PARTNR: A Benchmark for Planning and Reasoning in Embodied Multi-agent Tasks
Open accessAbstract
We present a benchmark for Planning And Reasoning Tasks in humaN-Robot collaboration (PARTNR) designed to study human-robot coordination in household activities. PARTNR tasks exhibit characteristics of everyday tasks, such as spatial, temporal, and heterogeneous agent capability constraints. We employ a semi-automated task generation pipeline using Large Language Models (LLMs), incorporating simulation in the loop for grounding and verification. PARTNR stands as the largest benchmark of its kind, comprising 100,000 natural language tasks, spanning 60 houses and 5,819 unique objects. We analyze state-of-the-art LLMs on PARTNR tasks, across the axes of planning, perception and skill execution. The analysis reveals significant limitations in SoTA models, such as poor coordination and failures in task tracking and recovery from errors. When LLMs are paired with real humans, they require 1.5x as many steps as two humans collaborating and 1.1x more steps than a single human, underscoring the potential for improvement in these models. We further show that fine-tuning smaller LLMs with planning data can achieve performance on par with models 9 times larger, while being 8.6x faster at inference. Overall, PARTNR highlights significant challenges facing collaborative embodied agents and aims to drive research in this direction.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
1 of 6 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged
- Background
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).”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified1 of 3 sources checked - Finding
The dataset contains 100,000 natural-language tasks spanning 60 houses and 5,819 unique objects.
“PARTNR stands as the largest benchmark of its kind, comprising 100,000 natural language tasks, spanning 60 houses and 5,819 unique objects.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Finding
Fine-tuning smaller LLMs with planning data can match much larger models while running faster at inference.
“We further show that fine-tuning smaller LLMs with planning data can achieve performance on par with models 9 times larger, while being 8.6x faster at inference.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Finding
Their analysis finds that SoTA models often fail at coordination, task tracking, and recovering from errors.
“The analysis reveals significant limitations in SoTA models, such as poor coordination and failures in task tracking and recovery from errors.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Finding
When paired with real humans, LLMs take more steps than human-only collaboration or even a single human.
“When LLMs are paired with real humans, they require 1.5x as many steps as two humans collaborating and 1.1x more steps than a single human, underscoring the potential for improvement in these models.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified
- Finding
Decentralized settings produce much more extraneous agent effort than single-agent settings.
“We find a 300% increase in extraneous effort in decentralized multi-agent settings compared to single-agent (Table 12), indicating a significant coordination burden.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Finding
The robot can offload about 60% of subtasks in decentralized multi-agent settings, which reduces human effort.
“Despite similar success rates between single-and multi-agent (0.73 vs. 0.74), the robot offloads about 60% of sub-tasks in decentralized multi-agent, reducing human effort (Table 12).”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Finding
In the main experiments, decentralized LLM planners perform worse than the privileged heuristic expert because they make task-tracking and semantic mistakes.
“LLM-based baselines across all observability and controllability conditions perform worse than the privileged heuristic expert, due to errors in task tracking (not completing all steps, performing them in the wrong order, or undoing completed steps), and semantic errors (placing objects on the wrong furniture, or moving the wrong object), indicating a gap in LLM task planning.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Finding
Decentralized planners are slower than centralized planners and also slower than a single-agent baseline, indicating a coordination burden.
“Decentralized ReAct baselines which do not have privileged access to partner's intent are significantly slower at task completion than centralized ReAct (3295 steps with decentralized-partial in row(e) versus 2298 with centralized-partial in row(d)).”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Background
The paper introduces PARTNR, a benchmark for human-robot collaboration on natural-language household tasks in embodied environments.
“We present a benchmark for Planning And Reasoning Tasks in humaN-Robot collaboration (PARTNR) designed to study human-robot coordination in household activities.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Method
The benchmark uses 1,000 human-verified instructions and evaluation functions as seeds for scaling up to 100,000 tasks.
“Specifically, we generate 1,000 human-verified instructions and corresponding evaluation functions and use them as in-prompt examples to scale to 100,000 tasks in other scenes with different layouts and objects.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Background
To address that gap, the authors introduce PARTNR as a benchmark for embodied agents that collaborate with humans in simulated indoor environments.
“To bridge this gap, we introduce Planning And Reasoning Tasks in humaN-Robot collaboration (PARTNR), a novel benchmark that evaluates the ability of embodied AI agents to collaborate with humans across a range of household activities in simulated indoor environments (Figure 1).”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Method
The benchmark uses a semi-automated generation pipeline that relies on LLMs and simulation-in-the-loop grounding and verification.
“We employ a semi-automated task generation pipeline using Large Language Models (LLMs), incorporating simulation in the loop for grounding and verification.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Method
The authors evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs on planning, perception, and skill execution in PARTNR.
“We analyze state-of-the-art LLMs on PARTNR tasks, across the axes of planning, perception and skill execution.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Background
PARTNR is meant to advance research on collaborative embodied agents.
“Overall, PARTNR highlights significant challenges facing collaborative embodied agents and aims to drive research in this direction.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Background
PARTNR covers four task families: constraint-free, spatial, temporal, and heterogeneous.
“PARTNR covers four types of tasks: (1) Constraint-free tasks, where sub-tasks can be completed in any manner by either agent.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Background
PARTNR tasks include everyday spatial, temporal, and heterogeneous capability constraints.
“PARTNR tasks exhibit characteristics of everyday tasks, such as spatial, temporal, and heterogeneous agent capability constraints.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Method
The dataset includes 100,000 train episodes and 1,000 validation and 1,000 test episodes from HSSD scenes.
“The PARTNR dataset comprises of 100,000 episodes in 37 train scenes, 1,000 episodes in 13 validation scenes, and 1,000 episodes in 10 test scenes from the HSSD dataset (Khanna et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified0 of 1 sources checked- cites Khanna et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Method
The authors use simulation and human filtering to remove tasks that are impossible or physically infeasible.
