Cited by 9Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsRobot Manipulation and LearningAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

EXCALIBUR: Encouraging and Evaluating Embodied Exploration

Zhu, Hao, Kapoor, Raghav, Min, So Yeon, Han, Winson, Li, Jiatai, Geng, Kaiwen, Neubig, Graham, Bisk, Yonatan +2 more·2023·2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

Experience precedes understanding. Humans constantly explore and learn about their environment out of curiosity, gather information, and update their models of the world. On the other hand, machines are either trained to learn passively from static and fixed datasets, or taught to complete specific goal-conditioned tasks. To encourage the development of exploratory interactive agents, we present the EXCALIBUR benchmark. EXCALIBUR allows agents to explore their environment for long durations and then query their understanding of the physical world via inquiries like: “is the small heavy red bowl made from glass?” or “is there a silver spoon heavier than the egg?”. This design encourages agents to perform free-form home exploration without myopia induced by goal conditioning. Once the agents have answered a series of questions, they can renter the scene to refine their knowledge, update their beliefs, and improve their performance on the questions. Our experiments demonstrate the challenges posed by this dataset for the present-day state-of-the-art embodied systems and the headroom afforded to develop new innovative methods. Finally, we present a virtual reality interface that enables humans to seamlessly interact within the simulated world and use it to gather human performance measures. EXCALIBUR affords unique challenges in comparison to presentday benchmarks and represents the next frontier for embodied AI research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.01434

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The paper argues that existing embodied-AI benchmarks usually satisfy either collaboration or natural-language specification, but not both.

    “Current benchmarks in embodied AI typically satisfy one or the other condition; either robots operate in isolation (Shridhar et al., 2020;Zhu et al., 2023;Krantz et al., 2020;Majumdar et al., 2024), or tasks are not specified in natural language (Yenamandra et al., 2023;Puig et al., 2024;Szot et al., 2023;Jain et al., 2020).”

    From PARTNR: A Benchmark for Planning and Reasoning in Embodied Multi-agent Tasks (2024) · cites this paper as Zhu et al., 2023

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhu, H., Kapoor, R., Min, S. Y., Han, W., Li, J., Geng, K., Neubig, G., Bisk, Y., Kembhavi, A., & Weihs, L.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
Venue
2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2023-06
Pages
14931-14942
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386071706
Cited by
9
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.43
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
embodied AI, curiosity-driven learning, physical reasoning, question answering, belief updating, virtual reality interface, human performance assessment, embodied agents

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review