Deploying language-model agents onboard mobile robots requires task reasoning and responsive execution within limited compute and memory. We propose BT-Agent, an onboard architecture combining LLM-driven task decisions with predefined behavior-tree (BT) skills. These skills enforce execution conditions and return structured failure feedback. We demonstrate fully onboard operation with a 9B model on a quadruped across five task categories. Intervention tests show that local checks stop ongoing navigation without waiting for another model decision, while the agent remains active to retry or report constraints. To compare agent designs efficiently, we introduce a 161-task multi-fidelity benchmark, evaluated in text on all tasks and in Habitat on 39. Text supports 10.9× higher evaluation throughput, while simulation reveals how perception and motion failures change task outcomes. BT-Agent's largest success gains over the strongest Act/ReAct baseline occur at 4B and 9B: approximately 10 and 5 percentage points. Ablations identify structured tool calls and informative failure feedback as the most useful components.
Figures & tables
BT planning / execution
LLM robot agents
Onboard
Feature
Wake et al. [ 10 ]
Ahmad et al. [ 12 ]
BTGen- Bot-2 (ER) [ 11 ]
Contract- grounded BT [ 13 ]
PA-BT [ 9 ]
SayCan [ 2 ]
Inner Monologue [ 3 ]
CaP- Agent0 [ 5 ]
ROSClaw [ 16 ]
Thea [ 14 ]
Robo- Harness [ 15 ]
VLAs-as- Tools [ 22 ]
Cortex [ 23 ]
PRISM [ 17 ]
Ours
Skill contracts
(✓)
✓
(✓)
(✓)
✓
(✓)
(✓)
(✓)
(✓)
✓
(✓)
(✓)
(✓)
(✓)
✓
BT
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
✓
Guards
(✓)
(✓)
(✓)
(✓)
✓
×
×
×
✓
✓
×
(✓)
(✓)
(✓)
✓
Agentic
(✓)
✓
✓
×
–
×
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
(✓)
✓
Recovery
(✓)
✓
✓
✓
✓
×
✓
✓
×
✓
✓
✓
✓
×
✓
TABLE I: Features of cited configurations. Skill contracts: declared preconditions and per-call result/status semantics (partial: incomplete contract); Guards: enforced constraints; Agentic: feedback-driven model decisions; Recovery: post-failure correction; Onboard: robot-borne inference. ✓ : reported; (✓) : partial; × : not reported/not included; –: not applicable. Partial guards use interface validation or model-mediated checks; PRISM varies by planner.
Fig. 2: Physics-aligned task construction. Simulator geometry and camera records produce scene memory, navigation graphs, and task definitions. Habitat and Isaac tasks receive text counterparts; graded simulator evaluation covers 39 primary Habitat tasks. Instance masks are construction evidence, not VLM input.
Skill
Inputs
Effect
query
description, exclusions
look up objects in scene memory
surround_ survey
target
inspect five cameras; reveal visible objects and additional scene information
Photograph something used to seat a child for a meal.
New image of an appropriate seat.
Find the stool near the round mirror and photograph it.
Survey reveals the target; new image.
Photograph the bench cushion and report the word printed on it.
New image and a report of the word.
Photograph every black leather-and-brass bar chair; report how many.
Three distinct captures and a report of three.
Find the kayak for the lake outing.
Report that the kayak cannot be found.
TABLE III: Example instructions and required evidence (shortened). The first four are from the additional home; the last is from the primary suite.
Fig. 3: Shared safe task across physics and text. Physical views combine an interaction excerpt with scripted survey and capture. The map route is schematic; the capture is displayed upright with an enlarged target.
Fault group
Injected behavior
Localization
Stale or missing pose; unreported position jump.
Navigation progress
No movement, timeout, or arrival short of the target.
Route obstruction
Reported blockage, temporary wedge, disabled edge, or unavailable route.
Viewpoint
Incorrect viewpoint despite reported arrival.
Interaction
Press stops short without activating the target.
Perception
Capture analysis fails to produce evidence.
TABLE IV: Mechanisms in the text fault schedule, grouped by effect. Faults fire only on eligible skill calls.
4B
9B
27B
O6
A8
All
O6
A8
All
O6
A8
All
Raw privileged API
CaP-X single
17.5
8.1
12.1
26.7
2.5
12.9
44.2
47.5
46.1
CaP-X multi
7.5
11.9
10.0
16.7
4.4
9.6
50.8
55.6
53.6
Shared skill library
CaP-X single
16.7
4.4
9.6
32.5
36.9
35.0
42.5
45.6
44.3
TABLE VI: Robosuite SR (%), 20 repetitions/task. O6: six CaP-X reference tasks; A8: eight extensions; All: fourteen tasks. CaP-X uses single- or multi-turn programs over its privileged API or shared skills, without an action-count cap. Bold/underline: best/second per column, including ties.