“The tasks and initial states generated by the LLM are instantiated within the simulator.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Method
The evaluation pipeline uses LLM-generated predicate-based programs and an expressive vocabulary of propositions, dependencies, and constraints.
“Specifically, we leverage the ability of LLMs to generate predicate-based Python programs using three types of APIs: a list of propositions indicating what relations between entities must be satisfied, a set of dependencies indicating when propositions should be queried, and a set of constraints indicating how propositions must be satisfied.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Method
The benchmark represents tasks with a textual world graph that tracks rooms, furniture, movable objects, and their semantic and geometric attributes.
“We also use a textual world graph with a three-layer hierarchy rep-resenting rooms, furniture, and movable objects.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Method
PARTNR tasks are evaluated with a Python-based system built from propositions, dependencies, and constraints rather than PDDL or BDDL.
“We choose to build a new Python-based evaluation system since neither have the expressivity to evaluate PARTNR tasks while maintaining human and LLM interpretability; for instance, BDDL does not support time-varying evaluation.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Method
Simulation-in-the-loop is used to reduce hallucinations and infeasible actions during task generation.
“A unique aspect of our automatic generation is the integration of an embodied simulator within the generation loop, which significantly reduces LLM errors such as hallucinations and infeasible actions.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified - Method
The baseline stack uses a two-layer hierarchical controller with high-level planning over a predefined skill library.
“We adopt a two-layer hierarchical control architecture, similar to (Puig et al., 2024;Szot et al., 2021), as illustrated in Figure 5, for the robot and simulated human.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classified0 of 2 sources checked- cites Puig et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Szot et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Conflicting success rates for the non-privileged ReAct baseline
MajorThe main results table reports a 0.30 success rate for this baseline, while the appendix test-set results report 0.25 for the same configuration. Other reported metrics for the row also differ, making the conclusion-bearing result unclear.
“(i) ReAct Decentralized Learned ConceptGraph 12490.80 ± 208.90 0.30 ± 0.01 0.56 ± 0.01 23.84 ± 0.45”
“ReAct Decentralized Learned ConceptGraph 12274.27± 212.65 0.25 ± 0.01 0.53 ± 0.01 26.74 ± 0.45”
Universal ambiguity claim conflicts with the reported sample
MajorThe appendix says every episode contains resolvable ambiguity, but the linguistic-analysis table reports that characteristic in 68% of its sampled episodes.
“We find that every episode contains at least one occurrence of resolvable ambiguity”
“| Resolvable Ambiguity | 68 1.68 | Move the pants to any chair. |”
Appendix gives different validation-set completion steps
MajorThe appendix reports 3275 steps for Finetuned and 4484 for ReAct on the validation set. The main-text account of those results gives 3443 and 4267, respectively.
“the finetuned model is faster than ReAct at task completion (3275 steps with finetuned versus 4484 with ReAct on the validation set).”
“the finetuned model is faster than ReAct at task completion (3443 steps with finetuned versus 4267 with ReAct).”
Dependent-rearrangement prevalence changes from 7% to 31%
MajorThe dataset description says 7% of tasks contain dependent rearrangements, but the appendix says this characteristic occurs in 31% of episodes.
“7% of tasks include dependent rearranges and 6% include multi-step rearrangement.”
“This occurs in 31% of episodes and the resulting dynamic dependency is a challenging aspect of collaboration.”
Human-LLM success rates are assigned to the wrong models
MinorThe prose assigns success rates of 0.92 to ReAct and 0.91 to Finetuned. Table 3 reports the reverse: 0.91 for Human-ReAct and 0.92 for Human-Finetuned.
“the LLM baselines like ReAct and Finetuned achieve a success rate of 0.92 and 0.91 when evaluated with real humans (Table 3)”
“Human-ReAct 0.91 ± 0.01 0.96 ± 0.02 4267.71 ± 83.40 0.16 ± 0.01 2624.39 ± 26.05 0.12 ± 0.01 Human-Finetuned 0.92 ± 0.01 0.96 ± 0.00 3443.33 ± 61.46 0.26 ± 0.01 2164.94 ± 21.31 0.13 ± 0.01”
Appendix exploration-step figures disagree with Table 3
MinorThe appendix gives 2120 exploration steps for Finetuned and 2791 for ReAct when paired with humans. Table 3 instead reports 2164.94 and 2624.39 for those teams.
“However, this efficiency is reduced when humans are paired with LLMs (2120 steps with finetuned and 2791 steps with ReAct)”
“Human-ReAct 0.91 ± 0.01 0.96 ± 0.02 4267.71 ± 83.40 0.16 ± 0.01 2624.39 ± 26.05 0.12 ± 0.01 Human-Finetuned 0.92 ± 0.01 0.96 ± 0.00 3443.33 ± 61.46 0.26 ± 0.01 2164.94 ± 21.31 0.13 ± 0.01”
Planner-call cap differs for centralized experiments
MinorThe results section says every experiment is capped at 50 planner calls, whereas the implementation details give centralized baselines a cap of 100.
“We cap the maximum planner calls at 50 in all experiments.”
“All decentralized baselines had a maximum timeout of 50 replanning calls, while centralized baselines had a maximum timeout of 100 replanning calls (to account for the fact that one planner would need to plan for both agents).”
Success threshold conflicts with the defined completion scale
MinorThe paper defines percent completion on a 0-to-1 scale and success as completion equal to 1. The appendix instead defines success as completion equal to 100, despite describing completion there as a ratio.
“Success is defined as S := (P C = 100).”
“Percent Complete (PC ∈ [0, 1]), the % of propositions that are satisfied w.r.t.constraints, (2) Success (S ∈ {True, False}), measuring if a task was successfully completed, defined as S := (PC = 1)”
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- [6]6. Micah Carroll, Rohin Shah, Mark K Ho, Tom Griffiths, Sanjit Seshia, Pieter Abbeel, and Anca Dragan. On the utility of learning about humans for human-ai coordination. In NeurIPS, 2019.
