CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsRobot Manipulation and LearningAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Structured Preference Optimization for Vision-Language Long-Horizon Task Planning

Open access
Liang, Xiwen, Lin, Min, Ruan, Weiqi, Xu, Rongtao, Liu, Yuecheng, Chen, Jiaqi, Lin, Bingqian, Zhuang, Yuzheng +1 more·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2502.20742arXiv 2502.20742
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Existing methods for vision-language task planning excel in short-horizon tasks but often fall short in complex, long-horizon planning within dynamic environments. These challenges primarily arise from the difficulty of effectively training models to produce high-quality reasoning processes for long-horizon tasks. To address this, we propose Structured Preference Optimization (SPO), which aims to enhance reasoning and action selection in long-horizon task planning through structured preference evaluation and optimized training strategies. Specifically, SPO introduces: 1) Preference-Based Scoring and Optimization, which systematically evaluates reasoning chains based on task relevance, visual grounding, and historical consistency; and 2) Curriculum-Guided Training, where the model progressively adapts from simple to complex tasks, improving its generalization ability in long-horizon scenarios and enhancing reasoning robustness. To advance research in vision-language long-horizon task planning, we introduce ExtendaBench, a comprehensive benchmark covering 1,509 tasks across VirtualHome and Habitat 2.0, categorized into ultra-short, short, medium, and long tasks. Experimental results demonstrate that SPO significantly improves reasoning quality and final decision accuracy, outperforming prior methods on long-horizon tasks and underscoring the effectiveness of preference-driven optimization in vision-language task planning. Specifically, SPO achieves a +5.98% GCR and +4.68% SR improvement in VirtualHome and a +3.30% GCR and +2.11% SR improvement in Habitat over the best-performing baselines.

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.2502.20742

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These localization methods use RGB, depth, and inertial measurements to address sensor noise, dynamic scenes, and varying lighting.

    “These methods leverage complementary sensory inputs such as RGB images, depth data, and inertial measurements to address challenges like sensor noise, dynamic scenes, and varying lighting conditions [129,130,131].”

    From Multimodal fusion and vision–language models: A survey for robot vision (2026) · cites this paper as [129]

    Section B.8 (p. 16) describes a task-planning agent that receives image observations and textual instructions, not a localization method combining RGB, depth, and inertial measurements. Searches for those inputs and for sensor noise, dynamic scenes, and varying lighting found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Recent deep-learning multimodal fusion has significantly enhanced localization accuracy and robustness.

    “vancements in multimodal fusion, particularly deep-learningbased approaches, have significantly enhanced localization accuracy and robustness.”

    From Multimodal fusion and vision–language models: A survey for robot vision (2026) · cites this paper as [129]