Fig. 4: Text–Habitat comparison: 39 tasks, 117 episodes/method. (a,b) Bold: highest observed; gray Δ : Habitat minus text (percentage points). (c) Descriptive association of task means over four methods and three seeds in two configurations of one home; marker size: coincident tasks; ρ : Spearman correlation. (d) Pooled paired outcomes: 168/293 text successes also succeed in Habitat.
Fig. 5: Onboard deployment across five tasks. Left: task locations with the long-horizon trajectory and capture points. HOME: start/return pose; d 1 /d 2 : yellow panel/chest. Right: recorded observations, shortened prompts, and operator-adjudicated successes over three trials/task.
Fig. 6: Oracle mean time and agent throughput on 16 Habitat tasks; logarithmic axes. Throughput excludes timeouts and ends at the last non-timeout completion. Habitat uses one RTX 5090, with an asynchronously batched 9B VLM on one RTX PRO 6000. Triangle: serial real-robot execution, excluding setup, charging, and debugging.
Fig. 7: Reactive stopping across nine interventions. Commanded velocity reaches zero a median 19 ms after local acceptance; measured speed reflects subsequent locomotion control and physical settling. Battery trials also include sitting down.
Large language models have been widely used for robotic task planning, often taking advantage of representations such as Behavior Trees (BTs). Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have extended these works by grounding the generated plans in the observed scene. However, existing methods are either text-only or rely on large proprietary VLMs, while no dataset pairs visual observations and task instructions with executable and ROS2-compatible BTs. We address this gap with a multi-stage teacher pipeline that converts 1,622 Open X-Embodiment episodes into an augmented multimodal BT dataset containing 2,433 examples. We use this dataset to fine-tune compact and open-source VLMs, ranging from 500M to 4B parameters, using parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). We then evaluate the generated BTs offline in terms of syntactic correctness and by executing them on 15 household tasks in BEHAVIOR-1K. Our best model, Gemma-3 4B, achieves perfect BT validity and an 87% success rate, outperforming Claude Opus 4.8 and approaching GPT-5, while running locally. Finally, our ablation studies show that adding visual observations increases task success from 40% to 87%, while data augmentation increases BT validity from 65% to 100%.
Riccardo Andrea Izzo, Cristiano Battistini, Gianluca Bardaro +1
Department of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
Synthesizing deployable robot behavior trees (BTs) from natural language (NL) requires grounding to ensure every generated BT references only skills a robot can actually execute. Existing LLM-based BT synthesis approaches often place this grounding responsibility on the prompt author. This makes deployment brittle when the author does not know which skills the robot can execute, how those skills are parameterized, or how the robot runtime software constrains valid BT structure. This paper proposes a contract-grounded BT synthesis architecture in which a coding agent queries a robot-side Model Context Protocol (MCP) server to retrieve an explicit contract consisting of a skill library, permitted BT operators, and optional BT composition templates, before synthesizing a BT for validation and execution. In our framework, non-expert operators issue NL commands without knowledge of robot implementation details, while a robot runtime validation gate enforces correctness before execution. We evaluate two LLMs, a closed model (Sonnet 4.6) and a smaller open-source model (Gemma4:31b), across 110 simulated tasks in PyRoboSim and 14 tasks on a physical Husarion Panther robot. Results show that contract grounding enables near-perfect BT validation and high task success, that BT composition templates substantially recover success on reactive control-flow tasks for the smaller model, and that the architecture transfers to physical hardware running a Nav2 stack opaque to both operator and agent.
Jonathan Salfity, Robert Blake Anderson, Mitch Pryor
Nuclear and Applied Robotics Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin
Mobile agents are increasingly expected to operate everyday applications from screenshots and language goals, where reliable control requires reasoning over screen affordances, multi-step navigation, and future state changes. However, many agents externalize this computation as long textual chains of thought, which slows interaction, increases supervision cost, and complicates deployment. We introduce MIRAGE, a framework that learns continuous latent reasoning representations from visible textual reasoning traces. MIRAGE transfers explicit reasoning into compact hidden states, enabling the agent to reason internally without decoding long rationales. It also incorporates a generative world-model objective: latent reasoning vectors are aligned with future screenshots, encouraging the agent to anticipate upcoming interface states before acting. This turns hidden computation into both a compressed thought representation and a forward-looking model of environment dynamics. At inference time, MIRAGE reasons in continuous latent space, reducing token generation while improving execution efficiency. On AndroidWorld, MIRAGE matches explicit chain-of-thought supervised fine-tuning in the 4B ablation with a 3-5x lower decoded-token budget and improves a comparable instruction-tuned baseline by 10.2 points; on AndroidControl, it improves action grounding while generating over 75% fewer tokens.
Zhichao Yang, Yuanze Hu, Haojie Hao +7
Beihang University · Northwestern Polytechnical University · Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences +2