CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 49Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesReinforcement Learning in Robotics

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Large Language Models as General Pattern Machines

Open access
Mirchandani, Suvir, Xia, Fei, Florence, Pete, Ichter, Brian, Driess, Danny, Arenas, Montserrat Gonzalez, Rao, Kanishka, Sadigh, Dorsa, Zeng, Andy·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2307.04721arXiv 2307.04721
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We observe that pre-trained large language models (LLMs) are capable of autoregressively completing complex token sequences -- from arbitrary ones procedurally generated by probabilistic context-free grammars (PCFG), to more rich spatial patterns found in the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC), a general AI benchmark, prompted in the style of ASCII art. Surprisingly, pattern completion proficiency can be partially retained even when the sequences are expressed using tokens randomly sampled from the vocabulary. These results suggest that without any additional training, LLMs can serve as general sequence modelers, driven by in-context learning. In this work, we investigate how these zero-shot capabilities may be applied to problems in robotics -- from extrapolating sequences of numbers that represent states over time to complete simple motions, to least-to-most prompting of reward-conditioned trajectories that can discover and represent closed-loop policies (e.g., a stabilizing controller for CartPole). While difficult to deploy today for real systems due to latency, context size limitations, and compute costs, the approach of using LLMs to drive low-level control may provide an exciting glimpse into how the patterns among words could be transferred to actions.

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.2307.04721

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • LLMs approximate data distributions rather than explicitly understanding knowledge.

    “This view aligns with recent theoretical accounts positioning LLMs as probabilistic pattern recognizers that approximate data distributions rather than explicitly 'understanding' knowledge [21, 22].”

    From Hallucinations in Bibliographic Recommendation: Citation Frequency as a Proxy for Training Data Redundancy (2025) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Introduction describes LLMs as learning and extrapolating patterns, supporting the pattern-recognition part of the claim. Neither it nor the Discussion’s account of next-token prediction says that LLMs approximate data distributions *rather than* explicitly understanding knowledge; that contrast is not supported by our copy. The available passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Models trained to autoregressively generate text also capture statistical relations in many other modalities, including symbolic reasoning, vision, protein folding, and robotics.

    “Lu et al. (2021) and Mirchandani et al. (2023) also showed that models trained to autoregressively generate text also capture statistical relations in many other modalities, including symbolic reasoning, vision, protein folding, and robotics.”

    From The Platonic Representation Hypothesis (2024) · cites this paper as Mirchandani et al. (2023)

    The Abstract and Introduction report that pretrained LLMs can complete symbolic sequences, reason over spatial patterns represented as ASCII art, and apply pattern extrapolation to simple robotics tasks. The paper does not show that they capture statistical relations in vision or protein folding; its Discussion instead describes learning from images and videos as a future possibility. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • LLMs are able to recognize patterns from in-context demonstrations.

    “LLMs are also shown to be able to recognize patterns from in-context demonstrations (Wei et al., 2023;Madaan & Yazdanbakhsh, 2022;Mirchandani et al., 2023).”

    From Large Language Models as Optimizers (2023) · cites this paper as Mirchandani 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