- [8]8. Abhishek Das, Samyak Datta, Georgia Gkioxari, Stefan Lee, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Embodied question answering. In CVPR, 2018.
- [9]9. Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. In ICML, 2023.
- [10]10. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv, 2024.
- [14]14. Qiao Gu, Alihusein Kuwajerwala, Sacha Morin, Krishna Murthy Jatavallabhula, Bipasha Sen, Aditya Agarwal, Corban Rivera, William Paul, Kirsty Ellis, Rama Chellappa, Chuang Gan, Celso Miguel de Melo, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Antonio Torralba, Florian Shkurti, and Liam Paull. Conceptgraphs: Open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for perception and planning. In ICRA, 2024.
- [16]16. Edward J Hu, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In ICLR, 2021.
- [18]18. Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, Pierre Sermanet, Tomas Jackson, Noah Brown, Linda Luu, Sergey Levine, Karol Xavier Puig, Eric Undersander, Andrew Szot, Mikael Dallaire Cote, Tsung-Yen Yang, Ruslan Partsey, Ruta Desai, Alexander William Clegg, Michal Hlavac, So Yeon Min, Vladimír Vondruš, Theophile Gervet, Vincent-Pierre Berges, John M. Turner, Oleksandr Maksymets, Zsolt Kira, Mrinal Kalakrishnan, Jitendra Malik, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Unnat Jain, Dhruv Batra, Akshara Rai, and Roozbeh Mottaghi. Habitat 3.0: A co-habitat for humans, avatars and robots. In ICLR, 2024.
- [20]20. Krishan Rana, Jesse Haviland, Sourav Garg, Jad Abou-Chakra, Ian Reid, and Niko Suenderhauf. Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable robot task planning. In CoRL, 2023.
- [22]22. Baptiste Roziere, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Tal Remez, Jérémy Rapin, et al. Code llama: Open foundation models for code. arXiv, 2023.
- [25]25. Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning. In ICLR, 2021.
- [26]26. Sanjana Srivastava, Chengshu Li, Michael Lingelbach, Roberto Martín-Martín, Fei Xia, Kent Elliott Vainio, Zheng Lian, Cem Gokmen, Shyamal Buch, Karen Liu, Silvio Savarese, Hyowon Gweon, Jiajun Wu, and Li Fei-Fei. Behavior: Benchmark for everyday household activities in virtual, interactive, and ecological environments. In CoRL, 2022.
- [31]31. Yufei Wang, Zhou Xian, Feng Chen, Tsun-Hsuan Wang, Yian Wang, Katerina Fragkiadaki, Zackory Erickson, David Held, and Chuang Gan. Robogen: Towards unleashing infinite data for automated robot learning via generative simulation. In ICML, 2024.
- [33]33. Zhou Xian, Theophile Gervet, Zhenjia Xu, Yi-Ling Qiao, and Tsun-Hsuan Wang. Towards a foundation model for generalist robots: Diverse skill learning at scale via automated task and scene generation. arXiv, 2023.
- [36]36. Sriram Yenamandra, Arun Ramachandran, Karmesh Yadav, Austin Wang, Mukul Khanna, Theophile Gervet, Tsung- Yen Yang, Vidhi Jain, Alexander William Clegg, John Turner, et al. Homerobot: Open-vocabulary mobile manipulation. In CoRL, 2023.
- [38]38. Andy Zeng, Maria Attarian, Krzysztof Marcin Choromanski, Adrian Wong, Stefan Welker, Federico Tombari, Aveek Purohit, Michael S Ryoo, Vikas Sindhwani, Johnny Lee, et al. Socratic models: Composing zero-shot multimodal reasoning with language. In ICLR, 2022.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
PlanGenLLMs: A Modern Survey of LLM Planning Capabilities
Wei, H., Zhang, Z., He, S., Xia, T., Pan, S., & Liu, F. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.11221 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Habitat-Web: Learning Embodied Object-Search Strategies from Human Demonstrations at Scale
Ramrakhya, R., Undersander, E., Batra, D., & Das, A. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.00511 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Self-citationMulti-agent Embodied AI: Advances and Future Directions
Feng, Z., Xue, R., Yuan, L., Yu, Y., Ding, N., Liu, M., Gao, B., Sun, J., Zheng, X., & Wang, G. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.05108 · Cited by 23
“Grid-MAPF formalizes various conflict types (e.g., vertex, edge, swapping) and supports multiple objectives such as makespan and sum of costs, enabling standardized and reproducible comparisons across MAPF algorithms.”
Wang, L.-Y., Xia, X., Zhao, H., et al. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv51701.2025.00882 · Cited by 43
“PARTNR [8] provides a benchmark for planning tasks in human-robot collaboration, focusing on studying human-robot coordination in household environments.”
Large Language Models for Planning: A Comprehensive and Systematic Survey
Cao, P., Men, T., Liu, W., Zhang, J., Li, X., Lin, X., Sui, D., Cao, Y., Liu, K., & Zhao, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.19683 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“…this domain, a range of benchmark datasets has been developed, including ALFWorld [213], ALFRED [212], VirtualHome [187], ScienceWorld [254], Watch&Help [188], LangSuit·E [103], ActPlan-1K [226], PARTNR [20], Embodied Agent Interface [136], LoTa-Bench [38], GOAT-Bench [117], and BEHAVIOR-1K [130].”
PlanGenLLMs: A Modern Survey of LLM Planning Capabilities
Wei, H., Zhang, Z., He, S., Xia, T., Pan, S., & Liu, F. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.958 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Lykov, A., Serpiva, V., Khan, M. H., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.01378 · Cited by 30
“…collaboration and domestic assistance — including humanoids such as Tesla Optimus, Agility Robotics [9], and FIGURE, as well as quadrupedal platforms like CognitiveDog [10] and Dog-gyBot [11] — the open-source PARTNR benchmark [12] has been introduced to facilitate objective comparisons.”