    Section 2.1 (p. 2) discusses advances in vision-language models, and Section 2.3 (p. 2) describes multimodal preference optimization for task planning. Neither addresses localization accuracy or robustness; searches for “localization” and “localization accuracy robustness multimodal fusion” found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Pravesh Agrawal, Szymon Antoniak, Emma Bou Hanna, Devendra Chaplot, Jessica Chudnovsky, Saurabh Garg, Theophile Gervet, Soham Ghosh, Amélie Héliou, Paul Jacob, et al. 2024. Pixtral 12b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07073 . · arXiv
  2. Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, et al. 2022. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691 . · arXiv
  3. Anas Awadalla, Irena Gao, Josh Gardner, Jack Hessel, Yusuf Hanafy, Wanrong Zhu, Kalyani Marathe, Yonatan Bitton, Samir Gadre, Shiori Sagawa, et al. 2023. Openflamingo: An open-source framework for training large autoregressive vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01390 . · arXiv
  4. Jorge A Baier, Fahiem Bacchus, and Sheila A McIlraith. 2009. A heuristic search approach to planning with temporally extended preferences. Artificial Intelligence , 173(5-6):593-618.
  5. Vineet Bhat, Ali Umut Kaypak, Prashanth Krishnamurthy, Ramesh Karri, and Farshad Khorrami. 2024. Grounding llms for robot task planning using closed-loop state feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08546 . · arXiv
  6. Anthony Brohan, Yevgen Chebotar, Chelsea Finn, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Daniel Ho, Julian Ibarz, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Ryan Julian, et al. 2023. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. In Conference on robot learning , pages 287-318. PMLR.
  7. Daniel Bryce and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2007. A tutorial on planning graph based reachability heuristics. AI Magazine , 28(1):47-47.
  8. Siwei Chen, Anxing Xiao, and David Hsu. 2023. Llmstate: Expandable state representation for longhorizon task planning in the open world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17406 . · arXiv
  9. Zhe Chen, Weiyun Wang, Yue Cao, Yangzhou Liu, Zhangwei Gao, Erfei Cui, Jinguo Zhu, Shenglong Ye, Hao Tian, Zhaoyang Liu, et al. 2024a. Expanding performance boundaries of open-source multimodal models with model, data, and test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05271 . · arXiv
  10. Zhe Chen, Weiyun Wang, Hao Tian, Shenglong Ye, Zhangwei Gao, Erfei Cui, Wenwen Tong, Kongzhi Hu, Jiapeng Luo, Zheng Ma, et al. 2024b. How far are we to gpt-4v? closing the gap to commercial multimodal models with open-source suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16821 . · arXiv
  11. Yan Ding, Xiaohan Zhang, Saeid Amiri, Nieqing Cao, Hao Yang, Andy Kaminski, Chad Esselink, and Shiqi Zhang. 2023a. Integrating action knowledge and llms for task planning and situation handling in open worlds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17590 . · arXiv
  12. Yan Ding, Xiaohan Zhang, Chris Paxton, and Shiqi Zhang. 2023b. Task and motion planning with large language models for object rearrangement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06247 . · arXiv
  13. Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. 2023. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378 . · arXiv
  14. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 . · arXiv
  15. Ben Eysenbach, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Sergey Levine. 2019. Search on the replay buffer: Bridging planning and reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32.
  16. Richard E Fikes and Nils J Nilsson. 1971. Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial intelligence , 2(3-4):189208.
  17. Caelan Reed Garrett, Tomás Lozano-Pérez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. 2020. Pddlstream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , volume 30, pages 440-448.
  18. Alex Havrilla, Sharath Raparthy, Christoforus Nalmpantis, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Maksym Zhuravinskyi, Eric Hambro, and Roberta Raileanu. 2024. Glore: When, where, and how to improve llm reasoning via global and local refinements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10963 . · arXiv
  19. Malte Helmert. 2006. The fast downward planning system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 26:191-246.
  20. Jörg Hoffmann. 2001. Ff: The fast-forward planning system. AI magazine , 22(3):57-57.
  21. Wenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, and Igor Mordatch. 2022a. Language models as zeroshot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 9118-9147. PMLR.
  22. Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, et al. 2022b. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608 . · arXiv
  23. Yiren Jian, Chongyang Gao, and Soroush Vosoughi. 2024. Bootstrapping vision-language learning with decoupled language pre-training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36.
  24. Songtao Jiang, Yan Zhang, Ruizhe Chen, Yeying Jin, and Zuozhu Liu. 2024. Modality-fair preference optimization for trustworthy mllm alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15334 . · arXiv
  25. Yiding Jiang, Shixiang Shane Gu, Kevin P Murphy, and Chelsea Finn. 2019. Language as an abstraction for hierarchical deep reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32.
  26. Yuqian Jiang, Shiqi Zhang, Piyush Khandelwal, and Peter Stone. 2018. Task planning in robotics: an empirical comparison of pddl-based and asp-based systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.08229 . · arXiv