Research works printed but not linked: 84

  1. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, E. Chi, Q. Le, and D. Zhou. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  2. T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y. Matsuo, and Y. Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  3. M. Suzgun, N. Scales, N. Schärli, S. Gehrmann, Y. Tay, H. W. Chung, A. Chowdhery, Q. V. Le, E. H. Chi, D. Zhou, et al. Challenging BIG-Bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv:2210.09261, 2022. · arXiv
  4. A. Creswell, M. Shanahan, and I. Higgins. Selection-Inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning. arXiv:2205.09712, 2022. · arXiv
  5. A. Lewkowycz, A. Andreassen, D. Dohan, E. Dyer, H. Michalewski, V. Ramasesh, A. Slone, C. Anil, I. Schlag, T. Gutman-Solo, et al. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  6. M. Ahn, A. Brohan, N. Brown, Y. Chebotar, O. Cortes, B. David, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, et al. Do as I can, not as I say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. In Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2022.
  7. W. Huang, P. Abbeel, D. Pathak, and I. Mordatch. Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. arXiv:2201.07207, 2022. · arXiv
  8. Y. Xie, C. Yu, T. Zhu, J. Bai, Z. Gong, and H. Soh. Translating natural language to planning goals with large-language models. arXiv:2302.05128, 2023. · arXiv
  9. Y. Ding, X. Zhang, C. Paxton, and S. Zhang. Task and motion planning with large language models for object rearrangement. arXiv:2303.06247, 2023. · arXiv
  10. B. Liu, Y. Jiang, X. Zhang, Q. Liu, S. Zhang, J. Biswas, and P. Stone. LLM+P: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency. arXiv:2304.11477, 2023. · arXiv
  11. E. Zelikman, Q. Huang, G. Poesia, N. D. Goodman, and N. Haber. Parsel: A (de-) compositional framework for algorithmic reasoning with language models. arXiv:2212.10561, 2023. · arXiv
  12. K. Lin, C. Agia, T. Migimatsu, M. Pavone, and J. Bohg. Text2Motion: From natural language instructions to feasible plans. arXiv:2303.12153, 2023. · arXiv
  13. J. Liang, W. Huang, F. Xia, P. Xu, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, P. Florence, and A. Zeng. Code as Policies: Language model programs for embodied control. In International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023.
  14. I. Singh, V. Blukis, A. Mousavian, A. Goyal, D. Xu, J. Tremblay, D. Fox, J. Thomason, and A. Garg. ProgPrompt: Generating Situated Robot Task Plans using Large Language Models. In International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023.
  15. M. Kwon, S. M. Xie, K. Bullard, and D. Sadigh. Reward Design with Language Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023.
  16. H. Hu and D. Sadigh. Language Instructed Reinforcement Learning for Human-AI Coordination. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023.
  17. J. Wu, R. Antonova, A. Kan, M. Lepert, A. Zeng, S. Song, J. Bohg, S. Rusinkiewicz, and T. Funkhouser. TidyBot: Personalized Robot Assistance with Large Language Models. In International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2023.
  18. J. Liu, D. Shen, Y. Zhang, B. Dolan, L. Carin, and W. Chen. What Makes Good In-Context Examples for GPT-3. In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, 2021.
  19. Z. Zhao, E. Wallace, S. Feng, D. Klein, and S. Singh. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2021.
  20. F. Chollet. On the measure of intelligence. arXiv:1911.01547, 2019. · arXiv
  21. S. Ferré. First Steps of an Approach to the ARC Challenge based on Descriptive Grid Models and the Minimum Description Length Principle. arXiv:2112.00848, 2021. · arXiv
  22. Y. Xu, E. B. Khalil, and S. Sanner. Graphs, Constraints, and Search for the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2022.
  23. J. Ainooson, D. Sanyal, J. P. Michelson, Y. Yang, and M. Kunda. An approach for solving tasks on the Abstract Reasoning Corpus. arXiv:2302.09425, 2023. · arXiv
  24. S. Alford. A Neurosymbolic Approach to Abstraction and Reasoning. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2021.
  25. R. Assouel, P. Rodriguez, P. Taslakian, D. Vazquez, and Y. Bengio. Object-centric Compositional Imagination for Visual Abstract Reasoning. In ICLR Workshop on the Elements of Reasoning: Objects, Structure and Causality, 2022.
  26. A. Moskvichev, V. V. Odouard, and M. Mitchell. The ConceptARC Benchmark: Evaluating Understanding and Generalization in the ARC Domain. arXiv:2305.07141, 2023. · arXiv
  27. V. Kolev, B. Georgiev, and S. Penkov. Neural abstract reasoner. In 4th Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Meets Machine Learning Workshop (KR2ML) at NeurIPS, 2020.
  28. S. Min, X. Lyu, A. Holtzman, M. Artetxe, M. Lewis, H. Hajishirzi, and L. Zettlemoyer. Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work? In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2022.
  29. J. Pan, T. Gao, H. Chen, and D. Chen. What In-Context Learning "Learns" In-Context: Disentangling Task Recognition and Task Learning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023.
  30. K. Lu, A. Grover, P. Abbeel, and I. Mordatch. Pretrained transformers as universal computation engines. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2022.