A Survey on the Feedback Mechanism of LLM-based AI Agents
Liu, Z., Bai, X.-F., Chen, K.-H., Chen, X.-Y., Li, X., Xiang, Y., Liu, J., Li, H.-D., Wang, Y., Nie, L., et al. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2025/1175 · Cited by 33
“Common benchmarks include RocoBench [Mandi et al. , 2024], PARTNR [Chang et al. , 2024], and VillagerBench [Dong et al. , 2024].”
Embodied AI with Foundation Models for Mobile Service Robots: A Systematic Review
Lisondra, M., Benhabib, B., & Nejat, G. (2026) · Robotics · doi:10.3390/robotics15030055 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“Effective HRI requires mobile service robots to detect uncertain or ambiguous human behaviors such as gestures, gaze direction, and to communicate their own uncertainty clearly during task execution.”
Collaborating Action by Action: A Multi-agent LLM Framework for Embodied ReasoningPreprint
White, I., Nottingham, K., Maniar, A., Robinson, M., Lillemark, H., Maheshwari, M., Qin, L., & Ammanabrolu, P. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.17950
“Habitat AI and the corresponding dataset of instructions PARTNR [8] creates a large dataset of human-AI collaborative tasks.”
VIKI-R: Coordinating Embodied Multi-Agent Cooperation via Reinforcement Learning
Kang, L., Song, X.-F., Zhou, H., et al. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.09049 · Cited by 18
“Unlike prior work [8, 20] that focuses solely on the observing agent, our setting requires predicting both the trajectory of the ego agent and those of other visible agents to facilitate collaboration, which are referred as the ego-trajectory and partner-trajectories , respectively.”
InfluentialEgoNormia: Benchmarking Physical Social Norm Understanding
Rezaei, M., Fu, Y., Cuvin, P., Ziems, C., Zhang, Y., Zhu, H., & Yang, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.20490
“The answer to this question is critical if VLM-based agents are expected to collaborate and coordinate with humans (Chang et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2024b), safely (Zhou et al., 2024a) and responsibly (He et al., 2024).”
A Call for Collaborative Intelligence: Why Human-Agent Systems Should Precede AI Autonomy
Zou, H. P., Huang, W.-C., Wu, Y.-Z., Miao, C.-Y., Li, D.-Y., Liu, A., Zhou, Y., Chen, Y.-K., Zhang, W.-Z., Li, Y.-N., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.09420 · Cited by 16
“Specifically, in Embodied AI , LLM-HAS enables agents to follow complex instructions and coordinate physical tasks with humans using natural language [6, 78].”
CREW-WILDFIRE: Benchmarking Agentic Multi-Agent Collaborations at ScalePreprint
Hyun, J., Waytowich, N. R., & Chen, B.-Y. (2025) · Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.05178 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Orchestrating Human-AI Teams: The Manager Agent as aUnifying Research Challenge
Masters, C., Vellanki, A., Shangguan, J., Kultys, B., Gilmore, J., Moore, A. P., & Albrecht, S. V. (2025) · International Conference on Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) · doi:10.1145/3772429.3772439 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Aggregation uses zeroing gate:”
ViGiL3D: A Linguistically Diverse Dataset for 3D Visual Grounding
Wang, A. T., Gong, Z., & Chang, A. X. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.01366 · Cited by 11
“Secondly, VLMs do not inherently generate diverse descriptions, relying on in-context examples to condition the distribution (Chang et al., 2024).”
Liu, Y., Chen, W.-X., Song, X.-S., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.16636 · Cited by 10
“Embodied Agent Interface formalizes common LLM decision modules and fine-grained error metrics, while PARTNR exposes persistent task-tracking, coordination, and error-recovery failures in collaborative embodied agents [15, 55].”
COOPERA: Continual Open-Ended Human-Robot Assistance
Ma, C.-Y., Lu, K., Desai, R., et al. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.23495 · Cited by 9
“We assess the assistive agent’s performance using F1-based success rate across three methods, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation from simulation to real-world perspectives, incorporating prior HRC approaches [51, 8].”
InfluentialSelf-citationA multi-user multi-robot multi-goal multi-device human-robot interaction manipulation benchmark
Yoshida, A., Dossa, R. F. J., Vincenzo, M. D., Sujit, S., Douglas, H., & Arulkumaran, K. (2025) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2025.1528754 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“…al., 2023; Thumm et al., 2024; Mandi et al., 2024), or planning and control of robots or embodied agents via natural language (Mandi et al., 2024; Chang et al., 2024), our benchmark enables investigation of the usability, scalability and ease-of-use of different input modalities under multi-user…”
InfluentialPLANET: A Collection of Benchmarks for Evaluating LLMs' Planning Capabilities
Li, H., Chen, Z., Zhang, J., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.14773 · Cited by 9
“…153 household activities in iGibson with natural-language instructions and corresponding scene images to test procedural plan generation; PARTNR (Chang et al., 2024) is a large-scale human–robot collaboration benchmark featuring about 100,000 language-described household tasks across 60…”
When Should Users Check? Modeling Confirmation Frequency in Multi-Step Agentic AI Tasks
Zhou, J.-Y., Roy, A., Gupta, S., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790655 · Cited by 8
“These AI agents have been deployed across diverse domains, including multi-modal devices [16, 75], web-based systems [37, 49, 51], and game controls [46, 92, 97].”
InfluentialModeling Others' Minds as Code
Jha, K., Huang, A., Ye, E., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01272 · Cited by 8
“For the partially observable Partnr environment, we used the LLM agents defined in (Chang et al., 2025) to generate state-action pairs for a robot assistant completing diverse tasks (i.e. “clean all toys in the bedroom”) from their “train” and “validation” datasets.”
InfluentialRoboAgent: Chaining Basic Capabilities for Embodied Task Planning
Xu, P.-R., Zheng, J., & Mu, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.07774 · Cited by 7
“In addition, there are also studies focusing on developing generalist foundation models for embodied intelligence [1, 4, 22, 37, 67, 73, 103, 104, 123, 142], as well as creating more comprehensive evaluation benchmarks [10, 11, 15, 27, 44, 46, 53, 61, 65, 68, 116, 125].”
