Authors: Mohammad Albinhassan, Yuming Feng, Alessandra Russo, Pranava Madhyastha
Organizations: Department of Computing Imperial College London · Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University, Whiting School of Engineering · Department of Computer Science City, University of London
Language and vision-language models generate plausible embodied plans but do not guarantee executability, as their outputs can violate environment dynamics or act on incorrectly grounded entities. We present a neurosymbolic agent that factors long-horizon household tasks into task-directed visual exploration and constrained symbolic planning. In the first phase, a vision-language model and exploration harness acquire goal-relevant predicates and instance bindings from egocentric observations and grounded interactions, producing a symbolic initial state. In the second, a PDDL transition model restricts decoding to tokens that extend applicable actions. Monte Carlo tree search then evaluates executable continuations using a domain-independent planning heuristic. The resulting plans are executable by construction under the transition model, with transfer to the environment conditioned on correct visual grounding. On VirtualHome and ALFWorld, open 4B-27B models exceed 90% success in both environments, and our smallest agent substantially outperforms a 27B direct visual policy in each. Constraints and search prove complementary rather than interchangeable: in ALFWorld either alone solves under a third of tasks, whereas their combination solves over 95%. The method also uses several times fewer generated tokens than extended thinking and far fewer model-visible images than direct interaction, and residual failures localize to state acquisition rather than plan generation without any specialized training.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Two phases joined by a narrow symbolic interface. A literal enters Ft only under visual or interaction evidence, so priors decide where to look , not what is present (greyed chip: unsupported). Only s0 and βτ cross into Phase II, which excludes at three scales: inapplicable actions (struck pill), illegal tokens (slashed cells), unexpanded branches (struck node).
Approach
Model
VH
ALFW
Neurosymbolic embodied agent
Ours
Qwen3.5-4B
94.5
90.3
Ours
Qwen3.5-9B
99.5
97.8
Ours
Qwen3.5-27B
99.0
95.5
Direct Qwen policies
Direct VLM
Qwen3.5-4B
5.5
1.5
Table 1: Task success (%) on VirtualHome and ALFWorld. Direct VLM and embodied VLM policies predict one environment action per interaction step. Best results are bold.
Figure 2: Inference and environment-observation cost across model scales. (a) Mean generated tokens per task for unconstrained thinking, unconstrained MCTS, and our constrained MCTS. (b) Mean model-visible images per task for direct interactive policies and our two-phase agent. Lower is better in both panels.
Figure 3: Terminal failure attribution, macro-averaged equally across VirtualHome and ALFWorld. Values are percentages of all tasks.
Table 3: Decoding settings. A dash denotes no top- k cutoff. Qwen supplementary thinking, MiMo, Embodied-R1.5, and RoboBrain nucleus sampling are evaluated with seeds 0, 42, and 1738.
Benchmark
Per episode
One run
Three runs
VirtualHome
$0.0148
$2.97
$8.90
ALFWorld
$0.0534
$7.16
$21.48
Combined
–
$10.13
$30.38
Appendix
Table 4: Estimated Gemini 3 Flash high-thinking API cost in USD.
VH
ALFW
Approach
Model
Accuracy (%)
95% CI
Accuracy (%)
95% CI
Ours
Qwen3.5-4B
94.5 ± 0.0
[91.0, 97.5]
90.3 ± 0.0
[85.1, 94.8]
Ours
Qwen3.5-9B
99.5 ± 0.0
[98.5, 100.0]
97.8 ± 0.0
[94.8, 100.0]
Ours
Qwen3.5-27B
99.0 ± 0.0
[97.5, 100.0]
95.5 ± 0.0
[91.8, 98.5]
Direct VLM
Qwen3.5-4B
5.5 ± 0.0
[2.5, 9.0]
1.5 ± 0.0
[0.0, 3.7]
Direct VLM
Qwen3.5-9B
10.0 ± 0.0
[6.0, 14.5]
6.0 ± 0.0
[2.2, 10.4]
Appendix
Table 5: Accuracy and robustness across model conditions. The value after ± is the sample standard deviation across three runs. Deterministic conditions are marked ±0.0 . Intervals are 95% percentile task-cluster bootstrap intervals with repeated-run outcomes held together within each resample. Bold denotes the highest accuracy in each benchmark and results not significantly different from it.
VH
ALFW
Comparison
Holm p
Sig.
Holm p
Sig.