  31. M. Reid, Y. Yamada, and S. S. Gu. Can wikipedia help offline reinforcement learning? In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023.
  32. A. Brohan, N. Brown, J. Carbajal, Y. Chebotar, J. Dabis, C. Finn, K. Gopalakrishnan, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, J. Hsu, et al. RT-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2022.
  33. R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, S. von Arx, M. S. Bernstein, J. Bohg, A. Bosselut, E. Brunskill, et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv:2108.07258, 2021. · arXiv
  34. S. Nair, A. Rajeswaran, V. Kumar, C. Finn, and A. Gupta. R3M: A universal visual representation for robot manipulation. In Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2022.
  35. I. Radosavovic, T. Xiao, S. James, P. Abbeel, J. Malik, and T. Darrell. Real-world robot learning with masked visual pre-training. In Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2023.
  36. S. Karamcheti, S. Nair, A. S. Chen, T. Kollar, C. Finn, D. Sadigh, and P. Liang. Language-Driven Representation Learning for Robotics. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023.
  37. A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019.
  38. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020.
  39. C. Raffel, N. Shazeer, A. Roberts, K. Lee, S. Narang, M. Matena, Y. Zhou, W. Li, and P. J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 21(1):5485-5551, 2020.
  40. D. Hendrycks, X. Liu, E. Wallace, A. Dziedzic, R. Krishnan, and D. Song. Pretrained transformers improve out-of-distribution robustness. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020.
  41. T. Dinh, Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, Z. Lin, M. Gira, S. Rajput, J.-y. Sohn, D. Papailiopoulos, and K. Lee. LIFT: Language-interfaced fine-tuning for non-language machine learning tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  42. S. Chan, A. Santoro, A. Lampinen, J. Wang, A. Singh, P. Richemond, J. McClelland, and F. Hill. Data distributional properties drive emergent in-context learning in transformers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  43. S. Garg, D. Tsipras, P. S. Liang, and G. Valiant. What can transformers learn in-context? a case study of simple function classes. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  44. E. Akyürek, D. Schuurmans, J. Andreas, T. Ma, and D. Zhou. What learning algorithm is in-context learning? investigations with linear models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022.
  45. J. Von Oswald, E. Niklasson, E. Randazzo, J. Sacramento, A. Mordvintsev, A. Zhmoginov, and M. Vladymyrov. Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023.
  46. L. Kirsch, J. Harrison, J. Sohl-Dickstein, and L. Metz. General-purpose in-context learning by meta-learning transformers. In Workshop on Meta-Learning at NeurIPS, 2022.
  47. S. M. Xie, A. Raghunathan, P. Liang, and T. Ma. An explanation of in-context learning as implicit bayesian inference. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022.
  48. X. Wang, W. Zhu, and W. Y. Wang. Large language models are implicitly topic models: Explaining and finding good demonstrations for in-context learning. arXiv:2301.11916, 2023. · arXiv
  49. S. C. Chan, I. Dasgupta, J. Kim, D. Kumaran, A. K. Lampinen, and F. Hill. Transformers generalize differently from information stored in context vs in weights. arXiv:2210.05675, 2022. · arXiv
  50. R. N. Shepard and J.-J. Chang. Stimulus generalization in the learning of classifications. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(1):94, 1963.
  51. F. G. Ashby and J. T. Townsend. Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93(2):154, 1986.
  52. L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  53. M. Chen, J. Tworek, H. Jun, Q. Yuan, H. P. d. O. Pinto, J. Kaplan, H. Edwards, Y. Burda, N. Joseph, G. Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv:2107.03374, 2021. · arXiv
  54. A. Chowdhery, S. Narang, J. Devlin, M. Bosma, G. Mishra, A. Roberts, P. Barham, H. W. Chung, C. Sutton, S. Gehrmann, et al. PaLM: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv:2204.02311, 2022. · arXiv
  55. R. Anil, A. M. Dai, O. Firat, M. Johnson, D. Lepikhin, A. Passos, S. Shakeri, E. Taropa, P. Bailey, Z. Chen, et al. PaLM 2 Technical Report. arXiv:2305.10403, 2023. · arXiv
  56. A. Zeng, A. Wong, S. Welker, K. Choromanski, F. Tombari, A. Purohit, M. Ryoo, V. Sindhwani, J. Lee, V. Vanhoucke, et al. Socratic Models: Composing zero-shot multimodal reasoning with language. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023.
  57. C. H. Song, J. Wu, C. Washington, B. M. Sadler, W.-L. Chao, and Y. Su. LLM-Planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models. arXiv:2212.04088, 2022. · arXiv
  58. W. Huang, F. Xia, D. Shah, D. Driess, A. Zeng, Y. Lu, P. Florence, I. Mordatch, S. Levine, K. Hausman, et al. Grounded Decoding: Guiding text generation with grounded models for robot control. arXiv:2303.00855, 2023. · arXiv
  59. G. Wang, Y. Xie, Y. Jiang, A. Mandlekar, C. Xiao, Y. Zhu, L. Fan, and A. Anandkumar. Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models. arXiv:2305.16291, 2023. · arXiv
  60. M. Laskin, L. Wang, J. Oh, E. Parisotto, S. Spencer, R. Steigerwald, D. Strouse, S. Hansen, A. Filos, E. Brooks, et al. In-context reinforcement learning with algorithm distillation. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023.