MageBench: Bridging Large Multimodal Models to Agents
Zhang, M., Dai, Q., Yang, Y.-F., et al. (2024) · IEEE Workshop/Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61042.2026.00144 · Cited by 7
MA-EgoQA: Question Answering over Egocentric Videos from Multiple Embodied Agents
Kim, K., Yang, Y., Kim, S., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.09827 · Cited by 6
“It is also shown that structured and leadership prompting enhances teamwork efficiency and reduces unnecessary communication [14], and PARTNR [5] built a large-scale human–robot collaboration benchmark, demonstrating that even state-of-the-art LLM-based systems still face limitations in planning…”
GauDP: Reinventing Multi-Agent Collaboration through Gaussian-Image Synergy in Diffusion Policies
Wang, Z.-Y., Kang, L., Qin, Y., et al. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.00998 · Cited by 6
“Multi-agent embodied collaboration [1, 2, 3, 4] is emerging as a key enabler in a wide range of real-world domains, including industrial assembly [5], surgical robotics [6], and assistive household [7] tasks.”
Agent Identity Evals: Measuring Agentic Identity
Perrier, E., & Bennett, M. T. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.17257 · Cited by 6
“[31] MLAgentBench [32] ✓ AgentSims [33] ✓ ✓ CharacterEval [34] ✓ ✓ CVE-Bench [35] ✓ ✓ MultiAgentBench [36] ✓ ✓ ✓ ELT-Bench [37] ✓ ✓ Benchmarking Agentic Workflow Generation [38] ✓ ✓ PARTNR [39] ✓ ✓ ✓”
Wan, H., Chen, Y., Deng, Y., Wei, Z., Li, D., Lin, Z., Wu, D., Cheng, J., & Ji, X. (2025) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros60139.2025.11247740 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“For instance, PARTNER [12] employs a data flywheel in Habitat [13] for data generation and utilizes a ReAct [14] agent for action planning but overlooks impractical scenarios.”
WorldLines: Benchmarking and Modeling Long-Horizon Stateful Embodied Agents
Zhang, Y.-H., Su, J., Huang, H.-J., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.18847 · Cited by 5
“…studies language-conditioned household tasks, ProcTHOR Deitke et al. (2022) and Habitat 3.0 Puig et al. (2024) support simulated navigation and interaction, while PARTNR Chang et al. (2025) and BEHAVIOR-1K Li et al. (2023) focus on collaboration, rearrangement, and long-horizon task execution.”
InfluentialIndustryNav: Exploring Spatial Reasoning of Embodied Agents in Dynamic Industrial Navigation
Li, Y., Li, L.-C., Dao, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.17384 · Cited by 5
“Active exploration benchmarks add multi-step navigation, incorporating strategic search and question-driven exploration (OpenEQA [33]), generalization to unseen scenes [12, 26]), and integrate reasoning for embodied QA [13], emphasizing exploration efficiency under simplified dynamics [7].”
Plan Verification for LLM-Based Embodied Task Completion Agents
Hariharan, A., Dongre, V., Hakkani-Tur, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02761 · Cited by 5
“Future work will extend this framework to vision-grounded settings, explore adversarial robustness of judge prompts, and test the framework’s scalability on larger multi-agent corpora such as PARTNR [19].”
ADAPT: Actively Discovering and Adapting to Preferences for any Task
Patel, M., Puig, X., Desai, R., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.04040 · Cited by 5
“Recent works have showcased the abilities of large language models (LLMs) in open world planning (Chang et al., 2025; Rana et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2023b; Liu et al., 2023; Brohan et al., 2023).”
Self-citationλ: A Benchmark for Data-Efficiency in Long-Horizon Indoor Mobile Manipulation Robotics
Jaafar, A., Raman, S. S., Harithas, S., Wei, Y., Juliani, S., Wernerfelt, A., Quartey, B., Idrees, I., Liu, J. X., & Tellex, S. (2025) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros60139.2025.11246789 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“A few works [7], [8], [9], [10], [4], [11] pair task demonstrations with language instruction annotations and support long-horizon tasks [7], [12], [8], [11], providing an intuitive and accessible interface for specifying robot objectives.”
InfluentialPeng, K.-Y., Zhou, Z.-K., Yang, K., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.18431 · Cited by 4
“PARTNR [8] further provides a large-scale human-robot collaboration benchmark.”
EnactToM: An Evolving Benchmark for Functional Theory of Mind in Embodied Agents
Juneja, G., Lu, D., Agashe, S., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.09826 · Cited by 4
Game-Theoretic Lens on LLM-based Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Hao, J., Ding, H., Xu, Y., Sun, T., Chen, R., Zhang, W., Zhang, G., & Li, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.15047 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Jiang, X., Li, W.-H., Zhang, X.-Q., et al. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.12974 · Cited by 4
“…(Wu et al. 2023; Shridhar et al. 2020; Chen et al. 2024b; Zhang et al. 2024; Hong et al. 2023; Rana et al. 2023; Li et al. 2022; Puig et al. 2023, 2021; Chang et al. 2024; Min et al. 2024) for task planning in 3D scenes are not well-suited for exploring the task of 3D Reasoning-Driven Planning.”
MECoBench: A Systematic Study of Multimodal Agent Collaboration in Embodied Environments
Liu, Q., Zhang, J.-W., Hu, J.-Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.31966 · Cited by 3
“Existing 3D benchmarks often convert visual observations into textual descriptions (Zhang et al., 2024a; Mandi et al., 2024; Chang et al., 2025; Dong et al., 2024; White et al., 2025), decoupling visual grounding and exploration from collaborative decision-making and overlooking behaviors unique to…”
LLawCo: Learning Laws of Cooperation for Modeling Embodied Multi-Agent BehaviorPreprint
Zhou, Q., Gan, C., & Cherian, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.28182
“For PARTNR-Dialog, following PARTNR (Chang et al., 2024), we report four primary metrics: percentage complete, success rate, steps, and replan rounds.”
