CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 122Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningRobot Manipulation and Learning

ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning

Open access
Shridhar, Mohit, Yuan, Xingdi, Côté, Marc-Alexandre, Bisk, Yonatan, Trischler, Adam, Hausknecht, Matthew·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2010.03768arXiv 2010.03768
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Given a simple request like Put a washed apple in the kitchen fridge, humans can reason in purely abstract terms by imagining action sequences and scoring their likelihood of success, prototypicality, and efficiency, all without moving a muscle. Once we see the kitchen in question, we can update our abstract plans to fit the scene. Embodied agents require the same abilities, but existing work does not yet provide the infrastructure necessary for both reasoning abstractly and executing concretely. We address this limitation by introducing ALFWorld, a simulator that enables agents to learn abstract, text based policies in TextWorld (Côté et al., 2018) and then execute goals from the ALFRED benchmark (Shridhar et al., 2020) in a rich visual environment. ALFWorld enables the creation of a new BUTLER agent whose abstract knowledge, learned in TextWorld, corresponds directly to concrete, visually grounded actions. In turn, as we demonstrate empirically, this fosters better agent generalization than training only in the visually grounded environment. BUTLER's simple, modular design factors the problem to allow researchers to focus on models for improving every piece of the pipeline (language understanding, planning, navigation, and visual scene understanding).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2010.03768

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • ALFWorld is an embodied AI benchmark in which agents must complete household tasks by following natural language instructions in a simulated environment.

    “ALFWorld (Shridhar et al., 2020) is an embodied AI benchmark in which agents must complete household tasks by following natural language instructions in a simulated environment.”

    From Agentic Memory: Learning Unified Long-Term and Short-Term Memory Management for Large Language Model Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Shridhar et al., 2020

    The Introduction (p. 1) describes ALFWorld as a simulated, embodied environment, and Section 2 (p. 2) describes its household tasks. But Section 2 says ALFWorld omits ALFRED’s step-by-step language instructions and gives agents only goal descriptions. The claim is accurate about the benchmark and tasks but imprecise about what agents follow. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Failed trajectories often contain correct substeps.

    “In practice, failed trajectories often contain correct substeps (e.g., 'successfully navigating and retrieving an egg, but failing to boil it' [16]), while successful ones may include suboptimal actions that accidentally cancel out.”

    From Learning Hierarchical Procedural Memory for LLM Agents through Bayesian Selection and Contrastive Refinement (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    Section 4.1 (p. 5) explains that an agent can satisfy one goal condition without completing a task, supporting the point that a failed trajectory can contain correct substeps. Our copy does not contain the quoted example of retrieving an egg but failing to boil it; the paper’s example instead involves putting a potato on a countertop without meeting all conditions of a heating task. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • ALFWorld is a text-based embodied environment with six household tasks.

    “ALFWorld [16] (2,851 train, 274 test) is a text-based embodied environment with six household tasks (e.g., retrieval, placement).”

    From Learning Hierarchical Procedural Memory for LLM Agents through Bayesian Selection and Contrastive Refinement (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Introduction (p. 1) describes ALFWorld as an aligned text-based and embodied environment, and Section 2 (p. 2) says it adopts six household task types. The citing sentence’s test count matches the 140 seen plus 134 unseen evaluation tasks in Table 1, but its 2,851 training count does not match the table’s 3,553. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Trajectories capture the full decision process, not merely terminal success or failure, and provide dense supervision for how an agent progresses through a task.

    “Trajectories thus capture the full decision process, not merely terminal success or failure, and provide dense supervision for how an agent progresses through a task [16, 22].”

    From Learning Hierarchical Procedural Memory for LLM Agents through Bayesian Selection and Contrastive Refinement (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

  • ALFWorld involves embodied instruction following where a text-based agent commands a simulated robotic agent in household settings; performance is measured by goal-completion rate.

    “ALFWorld. The ALFWorld benchmark [35] involves embodied instruction following where a text-based agent commands a simulated robotic agent in household settings. Given a natural-language goal (e.g., 'Put a cooled apple in the microwave'), the agent navigates rooms, identifies objects, and manipulates them via textual actions; performance is measured by goal-completion rate.”

    From HarnessX: A Composable, Adaptive, and Evolvable Agent Harness Foundry (2026) · cites this paper as [35]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [2](2) where hog ∈ RLo×4H is the aggregated observation representation. 14 Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2021 Next, a linear transformation projects the aggregated representations to a space with size H = 64: hog = L tanh(hog).
  2. [4](4) in which, the mean pooling is performed along the dimension of number of tokens, i.e., hRNN ∈ RH . ht−1 is the output of the GRU cell at game step t − 1. A.4 DECODER Our decoder consists of an embedding layer, a transformer block and a pointer softmax mechanism (Gulcehre et al., 2016). We first obtain the source representation by concatenating hog and ht, resulting hsrc ∈ RLo×2H . Similar to the encoder, the embedding layer is frozen after initializing it with pre-trained BERT embeddings. The transformer block consists of two attention layers and a 3-layer MLP with ReLU non-linear activation functions inbetween. The first attention layer computes the self attention of the input embeddings hself as a contextual encoding for the target tokens. The second attention layer then computes the attention αi src ∈ RLo between the source representation hsrc and the i-th token in hself. The i-th target token is consequently represented by the weighted sum of hsrc, with the weights α i src. This generates a source information-aware target representation h′tgt ∈ RLtgt×H , where Ltgt denotes the number of tokens in the target sequence. Next, h′tgt is fed into the 3-layer MLP with ReLU activation functions inbetween, resulting htgt ∈ RLtgt×H . The block hidden size of this transformer is H = 64. Taking htgt as input, a linear layer with tanh activation projects the target representation into the same space as the embeddings (with dimensionality of 768), then the pre-trained embedding matrix E generates output logits (Press and Wolf, 2016), where the output size is same as the vocabulary size. The resulting logits are then normalized by a softmax to generate a probability distribution over all tokens in vocabulary: pa(yi) = ESoftmax(Ltanh(htgt)),

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Shridhar, M., Yuan, X., Côté, M.-A., Bisk, Y., Trischler, A., & Hausknecht, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2010.03768
arXiv
2010.03768
OpenAlex
W3126325318
Cited by
80
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
Keywords
ALFWorld, embodied agents, abstract planning, visual grounding, scene understanding, interactive learning

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