  61. M. Xu, Y. Shen, S. Zhang, Y. Lu, D. Zhao, J. Tenenbaum, and C. Gan. Prompting decision transformer for few-shot policy generalization. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2022.
  62. Y. Zhang, D. Huang, B. Liu, S. Tang, Y. Lu, L. Chen, L. Bai, Q. Chu, N. Yu, and W. Ouyang. MotionGPT: Finetuned LLMs are General-Purpose Motion Generators. arXiv:2306.10900, 2023. · arXiv
  63. J. N. Lee, A. Xie, A. Pacchiano, Y. Chandak, C. Finn, O. Nachum, and E. Brunskill. Supervised Pretraining Can Learn In-Context Reinforcemenet Learning. arXiv:2306.14892, 2023. · arXiv
  64. T. Webb, K. J. Holyoak, and H. Lu. Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models. Nature Human Behaviour, pages 1-16, 2023.
  65. E. Brooks, L. Walls, R. L. Lewis, and S. Singh. In-Context Policy Iteration. arXiv:2210.03821, 2022. · arXiv
  66. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017.
  67. D. Zhou, N. Schärli, L. Hou, J. Wei, N. Scales, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, O. Bousquet, Q. Le, and E. Chi. Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023.
  68. Y. Xu, W. Li, P. Vaezipoor, S. Sanner, and E. B. Khalil. Llms and the abstraction and reasoning corpus: Successes, failures, and the importance of object-based representations. arXiv:2305.18354, 2023. · arXiv
  69. R. Wang, E. Zelikman, G. Poesia, Y. Pu, N. Haber, and N. D. Goodman. Hypothesis search: Inductive reasoning with language models. arXiv:2309.05660, 2023. · arXiv
  70. A. Srivastava, A. Rastogi, A. Rao, A. A. M. Shoeb, A. Abid, A. Fisch, A. R. Brown, A. Santoro, A. Gupta, A. Garriga-Alonso, et al. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR), 2022.
  71. R. Sennrich, B. Haddow, and A. Birch. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015.
  72. T. Kudo and J. Richardson. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2018.
  73. D. Hupkes, V. Dankers, M. Mul, and E. Bruni. Compositionality decomposed: How do neural networks generalise? Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 2020.
  74. Z. Allen-Zhu and Y. Li. Physics of Language Models: Part 1, Context-Free Grammar. arXiv:2305.13673, 2023. · arXiv
  75. L. Chen, K. Lu, A. Rajeswaran, K. Lee, A. Grover, M. Laskin, P. Abbeel, A. Srinivas, and I. Mordatch. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021.
  76. F. Kaplan, P.-Y. Oudeyer, E. Kubinyi, and A. Miklósi. Robotic clicker training. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 38(3-4):197-206, 2002.
  77. S. Li, X. Puig, C. Paxton, Y. Du, C. Wang, L. Fan, T. Chen, D.-A. Huang, E. Akyürek, A. Anandkumar, et al. Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  78. D. Driess, F. Xia, M. S. Sajjadi, C. Lynch, A. Chowdhery, B. Ichter, A. Wahid, J. Tompson, Q. Vuong, T. Yu, et al. PaLM-E: An embodied multimodal language model. arXiv:2303.03378, 2023. · arXiv
  79. O. Zafrir, G. Boudoukh, P. Izsak, and M. Wasserblat. Q8bert: Quantized 8bit bert. In Fifth Workshop on Energy Efficient Machine Learning and Cognitive Computing-NeurIPS Edition (EMC2-NIPS), pages 36-39. IEEE, 2019.
  80. T. Dao, D. Fu, S. Ermon, A. Rudra, and C. Ré. Flashattention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  81. F. Paischer, T. Adler, V. Patil, A. Bitto-Nemling, M. Holzleitner, S. Lehner, H. Eghbal-Zadeh, and S. Hochreiter. History compression via language models in reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2022.
  82. K. Ellis, C. Wong, M. Nye, M. Sablé-Meyer, L. Morales, L. Hewitt, L. Cary, A. Solar-Lezama, and J. B. Tenenbaum. DreamCoder: Bootstrapping Inductive Program Synthesis with Wake-Sleep Library Learning. In ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), 2021.
  83. K. Ellis, L. Morales, M. Sablé-Meyer, A. Solar-Lezama, and J. Tenenbaum. Learning libraries of subroutines for neurally-guided bayesian program induction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  84. M. F. Cusumano-Towner, F. A. Saad, A. K. Lew, and V. K. Mansinghka. Gen: A General-Purpose Proba- bilistic Programming System with Programmable Inference. In ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), 2019. 71: 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , ... 72: 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , ... 80: 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , ... 90: 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 104 83 123 , 105 83 123 , 105 83 123 , 106 83 123 , 106 83 123 , 107 83 123 , 108 83 122 , 109 83 122 , 110 83 122 , 111 83 121 , 112 82 120 , 113 82 119 , 113 82 118 , 114 81 118 , 115 81 117 , 115 81 116 , 115 80 115 , 116 80 114 , 116 80 113 , 117 79 112 , 117 79 111 , 118 79 110 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 , 118 78 109 100: 104 83 123

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mirchandani, S., Xia, F., Florence, P., Ichter, B., Driess, D., Arenas, M. G., Rao, K., Sadigh, D., & Zeng, A.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2307.04721
arXiv
2307.04721
OpenAlex
W4383994288
Cited by
49
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
large language models, pattern completion, in-context learning, probabilistic context-free grammars, Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, robot control, least-to-most prompting

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