  27. Thanard Kurutach, Aviv Tamar, Ge Yang, Stuart J Russell, and Pieter Abbeel. 2018. Learning plannable representations with causal infogan. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 31.
  28. Shuang Li, Xavier Puig, Chris Paxton, Yilun Du, Clinton Wang, Linxi Fan, Tao Chen, De-An Huang, Ekin Akyürek, Anima Anandkumar, et al. 2022. Pretrained language models for interactive decisionmaking. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:31199-31212.
  29. Xian Li, Ping Yu, Chunting Zhou, Timo Schick, Omer Levy, Luke Zettlemoyer, Jason Weston, and Mike Lewis. 2023. Self-alignment with instruction backtranslation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06259 . · arXiv
  30. Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. 2023. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 9493-9500. IEEE.
  31. Yuan-Hong Liao, Xavier Puig, Marko Boben, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2019. Synthesizing environment-aware activities via activity sketches. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 62916299.
  32. Bo Liu, Yuqian Jiang, Xiaohan Zhang, Qiang Liu, Shiqi Zhang, Joydeep Biswas, and Peter Stone. 2023a. Llm+ p: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11477 . · arXiv
  33. Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2024. Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems , 36.
  34. Zeyi Liu, Arpit Bahety, and Shuran Song. 2023b. Reflect: Summarizing robot experiences for failure explanation and correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15724 . · arXiv
  35. Xiaofei Lu. 2010. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International journal of corpus linguistics , 15(4):474-496.
  36. Suraj Nair and Chelsea Finn. 2019. Hierarchical foresight: Self-supervised learning of long-horizon tasks via visual subgoal generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.05829 . · arXiv
  37. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. ArXiv , abs/2303.08774. · arXiv
  38. Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Weizhe Yuan, Kyunghyun Cho, He He, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston. 2024. Iterative reasoning preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19733 . · arXiv
  39. Archiki Prasad, Weizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Jing Xu, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, Mohit Bansal, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jason Weston, and Jane Yu. 2024. Self-consistency preference optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04109 . · arXiv
  40. Xavier Puig, Kevin Ra, Marko Boben, Jiaman Li, Tingwu Wang, Sanja Fidler, and Antonio Torralba. 2018. Virtualhome: Simulating household activities via programs. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 8494-8502.
  41. Jielin Qiu, Mengdi Xu, William Han, Seungwhan Moon, and Ding Zhao. 2023. Embodied executable policy learning with language-based scene summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05696 . · arXiv
  42. Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. 2024. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36.
  43. Krishan Rana, Jesse Haviland, Sourav Garg, Jad AbouChakra, Ian Reid, and Niko Suenderhauf. 2023. Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable task planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06135 . · arXiv
  44. Corby Rosset, Ching-An Cheng, Arindam Mitra, Michael Santacroce, Ahmed Awadallah, and Tengyang Xie. 2024. Direct nash optimization: Teaching language models to self-improve with general preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03715 . · arXiv
  45. Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Yang Wu, et al. 2024. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300 . · arXiv
  46. Mohit Shridhar, Jesse Thomason, Daniel Gordon, Yonatan Bisk, Winson Han, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Dieter Fox. 2020a. Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10740-10749.
  47. Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. 2020b. Alfworld: Aligning text and embodied environments for interactive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03768 . · arXiv
  48. Tom Silver, Soham Dan, Kavitha Srinivas, Joshua B Tenenbaum, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, and Michael Katz. 2023. Generalized planning in pddl domains with pretrained large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11014 . · arXiv
  49. Tom Silver, Varun Hariprasad, Reece S Shuttleworth, Nishanth Kumar, Tomás Lozano-Pérez, and Leslie Pack Kaelbling. 2022. Pddl planning with pretrained large language models. In NeurIPS 2022 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop .
  50. Ishika Singh, Valts Blukis, Arsalan Mousavian, Ankit Goyal, Danfei Xu, Jonathan Tremblay, Dieter Fox, Jesse Thomason, and Animesh Garg. 2023. Progprompt: Generating situated robot task plans using large language models. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 11523-11530. IEEE.
  51. Marta Skreta, Naruki Yoshikawa, Sebastian ArellanoRubach, Zhi Ji, Lasse Bjørn Kristensen, Kourosh Darvish, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Florian Shkurti, and Animesh Garg. 2023. Errors are useful prompts: Instruction guided task programming with verifier-assisted iterative prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14100 . · arXiv
  52. Chan Hee Song, Jiaman Wu, Clayton Washington, Brian M Sadler, Wei-Lun Chao, and Yu Su. 2023. Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 2998-3009.
  53. Aravind Srinivas, Allan Jabri, Pieter Abbeel, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. 2018. Universal planning networks: Learning generalizable representations for visuomotor control. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 4732-4741. PMLR.