InfluentialPACT: Proactive Asking for Continual Task Assistance in Human-Robot Collaboration
He, C., Li, S., Ma, C.-Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24350 · Cited by 3
Active Inference AI Systems for Scientific Discovery
Duraisamy, K. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.21329 · Cited by 3
“Early exemplars such as DiscoveryWorld [28], PARTNR [12] and SciHorizon [54] represent steps towards this direction.”
DeliveryGym: An RL Environment for Long-Horizon Embodied Agent Planning with Adaptive Curriculum
Kang, H., Zhang, Y.-M., Guo, Y.-Y., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.19801 · Cited by 2
“…et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2021; Deitke et al., 2022; Puig et al., 2018; Shridhar et al., 2020; 2021; Padmakumar et al., 2022; Li et al., 2024; Chang et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2025b); Mine-Dojo, Voyager, Crafter, and NetHack stress open-world and procedurally generated play (Fan et al.,…”
MAGMA-GEN: Validated Recovery Supervision from Ambiguous Failures via Counterfactual Re-Execution
Bernat, L., Grard, M., Herbulot, A., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.20056 · Cited by 2
“Benchmarks such as AL-FRED, CALVIN, VLABench, and PARTNR emphasize multi-step embodied reasoning [21, 1, 3, 2].”
HumanCLAW: Can Vision-Language Models Act Through a Body?
Li, S., Gu, J., Liu, S., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.27180 · Cited by 2
“…the stairs and go to the 2 nd floor” “find the long sofa and sit on it” scripts, or pre-animated routines (Puig et al., 2018; Shridhar et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2024; Chang et al., 2025), so the model never has to realize full-body behavior whose physical consequences emerge from the motion itself.”
Embodied Multi-Agent Coordination by Aligning World Models Through Dialogue
Dongre, V., & Hakkani-Tür, D. Z. (2026) · SIGDIAL Conferences · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.12920 · Cited by 2
“We study this question in the PARTNR benchmark for collaborative household robotics (Szot et al., 2024), extended with a dialogue channel that allows two LLM agents with partial observability grounded in the household environment to exchange free-form natural-language messages during task execution.”
EmbodiedGovBench: A Benchmark for Governance, Recovery, and Upgrade Safety in Embodied Agent Systems
Qin, X., Luan, S.-M., See, J., Yang, C., & Li, Z.-J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.11174 · Cited by 3
“…navigation [6, 7], manipulation [8, 9, 21], sim-to-real transfer [22, 23], procedural generation [10], long-horizon instruction following with foundation models [24, 1, 2, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29], multi-agent embodied planning [30], embodied question answering [31], and lifelong navigation [32].”
Decentralized Intent-Based Multi-Robot Task Planner with LLM Oracles on Hyperledger Fabric
Keramat, F., Salimi, S., & Westerlund, T. (2026) · Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference · doi:10.1109/compsac69091.2026.00328 · Cited by 2
“ALFRED [21] maps natural language to action sequences in household environments, while PARTNR [22] focuses on reasoning in human-robot collaboration.”
CleanUpBench: Embodied Sweeping and Grasping Benchmark
Li, W.-B., Chen, G.-T., Zhao, T., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.05543 · Cited by 2
“Embod-iedBench (Yang et al. 2025) emphasizes perception-action loops (Cai et al. 2025) across diverse tasks with comprehensive multi-modal large language model evaluation, but primarily targets single-interaction (Lai et al. 2025c) modalities without coordinated dual-mode behaviors.”
Lou, J., Yang, Y.-R., Wang, H.-P., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.18520 · Cited by 1
“However, the evaluated agents still struggle to coordinate their actions, track task progress, and recover from errors [23].”
Yin, Q.-D., Liu, R.-P., Peng, K.-Y., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.18292 · Cited by 1
“Habitat 3.0 [20] supports collaborative tasks involving humans and robots, and Chang et al. [3] evaluate planning and reasoning in embodied multi-agent tasks.”
InfluentialWhen Replanning Becomes the Bottleneck: Budgeted Replanning for Embodied Agents
Liu, S.-J., You, F.-Y., Chen, X.-W., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.01428 · Cited by 1
“…Szot et al., 2021; Puig et al., 2024; Deitke et al., 2022; Chevalier-Boisvert et al., 2019; Shridhar et al., 2020; Pad-makumar et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2025b; Zha et al., 2025; Chang et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025a; Zu et al., 2025; Kang et al., 2025; Nasiriany et al., 2024).”
CAIRN: Cross-Room 3D Scene Understanding with Topology-Aware Large Multimodal Models
Liang, H., Ma, C.-Y., Zhang, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.06534 · Cited by 1
“Simulators that provide multi-room household environments [27, 40, 42] enable challenging multi-room tasks such as human-robot collaboration [4, 41], long-horizon robot task planning [17, 35, 36, 45], and navigation [51, 55].”
LLM-WikiRace Benchmark: How Far Can LLMs Plan over Real-World Knowledge Graphs?
Ziomek, J., Bankes, W., Wolf, L., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.16902 · Cited by 1
“Planning is also central to multimodal, embodied benchmarks (Shridhar et al., 2020a;b; Chen et al., 2023; Su et al., 2024; Chang et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2025; Yin et al., 2024).”
Advances and Innovations in the Multi-Agent Robotic System (MARS) Challenge
Kang, L., Zhou, H., Song, X.-F., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.18733 · Cited by 1
“In 2D, LLM-Co [1] and Overcooked [6] focus on strategic coordination, while 3D benchmarks like WAH [30] and PARTNR [7] address social intelligence and collaborative visual planning.”
Detecting Non-Optimal Decisions of Embodied Agents via Diversity-Guided Metamorphic Testing
Wu, W.-Z., Tang, Y.-H., Cheng, M., et al. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.20083 · Cited by 1
“In embodied agents, task planning constitutes a fundamental capability that encompasses the decision-making processes required to decompose complex task objectives into executable action sequences [10], [11].”
