Reference Wording Shapes Retrieval of Robot Task Instructions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Identifying a robot task from a short instruction is sensitive to which descriptions are available for retrieval. We investigate this effect in the natural-language instructions included with the RLBench manipulation benchmark. We extract 296 fixed descriptions from 62 publicly available task files and compare five training-free lexical rankers over 80 random choices of one indexed description per task. Exact strings assigned to conflicting task labels are excluded from the primary score. Character n-gram TF-IDF achieves 61.3% mean top-1 accuracy on the resulting held-out instructions, compared with 55.6% for BM25 and 54.9% for word TF-IDF. Across gallery choices, character TF-IDF ranges from 55.2% to 66.8%; its 5th-95th percentile range is 56.9%-64.8%. Adding a second indexed description improves character TF-IDF by 7.0 percentage points on matched queries. These results quantify the influence of reference wording and representation choice on instruction-to-task retrieval under a consistent evaluation protocol.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 10 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.
Builds on
6 of 10 references.
References · 6
- 2022Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordancescited by 2,348
- 2022RT-1: Robotics Transformer for Real-World Control at Scalecited by 2,061
- 2019ALFRED: A Benchmark for Interpreting Grounded Instructions for Everyday Taskscited by 783
- 2021CLIPort: What and Where Pathways for Robotic Manipulationcited by 622
- 2021CALVIN: A Benchmark for Language-Conditioned Policy Learning for Long-Horizon Robot Manipulation Taskscited by 584
- 2022Perceiver-Actor: A Multi-Task Transformer for Robotic Manipulationcited by 551
Built on by
Not cited yet.