Valerio Pepe

Ran Gong, Xiaohan Zhang, Jinghuan Shang et al.

Generalist robot learning remains constrained by data: large-scale, diverse, and high-quality interaction data are expensive to collect in the real world. While simulation has become a promising way for scaling up data collection, the related tasks, including simulation task design, task-aware scene generation, expert demonstration synthesis, and sim-to-real transfer, still demand substantial human effort. We present AnyTask, an automated framework that pairs massively parallel GPU simulation with foundation models to design diverse manipulation tasks and synthesize robot data. We introduce three AnyTask agents for generating expert demonstrations aiming to solve as many tasks as possible: 1) ViPR, a novel task and motion planning agent with VLM-in-the-loop Parallel Refinement; 2) ViPR-Eureka, a reinforcement learning agent with generated dense rewards and LLM-guided contact sampling; 3) ViPR-RL, a hybrid planning and learning approach that jointly produces high-quality demonstrations with only sparse rewards. We train behavior cloning policies on generated data, validate them in simulation, and deploy them directly on real robot hardware. The policies generalize to novel object poses, achieving 44% average success across a suite of real-world pick-and-place, drawer opening, contact-rich pushing, and long-horizon manipulation tasks. Our project website is at https://anytask.rai-inst.com .

Gabriel Grand, Valerio Pepe, Jacob Andreas et al.

Questions combine our mastery of language with our remarkable facility for reasoning about uncertainty. How do people navigate vast hypothesis spaces to pose informative questions given limited cognitive resources? We study these tradeoffs in a classic grounded question-asking task based on the board game Battleship. Our language-informed program sampling (LIPS) model uses large language models (LLMs) to generate natural language questions, translate them into symbolic programs, and evaluate their expected information gain. We find that with a surprisingly modest resource budget, this simple Monte Carlo optimization strategy yields informative questions that mirror human performance across varied Battleship board scenarios. In contrast, LLM-only baselines struggle to ground questions in the board state; notably, GPT-4V provides no improvement over non-visual baselines. Our results illustrate how Bayesian models of question-asking can leverage the statistics of language to capture human priors, while highlighting some shortcomings of pure LLMs as grounded reasoners.

Gabriel Grand, Valerio Pepe, Jacob Andreas et al.

Many high-stakes applications of AI require forming data-driven hypotheses and making targeted guesses; e.g., in scientific and diagnostic settings. Given limited resources, to what extent do agents based on language models (LMs) act rationally? We develop methods to benchmark and enhance agentic information-seeking, drawing on insights from human behavior. First, we introduce a strategic decision-oriented dialogue task called Collaborative Battleship, in which a partially-informed Captain must balance exploration (asking questions) and action (taking shots), while a fully-informed Spotter must provide accurate answers under an information bottleneck. Compared to human players (N=42), we find that LM agents struggle to ground answers in context, generate informative questions, and select high-value actions. Next, to address these gaps, we develop novel Monte Carlo inference strategies for LMs based on principles from Bayesian Experimental Design (BED). For Spotter agents, our approach boosts accuracy by up to 14.7% absolute over LM-only baselines; for Captain agents, it raises expected information gain (EIG) by up to 0.227 bits (94.2% of the achievable noise ceiling). Combined, these components yield sharper targeting (+0.303-0.374 F1), and enable weaker LMs, such as Llama-4-Scout, to outperform both humans (8% -> 82% win rate) and frontier models (0% -> 67% win rate vs. GPT-5) at ~1% of GPT-5's cost. We replicate these findings on Guess Who? where our methods significantly boost accuracy (+28.3-42.4 p.p.), demonstrating their general applicability for building rational information-seeking agents.