Benchmarking Long-Horizon Mobile Manipulation in Multi-Room Dynamic Environments
Zhang, J., & Ma, K. (2025) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros60139.2025.11245866 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Consequently, we transform the scene graph into a textual graph for encoding as in previous work [22], [28].”
InfluentialCollaborative Belief Reasoning with LLMs for Efficient Multi-Agent Collaboration
Wang, Z.-M., Wu, D., He, S.-K., et al. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.21981 · Cited by 1
“Recent efforts have established several benchmarks to evaluate LLM-based multi-agent systems in open-ended environments (Chang et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2023).”
ProToM: Promoting Prosocial Behaviour via Theory of Mind-Informed Feedback
Bortoletto, M., Zhou, Y., Ying, L., et al. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.05091 · Cited by 1
“…AI assistant and a human operate as a joint unit with a shared goal (Carroll et al. 2019; Puig et al. 2023; Ying et al. 2024; Zhi-Xuan et al. 2024; Chang et al. 2024) or to team intervention (Figure 1, middle) where Figure 1: In contrast to the dominant paradigms of human-AI coordination and team…”
GroundAct: Can LLM Agents Ground Actions in Environmental States?
Wang, Z.-X., Li, D.-M., Li, H., et al. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.05614 · Cited by 1
Hierarchical Object-Oriented POMDP Planning for Object Rearrangement
Mangannavar, R., Fern, A., & Tadepalli, P. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.01348 · Cited by 1
“Large language models (LLMs) have also been used to solve rearrangement [Chang et al., 2024], but the advantage of a planner is that it provides a completeness guarantee - given enough time, the planner will find a solution whereas an LLM does not provide the same guarantee.”
HygieneRoboBench: Benchmarking Hygiene-Aware Planning for Household Robots
Chen, Y.-R., Sun, J. Q., Qin, J., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.08642
“Within the feasible set F t , the objective is to minimize execution costs in the lexicographic priority order specified by p .”
Trajectory Abstraction for the Science of Language Agent Behavior
Yan, T.-Q. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.09237
“ALFWorld, WebArena, SWE-bench, and PARTNR provide re-peatable tasks and verifiable outcomes (Shridhar et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2024b; Jimenez et al., 2024; Chang et al., 2025).”
DuoMind: Enabling Distributed Multi-Robot Coordination with Semantic Communication
Zhou, H.-C., Gao, D.-C., Wang, H., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.02161
“Recent multi-agent benchmarks study collaborative planning, heterogeneous capabilities, and manipulation (Mandi et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2025b; Chang et al., 2025; Qin et al., 2025).”
Code4Scene: Benchmarking Coding Agents for Constructing and Editing 3D Scenes
Ye, X.-K., Mantri, S. H., Chen, Z.-M., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.36777
Systematic Multi-Agent Vision-and-Language Navigation: Formulation, Benchmark, and Method
Xu, Y.-Z., & Liu, Z. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.35965
HEIR: Learning Human-Entity Interactions with Functional Roles
Wen, D., Guo, W.-H., Tan, Y.-Z., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.35955
“For embodied AI (Chang et al., 2025; Yuan et al., 2024; Li et al., 2023a), this role-and identity-aware grounding can inform action planning: a robot that knows who is acting on which entity—and whether that entity functions as a target, instrument, or support—can better anticipate human activity…”
VehicleArena: A Realistic Urban Environment for Multi-Agent Driving
Yang, J., Chen, J.-J., Zhou, J.-Z., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.35916
RoboTalk: Learning Multi-Robot Communication and Coordination from Multimodal Demonstrations
Goldfajn, D. B., Nakamura, M., Mahmud, S., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.23997
“Recent foundation-model systems extend this direction to natural-language coordination [13], [26], [24], [27], alongside benchmarks and training approaches for embodied multi-agent planning and action selection [2], [12], [8].”
FramingQA: Does the Question Shape the Answer? Measuring the Compositional Framing Effect
Kim, H. H., Bean, A. M., de Camargo, G. A. F., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.07448
“Following PARTNR (Chang et al., 2024), propositions are predicate-based checks on simulator state (e.g.”
InfluentialJena, G., Wanaskar, K., Jain, V., Chadha, A., Sharma, V., & Das, A. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.29669
CoCoBench: A Cooperative Coordination Benchmark for Embodied Multi-Agent Task PlanningPreprint
Chen, Y., Ye-xin, X., Che, L., Peng, D., Yang, Y., Lin, P., Cao, X. R., Wang, C., Yuan, L., Su, J., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.28266
“…to collaborative household tasks (Zhang et al. 2024; Mandi, Jain, and Song 2024; Kannan, Venkatesh, and Min 2024; Nayak et al. 2024; Yang et al. 2026; Chang et al. 2025), robotic manipulation (Mu et al. 2025; Chen et al. 2025), and open-world environments (Long et al. 2024; White et al. 2025).”
Compiling and Benchmarking Task-State Horizons for Embodied Agents
Wang, M., & Li, S.-C. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.08036
Unified Agent: Managing Interactions across Devices
Liu, X., Li, R., Wei, S., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.05729
“Embodied multi-agent systems coordinate preassigned agents executors on a shared task (Chang et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2025).”
UniETP: Unifying Environments for Generalizable Embodied Task Planning
Xu, P.-R., Zheng, J., Wang, Z.-Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.18062
“PARTNR (Chang et al., 2025) studies planning and reasoning in human-robot collaborative household tasks, with a large collection of tasks involving spatial, temporal, and heterogeneous constraints.”
Learning social norms enhances compatibility in dynamic human-AI coordination
Yang, Y., Liu, S.-Y., Gao, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.07021
“Similarly, the same principles generalized to reinforcement learning 47 , remaining effective even when implemented solely as reward terms (Supplementary Note 7).”