Ours (Qwen3.5-4B) vs. Direct VLM (Qwen3.5-4B)
<0.001
✓
<0.001
✓
Ours (Qwen3.5-9B) vs. Direct VLM (Qwen3.5-9B)
<0.001
✓
<0.001
✓
Ours (Qwen3.5-27B) vs. Direct VLM (Qwen3.5-27B)
<0.001
✓
<0.001
✓
Ours (Qwen3.5-4B) vs. Qwen thinking (Qwen3.5-4B)
<0.001
✓
<0.001
✓
Ours (Qwen3.5-9B) vs. Qwen thinking (Qwen3.5-9B)
<0.001
✓
<0.001
✓
Appendix
Table 6: Exact paired McNemar tests for the main comparisons ( m=24 tests), with Holm correction within the family. For stochastic conditions, correction is applied to the maximum exact p -value across runs.
VirtualHome
ALFWorld
Comparison
Holm p
Sig.
Holm p
Sig.
Ours vs. Constrained greedy
1.000
–
<0.001
✓
Ours vs. Unconstrained MCTS
1.000
–
<0.001
✓
Appendix
Table 7: Exact paired McNemar tests for the component ablations ( m=4 tests). All conditions use Qwen3.5-27B. Holm correction is applied within the family.
Figure 4: Terminal failure attribution without aggregation across environments, Qwen scales, or visual-policy models. Values are percentages of all tasks for the corresponding row. Successful tasks contribute to none of the failure categories.
VirtualHome
ALFWorld
Condition
4B
9B
27B
4B
9B
27B
Unconstrained greedy
66.0 ± 0.0
59.0 ± 0.0
61.0 ± 0.0
2.4 ± 0.0
10.0 ± 0.0
15.4 ± 0.0
Thinking, temperature zero
47.0 ± 0.0
31.5 ± 0.0
59.0 ± 0.0
5.6 ± 0.0
10.8 ± 0.0
16.9 ± 0.0
Thinking, recommended sampling
39.7 ± 3.1
31.0 ± 9.1
57.5 ± 7.9
5.3 ± 0.5
14.1 ± 0.4
18.5 ± 0.8
Constrained greedy
84.0 ± 0.0
99.5 ± 0.0
98.5 ± 0.0
24.0 ± 0.0
31.5 ± 0.0
32.3 ± 0.0
Unconstrained MCTS
78.0 ± 0.0
93.0 ± 0.0
99.0 ± 0.0
4.8 ± 0.0
22.3 ± 0.0
29.2 ± 0.0
Appendix
Table 8: Task success (%) for every Qwen3.5 model scale and Phase-II condition, reported as accuracy ± standard deviation. Recommended-sampling thinking values use three seeds, and all other conditions use deterministic decoding. Bold denotes the best result in each column and any result not significantly different from it.
Environment
Policy
Model
Grounding
Interaction limit
Model Done
VirtualHome
Direct Qwen
4B
16.0
71.5
7.0
VirtualHome
Direct Qwen
9B
13.0
77.0
0.0
VirtualHome
Direct Qwen
27B
0.5
37.0
0.0
VirtualHome
Embodied
MiMo-7B
10.0
40.0
31.5
VirtualHome
Embodied
R1.5-8B
0.0
50.0
49.0
VirtualHome
Embodied
RoboBrain-32B
13.0
60.0
0.0
Appendix
Table 9: Fine-grained terminal failure mechanisms as percentages of all tasks for each designated main-paper run. Grounding counts terminal mechanisms only. A policy can encounter many failed actions (Table 10 ) without terminating on the ungroundable threshold.
Environment
Policy
Model
Encounters failure
Recovers task
Repeats request
Persistent loop
VirtualHome
Direct Qwen
4B
64.5
5.4
74.5
45.5
VirtualHome
Direct Qwen
9B
53.5
9.3
33.0
79.5
VirtualHome
Direct Qwen
27B
29.0
37.9
8.3
9.5
VirtualHome
Embodied
MiMo-7B
95.0
17.4
59.6
43.5
VirtualHome
Embodied
R1.5-8B
72.5
0.7
4.6
58.0
VirtualHome
Embodied
RoboBrain-32B
93.0
22.0
62.1
50.0
Appendix
Table 10: Failure response of direct and embodied policies (%). Encounters failure is the fraction of tasks containing an ungroundable or failed execution. Recovers task is success among those affected tasks. Repeats request is the fraction of failed-action transitions followed by the same class-level request. Persistent loop is the fraction of all tasks containing at least five identical consecutive requests or a six-step two-action oscillation.
