cs.AISep 8, 2026

CLAMP: Constrained Decoding for Vision-Language Embodied Planning

Authors: Tianyi MaParisa Kordjamshidi

Abstract

Embodied planning increasingly relies on vision-language models (VLMs) to translate instructions and visual observations into executable action sequences. However, fluent plans are not always executable. A VLM may refer to objects that are not visually observed, select actions whose required affordances are unavailable, or violate syntax and action constraints. We introduce CLAMP, a multimodal constraint-grounding framework that turns scene evidence into decoding-time constraints for a frozen VLM planner. CLAMP uses the initial observation to restrict object references to those supported by the scene, while a provided symbolic action model specifies state transitions and goals. During decoding, hard masks eliminate invalid next-token candidates, while a Hidden Markov Model (HMM)-based world-state lookahead module reweights the probabilities of the remaining feasible candidates based on action preconditions and goal reachability. This allows the planner to retain the VLM's language prior while preventing visually unsupported, unsafe, or infeasible candidates from entering the plan. For unseen tasks and environments, CLAMP adapts the HMM at test time using label-free continuations sampled from the frozen VLM. Experiments on VLABench, SafeAgentBench, and TaPA show that scene-grounded constraints improve object grounding and safety, while most remaining failures stem from perception errors or misaligned constraint specifications.

Explore similar work

Jul 29, 2026cs.CV

HumanCLAW: Can Vision-Language Models Act Through a Body?

Evaluating whether a vision-language model (VLM) can act through a physical body is challenging. The outcome of an action couples the VLM's decision with motor control. When a task fails, it is hard to tell whether the VLM made a bad choice or the motor controller simply failed to execute it, e.g., losing balance and falling. In this work, we introduce HumanCLAW, an evaluation framework that decouples action decision-making from low-level execution. At every step, a harnessed, off-the-shelf VLM issues an atomic skill command, and the command is translated into a sub-second chunk of continuous full-body motion with real physical consequences, including gravity and collisions. The body can therefore act freely in the physical world, while execution-side disturbances, balance and motor errors, are factored out. What remains measurable is the model's action intelligence: its moment-to-moment choice of what the body should execute next. Based on this framework, we build HumanCLAW-Bench: 1,218 long-horizon, egocentric find-navigate-interact episodes across 41 indoor scenes. We test nine state-of-the-art VLMs and find that none solves the benchmark; the best model reaches only a 16.8% success rate. Recognizing the target is not the bottleneck. What current VLMs lack is embodied self-awareness: they lose track of their own body, failing to tell where it is, whether it has reached the goal, or whether it has hit an obstacle.
Li Siyao, Jiawei Gu, Shuai Liu +15
May 19, 2025cs.AI

ViPlan: A Benchmark for Visual Planning with Symbolic Predicates and Vision-Language Models

Integrating Large Language Models with symbolic planners is a promising direction for obtaining verifiable and grounded plans, with recent works extending this idea to visual domains using Vision-Language Models (VLMs). However, an open-source benchmark for comparing these approaches under matched conditions is missing, due to a lack of visual benchmarks that support symbolic planning. We present ViPlan, the first open-source benchmark for comparing VLM-grounded symbolic approaches (VLM-as-grounder) with direct VLM planning methods (VLM-as-planner). ViPlan introduces a series of increasingly challenging tasks in two visual domains: a visual variant of the classic Blocksworld planning problem and a simulated household robotics environment. Averaged across methods, we find VLM-as-grounders to outperform direct VLM planning in Blocksworld (solving 46% of the tasks against 9%), where image grounding is both crucial and accurate. However, in the household robotics tasks, where linguistic knowledge helps, VLM-as-planner methods are greatly superior to VLM-as-grounder approaches (solving 34% of the tasks against 5%), which are hindered by partial observability. Thus, ViPlan domains capture fundamental shortcomings of both planning approaches, which we further diagnose with a qualitative failure analysis. Finally, across methods, we observe no consistent benefit from Chain-of-Thought prompting, suggesting persistent limitations in current VLMs' visual reasoning abilities.
Matteo Merler, Nicola Dainese, Minttu Alakuijala +5
May 19, 2026cs.RO

The Yes-Man Syndrome: Benchmarking Abstention in Embodied Robotic Agents

Vision-language models (VLMs) are used as high-level planners for embodied agents, translating natural language instructions and visual observations into action plans. While prior work has studied abstention in LLMs, existing benchmarks are largely text-only and do not capture the perceptual grounding and physical constraints inherent to embodied robotics environments. In such settings, abstention requires recognizing when instructions are ambiguous, physically infeasible, based on false premises, or otherwise unresolvable given the available sensory modalities and context. To address this gap, we introduce a taxonomy to categorize abstention in the context of embodied robotics and present RoboAbstention, a scalable and auditable framework for generating abstention instructions grounded in images gathered from five robotics datasets. RoboAbstention instantiates the taxonomy through a three-phase pipeline: (1) structured visual grounding, (2) deterministic constraint derivation, and (3) controlled instruction generation via category-specific templates. This enables the construction of a diverse dataset with verifiable abstention conditions. We evaluate several frontier VLMs and find that all models exhibit significant weaknesses in abstention, including those with advanced reasoning capabilities. The best-performing model, Gemini 2.5 Flash, abstains on only 39.0% of our 6,069 benchmark instructions, while the embodied planner Gemini Robotics ER 1.6 Preview abstains on just 16.5%. We further explore methods for improving abstention in VLM planners, such as defensive prompting and in-context learning, and find that these interventions substantially improve performance, reaching 93.6% abstention rate for Gemini Robotics ER 1.6 Preview and 88.6% for GPT 5.4 Mini, yet no approach fully solves the problem. We open-source RoboAbstention at https://purseclab.github.io/RoboAbstention/.
Doguhan Yeke, Elif Su Temirel, Ananth Shreekumar +3