HRIBench: Benchmarking Interaction-Centric Human-Robot CollaborationPreprint
Liu, C., Zhang, J., Zhang, T., Wang, Y., Zhou, H., & Jin, Q. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.13056
“Habitat 3.0 [30] and PARTNR [31] study co-present agents and collaborative planning in household environments, while HandoverSim [32] focuses on close-proximity handover.”
InfluentialRobots Ask the Way: Communication-Enabled Social Navigation
Sacco, V., Scofano, L., Spinelli, I., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.01044
“More recent platforms, including Habitat 3.0 [8], PARTNR [18], and others [19], [20], support complex human dynamics, facilitating socially aware studies.”
InfluentialScaling Diverse Language Generation for 3D Visual Grounding
Wang, A. T., Yang, D., & Chang, A. X. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.20946
“Others (Xian et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a; Hong et al., 2023; Katara et al., 2024; Zhu et al., 2024a; Chang et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2025; Park et al., 2025) directly prompt the LLM with object information encoded as structured text, relying on the LLM to implicitly parse the relationships…”
RescueBench: Can Embodied Agents Save Lives in the Wild ?
Wu, K., Guo, B., Chen, H., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.01848
“Recent multi-agent benchmarks including PARTNR [25] and COHERENT [26] evaluate collaborative task decomposition, but focus on LLM-based discrete action planning in structured indoor settings rather than continuous sensorimotor control.”
Zhao, Y.-M., Zhu, S., Wang, X., et al. (2026) · 2026 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Electromechanical Automation (AIEA) · doi:10.1109/aiea70743.2026.11632557
“Identical queries may produce semantically different outputs at different times, leading to unreliable robot control [12] .”
TaskGround: Structured Executable Task Inference for Full-Scene Household Reasoning
Feng, Z.-Y., Deng, Y., An, R.-C., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.18109
“…interfaces that often expose programmatic task specifications, explicit goals, curated objects, or structured constraints before planning [5, 20, 21, 29, 39], FullHome evaluates agents under the full-scene information condition: given a complete household scene and a situated household…”
Ego2World: Compiling Egocentric Cooking Videos into Executable Worlds for Belief-State Planning
Cheng, Q.-C., Gong, Z., Sun, P.-Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.13335
“More recent benchmarks such as PARTNR [2] extend embodied evaluation to collaborative multi-agent settings.”
E-RECAP: Embodied REplanning With Cost-Aware Pruning
Liu, S.-J., & Su, N.-X. (2026) · IEEE Conference on Computer Communications · doi:10.1109/infocom59046.2026.11680066
“As an agent navigates a long-horizon task, the context buffer accumulates a dense history of multimodal data — including high-resolution visual observations, proprioceptive states, and multi-agent coordination signals [6]–[9].”
SocialGrid: A Benchmark for Planning and Social Reasoning in Embodied Multi-Agent Systems
Shindo, H., Lin, H., Helff, L., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.16022
“Embodied agents face long-horizon planning and spatial reasoning challenges (Wang et al., 2024; Chevalier-Boisvert et al., 2023; Chang et al., 2025).”
NavTrust: Benchmarking Trustworthiness for Embodied Navigation
Jiang, H.-Z., Chaudhary, Y., Wang, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.19229
“Recent benchmarks, such as EmbodiedBench [20] and PARTNR [21], primarily focus on multimodal LLMs or high-level planning rather than sensor-and instruction-level failures in embodied navigation.”
GenPlanner: From Noise to Plans - Emergent Reasoning in Flow Matching and Diffusion Models
Polowczyk, A., Polowczyk, A., & Wieczorek, M. (2026) · International Conference on Conceptual Structures · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.18812
Any House Any Task: Scalable Long-Horizon Planning for Abstract Human Tasks
Liu, Z.-H., Li, Y., Huang, R.-P., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12244
“…AHAT on a diverse suite of household planning tasks, including in-distribution settings with held-out scenes and tasks from the training set, out-of-distribution human tasks collected via crowd-sourcing, as well as two public household task-planning benchmarks, Behavior-1K [19] and PARTNR [4].”
FLEET: Formal Language-Grounded Scheduling for Heterogeneous Robot Teams
Rivera, C., Byrd, G., Booker, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.07417
“We evaluate on PARTNR [1], illustrated in Figure 2, which scores success on free-form, language-guided multi-robot tasks.”
InfluentialGMATP-LLM: A General Multi-Agent Task Dynamic Planning Method using Large Language Models
Deng, X., Tao, G., Wen, C., et al. (2025) · Cybersecurity and Cyberforensics Conference · doi:10.23919/ccc64809.2025.11179615
“These approaches divide agents into specialized functional units[32], but the generation of specific execution sequences tends to be time-consuming.”
Evaluation of Habitat Robotics using Large Language Models
Li, W., Hamilton, L., Al-natour, K., & Mohindra, S. (2025) · IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference · doi:10.1109/hpec67600.2025.11196444
“The figure was sourced from PARTNR[12]. combination of different parameters.”
InfluentialTowards Real-time Adaptation of Embodied Agent in Human-Robot Collaboration
Liu, S.-P., Zhang, B.-S., & Huang, Z. (2024) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.00435
“Numerous studies have proposed benchmarks for embodied multi-agent systems [2, 6, 24, 32].”
- Authors
- Chang, M., Chhablani, G., Clegg, A., Cote, M. D., Desai, R., Hlavac, M., Karashchuk, V., Krantz, J., Mottaghi, R., Parashar, P., Patki, S., Prasad, I., Puig, X., Rai, A., Ramrakhya, R., Tran, D., Truong, J., Turner, J. M., Undersander, E., & Yang, T.-Y.
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2411.00081
- OpenAlex
- W4404344627
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Keywords
- human-robot collaboration, multi-agent planning, embodied agents, housework, benchmark, large language models, task generation, simulation-in-the-loop, human-robot coordination, task monitoring, error recovery, LLM fine-tuning
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.
Claims read (extract-v2) on 2026-09-25.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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