mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

Planning Takes More Than Token Prediction: Causal Plan for Benchmarking and Building Physically Grounded Embodied Reasoners

arXiv 2606.01810 ↗First posted 1 Jun 2026cs.AIcited by 3

On the map: LLM reasoning → Spatial and embodied reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Current benchmarks for embodied vision-language planning inadvertently favor linguistic next-token prediction over physically grounded next-state reasoning. This rewards models that mimic statistical language priors rather than track true causal dependencies, reducing complex physical planning to shallow sequence modeling. Hence, achieving genuine physical autonomy requires a fundamental shift from linguistically grounded token prediction toward physically grounded causal reasoning. To this end, we introduce Causal-Plan-Bench, a high-fidelity diagnostic suite spanning four causal dimensions, curated via multi-stage verification. To endow models with this capability, a four-stage annotation pipeline extracts structured interaction records from egocentric videos to construct Causal-Plan-1M, a dense million-scale corpus of explicit causal reasoning traces. Extensive evaluation reveals a striking gap: leading models struggle to demonstrate genuine physical agency -- even GPT-6-astra scores only 43.04. In contrast, our tailored training recipe enables Causal Planner to internalize the complex physical logic required for accurate next-state estimation. Built upon Qwen3-VL-8B, Causal Planner raises its backbone's score from 33.23 to 45.28, a 36.3% relative gain, and improves on three external benchmarks without benchmark-specific adaptation. We further observe an empirical Causal-Supervision Scaling Trend. Paired no-vision controls also reveal substantial visual dependence, while cross-judge comparisons and human scoring assess the reliability of automated evaluation. More importantly, we initiate the first effort to turn agents from superficial token predictors into physically grounded causal reasoners, bridging language modeling and world modeling.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Placed in Spatial and embodied reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 11 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2026.

Builds on

11 of 34 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026RoboBrain 2.5: Depth in Sight, Time in Mind20 Jan
  2. 2025Cosmos-Reason1: From Physical Common Sense To Embodied Reasoning18 Mar

Other references · 9

  1. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,091
  2. 2024GPT-4o System Cardcited by 4,536
  3. 2025Qwen3-VL Technical Reportcited by 2,663
  4. 2025InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiencycited by 1,452
  5. 2026Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligencecited by 472
  6. 2025AgiBot World Colosseo: A Large-scale Manipulation Platform for Scalable and Intelligent Embodied Systemscited by 397
  7. 2025RoboBrain 2.0 Technical Reportcited by 88
  8. 2025MiMo-Embodied: X-Embodied Foundation Model Technical Reportcited by 36
  9. 2025DSBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating External and In-Cabin Riskscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026EMBER-Bench: Benchmarking Cross-Event Causal Memory in Long-Horizon Embodied Tasks
  2. 2026Unmasking the Illusion of Embodied Reasoning in Vision-Language-Action Models
  3. 2026The Yes-Man Syndrome: Benchmarking Abstention in Embodied Robotic Agents
  4. 2026CausalWM: Causal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Embodied World Model
  5. 2025Embodied-Reasoner: Synergizing Visual Search, Reasoning, and Action for Embodied Interactive Tasks
  6. 2025Beyond Description: Cognitively Benchmarking Fine-Grained Action for Embodied Agents
  7. 2025Robobench: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models as Embodied Brain
  8. 2026Do Vision-Language-Action Models Mean What They Say? On the Role of Faithfulness in Embodied Reasoning