PreprintCited by 91Robot Manipulation and LearningAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

PARTNR: A Benchmark for Planning and Reasoning in Embodied Multi-agent Tasks

Open access
Chang, Matthew, Chhablani, Gunjan, Clegg, Alexander, Cote, Mikael Dallaire, Desai, Ruta, Hlavac, Michal, Karashchuk, Vladimir, Krantz, Jacob +12 more·2024·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2411.00081

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

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
    • cites Shridhar et al., 2020 source
    • cites Zhu et al., 2023 source
    • cites Krantz et al., 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be 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

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

    Major

    The 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.

  • Universal ambiguity claim conflicts with the reported sample

    Major

    The appendix says every episode contains resolvable ambiguity, but the linguistic-analysis table reports that characteristic in 68% of its sampled episodes.

  • Appendix gives different validation-set completion steps

    Major

    The 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.

  • Dependent-rearrangement prevalence changes from 7% to 31%

    Major

    The dataset description says 7% of tasks contain dependent rearrangements, but the appendix says this characteristic occurs in 31% of episodes.

  • Human-LLM success rates are assigned to the wrong models

    Minor

    The 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.

  • Appendix exploration-step figures disagree with Table 3

    Minor

    The 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.

  • Planner-call cap differs for centralized experiments

    Minor

    The results section says every experiment is capped at 50 planner calls, whereas the implementation details give centralized baselines a cap of 100.

  • Success threshold conflicts with the defined completion scale

    Minor

    The 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.

8 of 8

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. [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.
  2. [8]8. Abhishek Das, Samyak Datta, Georgia Gkioxari, Stefan Lee, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Embodied question answering. In CVPR, 2018.
  3. [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.
  4. [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.
  5. [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.
  6. [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.
  7. [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.
  8. [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.
  9. [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.
  10. [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.
  11. [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.
  12. [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.
  13. [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.
  14. [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.
  15. [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

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.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4404344627
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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