PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards Generalist Robots: A Promising Paradigm via Generative Simulation

Xian, Zhou, Gervet, Theophile, Xu, Zhenjia, Qiao, Yi-Ling, Wang, Tsun-Hsuan, Wang, Yian·2023·arXiv

Abstract

This document serves as a position paper that outlines the authors' vision for a potential pathway towards generalist robots. The purpose of this document is to share the excitement of the authors with the community and highlight a promising research direction in robotics and AI. The authors believe the proposed paradigm is a feasible path towards accomplishing the long-standing goal of robotics research: deploying robots, or embodied AI agents more broadly, in various non-factory real-world settings to perform diverse tasks. This document presents a specific idea for mining knowledge in the latest large-scale foundation models for robotics research. Instead of directly using or adapting these models to produce low-level policies and actions, it advocates for a fully automated generative pipeline (termed as generative simulation), which uses these models to generate diversified tasks, scenes and training supervisions at scale, thereby scaling up low-level skill learning and ultimately leading to a foundation model for robotics that empowers generalist robots. The authors are actively pursuing this direction, but in the meantime, they recognize that the ambitious goal of building generalist robots with large-scale policy training demands significant resources such as computing power and hardware, and research groups in academia alone may face severe resource constraints in implementing the entire vision. Therefore, the authors believe sharing their thoughts at this early stage could foster discussions, attract interest towards the proposed pathway and related topics from industry groups, and potentially spur significant technical advancements in the field.

Overview

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.2305.10455

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Recent works scaling task generation with LLMs tend to focus on single-agent tasks with relatively short horizons.

    “However, these works tend to focus on single-agent tasks that span relatively short horizons, while we consider long-horizon, multi-agent problems.”

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

  • LLM-based task generation in prior work is not grounded beyond user-created in-context prompts.

    “While LLM-based task generation has been studied in literature before (Katara et al., 2023;Wang et al., 2024;Xian et al., 2023;Nasiriany et al., 2024), these generations are not grounded beyond user-created in-context prompts.”

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Xian, Z., Gervet, T., Xu, Z., Qiao, Y.-L., Wang, T.-H., & Wang, Y.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
References
5
Type
Preprint

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