Sketch-Plan-Generalize: Continual Few-Shot Learning of Inductively Generalizable Spatial Concepts for Language-Guided Robot Manipulation

Our goal is to build embodied agents that can learn inductively generalizable spatial concepts in a continual manner, e.g, constructing a tower of a given height. Existing work suffers from certain limitations (a) (Liang et al., 2023) and their multi-modal extensions, rely heavily on prior knowledge and are not grounded in the demonstrations (b) (Liu et al., 2023) lack the ability to generalize due to their purely neural approach. A key challenge is to achieve a fine balance between symbolic representations which have the capability to generalize, and neural representations that are physically grounded. In response, we propose a neuro-symbolic approach by expressing inductive concepts as symbolic compositions over grounded neural concepts. Our key insight is to decompose the concept learning problem into the following steps 1) Sketch: Getting a programmatic representation for the given instruction 2) Plan: Perform Model-Based RL over the sequence of grounded neural action concepts to learn a grounded plan 3) Generalize: Abstract out a generic (lifted) Python program to facilitate generalizability. Continual learning is achieved by interspersing learning of grounded neural concepts with higher level symbolic constructs. Our experiments demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms existing baselines in terms of its ability to learn novel concepts and generalize inductively.

Have LLMs Advanced Enough? A Challenging Problem Solving Benchmark For Large Language Models

The performance on Large Language Models (LLMs) on existing reasoning benchmarks has shot up considerably over the past years. In response, we present JEEBench, a considerably more challenging benchmark dataset for evaluating the problem solving abilities of LLMs. We curate 450 challenging pre-engineering mathematics, physics and chemistry problems from the IIT JEE-Advanced exam. Long-horizon reasoning on top of deep in-domain knowledge is essential for solving problems in this benchmark. Our evaluation on the GPT series of models reveals that although performance improves with newer models, the best being GPT-4, the highest performance, even after using techniques like Self-Consistency and Chain-of-Thought prompting is less than 40 percent. Our analysis demonstrates that errors in algebraic manipulation and failure in retrieving relevant domain specific concepts are primary contributors to GPT4's low performance. Given the challenging nature of the benchmark, we hope that it can guide future research in problem solving using LLMs. Our code and dataset is available here.