Figure 5: Example failure sequences. Each row follows an episode from its initial or first informative state through progress to the decisive error and its terminal consequence. The red callout in (a) identifies the relevant object.
Figure 6: Example VirtualHome Phase-I exploration prompt.
Figure 7: Example VirtualHome Phase-II planning prompt.
Figure 8: VirtualHome direct-interaction prompt components and environment feedback. The current first-person image accompanies each request.
Embodied task planning asks an agent to turn a natural-language instruction into an executable sequence of actions in a physical scene, and is a building block for household, assistive, and service robots. Recent prompting-based and reinforcement-learning planners generate fluent action text but lack a cheap deterministic check that the produced plan is valid in the target world, while high-fidelity simulation is too slow to serve as an inner-loop training signal. The general problem is therefore how to obtain verifiable supervision and rewards for embodied planners without relying on string-level matching or full simulation. Here we show that a single BDDL specification, automatically constructed from open-world video evidence or curated tasks, can serve as a shared interface for data construction, plan verification, and reward design. A video-to-BDDL parser, an LLM verifier, and a lightweight symbolic engine together supply dense feedback at millisecond latency. We further introduce GroupAdapt, a difficulty-aware length schedule that uses the in-batch group pass rate as a zero-cost signal so that hard prompts get wider length tolerance and automatically tighten as their pass rate improves. Under the guidance of the proposed verifier and GroupAdapt schedule, the 8B planner attains a Strict-Pass score of 97.3 on BEHAVIOR-1000, yielding a 25.9 percent relative improvement over the Qwen3-8B baseline. This result exceeds the strongest large-model baseline by 3.5 percent, while simultaneously compressing the response length by 79 percent to 207 tokens, demonstrating both effectiveness and efficiency.
Xiangli Shi, Xiaomeng Zhu, Ye Tian +5
1Tsinghua University · 2The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · 3Tencent +1
This paper focuses on embodied task planning, where an agent acquires visual observations from the environment and executes atomic actions to accomplish a given task. Although recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have achieved impressive results in multimodal understanding and reasoning, their performance remains limited when applied to embodied planning that involves multi-turn interaction, long-horizon reasoning, and extended context analysis. To bridge this gap, we propose RoboAgent, a capability-driven planning pipeline in which the model actively invokes different sub-capabilities. Each capability maintains its own context, and produces intermediate reasoning results or interacts with the environment according to the query given by a scheduler. This framework decomposes complex planning into a sequence of basic vision-language problems that VLMs can better address, enabling a more transparent and controllable reasoning process. The scheduler and all capabilities are implemented with a single VLM, without relying on external tools. To train this VLM, we adopt a multi-stage paradigm that consists of: (1) behavior cloning with expert plans, (2) DAgger training using trajectories collected by the model, and (3) reinforcement learning guided by an expert policy. Across these stages, we exploit the internal information of the environment simulator to construct high-quality supervision for each capability, and we further introduce augmented and synthetic data to enhance the model's performance in more diverse scenarios. Extensive experiments on widely used embodied task planning benchmarks validate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. Our codes will be available at https://github.com/woyut/RoboAgent_CVPR26.
Peiran Xu, Jiaqi Zheng, Yadong Mu
Peking University, Beijing, China · XYZ Embodied AI, Beijing, China
Long-horizon embodied task requires agents to act under partial observability while preserving both scene belief and execution progress. Flat histories or implicit policy states may contain past observations, but they do not provide an explicit interface for deciding which world facts support the currently active goal. We introduce Mimir, a neuro-symbolic memory that separates world memory from task memory and dynamically grounds them before each action. World memory maintains object locations, object states, and perceptual evidence, while task memory maintains an ordered goal agenda, progress state, hand state, failures, and execution constraints. A grounding module binds the active goal to recalled world candidates, fills missing source locations, and attaches evidence before planning and embodiment-specific execution. Across tested backbones, Mimir consistently improves on different EB-ALFRED and EB-Habitat tasks, with maximum gains of 42.5% and average gains of 23.0%, respectively. Compared with the best results among prior agent and memory systems evaluated under the same backbone, Mimir improves the overall average success rate by 8.5%. Finally, on the EB-Habitat Long-horizon subset, Mimir achieves 86.0% success rate, substantially outperforming current closed-source models. Our code will be released soon.