  54. Andrew Szot, Alexander Clegg, Eric Undersander, Erik Wijmans, Yili Zhao, John Turner, Noah Maestre, Mustafa Mukadam, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Oleksandr Maksymets, et al. 2021. Habitat 2.0: Training home assistants to rearrange their habitat. Advances in neural information processing systems , 34:251266.
  55. Andrew Szot, Max Schwarzer, Harsh Agrawal, Bogdan Mazoure, Rin Metcalf, Walter Talbott, Natalie Mackraz, R Devon Hjelm, and Alexander T Toshev. 2023. Large language models as generalizable policies for embodied tasks. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations .
  56. Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Yonghui Wu, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, et al. 2023. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805 . · arXiv
  57. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 . · arXiv
  58. Karthik Valmeekam, Alberto Olmo, Sarath Sreedharan, and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2022. Large language models still can't plan (a benchmark for llms on planning and reasoning about change). arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10498 . · arXiv
  59. Naoki Wake, Atsushi Kanehira, Kazuhiro Sasabuchi, Jun Takamatsu, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. 2023. Chatgpt empowered long-step robot control in various environments: A case application. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03893 . · arXiv
  60. Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, et al. 2024a. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model's perception of the world at any resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191 . · arXiv
  61. Tianlu Wang, Ilia Kulikov, Olga Golovneva, Ping Yu, Weizhe Yuan, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, Jason Weston, and Xian Li. 2024b. Self-taught evaluators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02666 . · arXiv
  62. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35:24824-24837.
  63. Jimmy Wu, Rika Antonova, Adam Kan, Marion Lepert, Andy Zeng, Shuran Song, Jeannette Bohg, Szymon Rusinkiewicz, and Thomas Funkhouser. 2023. Tidybot: Personalized robot assistance with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05658 . · arXiv
  64. Yaqi Xie, Chen Yu, Tongyao Zhu, Jinbin Bai, Ze Gong, and Harold Soh. 2023. Translating natural language to planning goals with large-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05128 . · arXiv
  65. Danfei Xu, Roberto Martín-Martín, De-An Huang, Yuke Zhu, Silvio Savarese, and Li F Fei-Fei. 2019. Regression planning networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32.
  66. Danfei Xu, Suraj Nair, Yuke Zhu, Julian Gao, Animesh Garg, Li Fei-Fei, and Silvio Savarese. 2018. Neural task programming: Learning to generalize across hierarchical tasks. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 3795-3802. IEEE.
  67. Jing Xu, Andrew Lee, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Jason Weston. 2023. Some things are more cringe than others: Preference optimization with the pairwise cringe loss. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16682 . · arXiv
  68. Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2022. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629 . · arXiv
  69. Qinghao Ye, Haiyang Xu, Guohai Xu, Jiabo Ye, Ming Yan, Yiyang Zhou, Junyang Wang, Anwen Hu, Pengcheng Shi, Yaya Shi, et al. 2023. mplug-owl: Modularization empowers large language models with multimodality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14178 . · arXiv
  70. Weizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Kyunghyun Cho, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jing Xu, and Jason Weston. 2024. Self-rewarding language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10020 . · arXiv
  71. Bowen Zhang and Harold Soh. 2023. Large language models as zero-shot human models for human-robot interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03548 . · arXiv
  72. Xuan Zhang, Chao Du, Tianyu Pang, Qian Liu, Wei Gao, and Min Lin. 2024. Chain of preference optimization: Improving chain-of-thought reasoning in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09136 . · arXiv
  73. Zirui Zhao, Wee Sun Lee, and David Hsu. 2024. Large language models as commonsense knowledge for large-scale task planning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36.
  74. Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. 2024. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36.
  75. Tan Zhi-Xuan, Lance Ying, Vikash Mansinghka, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. 2024. Pragmatic instruction following and goal assistance via cooperative language-guided inverse planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17930 . · arXiv
  76. Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2023. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592 . · arXiv
  77. Jinguo Zhu, Weiyun Wang, Zhe Chen, Zhaoyang Liu, Shenglong Ye, Lixin Gu, Hao Tian, Yuchen Duan, Weijie Su, Jie Shao, et al. 2025. Internvl3: Exploring advanced training and test-time recipes for open-source multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10479 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liang, X., Lin, M., Ruan, W., Xu, R., Liu, Y., Chen, J., Lin, B., Zhuang, Y., & Liang, X.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2502.20742
arXiv
2502.20742
OpenAlex
W6948240819
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
long-horizon planning, curriculum learning, visual grounding, action selection, dynamic environments

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