1 | 14.2 |
| Ours | 44.7 | 32.4 | 31.7 | 25.8 | 33.7 |
| Method | Consistent w/ Sim. | Consistent w/ Human |
|---|---|---|
| GPT Raw Scores | 85% | 80% |
| GPT + Sim. Validation | 100% | 98% |
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Task Naturalness | 95 |
| Reflection Quality | 99 |
| Score Calibration | 97 |
| Diversity | 92 |
| Method | Fit | Correct | Compute |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ours (Receding Horizon) | 57.8% | 25.8% | 5.0× |
| Ours (Single-Step) | 60.2% | 25.3% | 1.0× |
Large Language Model-Based Robot Planning
Large language model-based robot planning turns natural-language goals and sensory observations into grounded, executable actions for robots.
See all 219 papers