CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning

AsgardBench - Evaluating Visually Grounded Interactive Planning Under Minimal Feedback

arXiv AI Archived Mar 18, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2603.15888v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: With AsgardBench we aim to evaluate visually grounded, high-level action sequence generation and interactive planning, focusing specifically on plan adaptation during execution based on visual observations rather than navigation or low-level manipulation. In the landscape of embodied AI benchmarks, AsgardBench targets the capability category of interactive planning, which is more sophisticated than offline high-level planning as it requires agents

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 16 Mar 2026] AsgardBench - Evaluating Visually Grounded Interactive Planning Under Minimal Feedback Andrea Tupini, Lars Liden, Reuben Tan, Yu Wang, Jianfeng Gao With AsgardBench we aim to evaluate visually grounded, high-level action sequence generation and interactive planning, focusing specifically on plan adaptation during execution based on visual observations rather than navigation or low-level manipulation. In the landscape of embodied AI benchmarks, AsgardBench targets the capability category of interactive planning, which is more sophisticated than offline high-level planning as it requires agents to revise plans in response to environmental feedback, yet remains distinct from low-level execution. Unlike prior embodied AI benchmarks that conflate reasoning with navigation or provide rich corrective feedback that substitutes for perception, AsgardBench restricts agent input to images, action history, and lightweight success/failure signals, isolating interactive planning in a controlled simulator without low-level control noise. The benchmark contains 108 task instances spanning 12 task types, each systematically varied through object state, placement, and scene configuration. These controlled variations create conditional branches in which a single instruction can require different action sequences depending on what the agent observes, emphasizing conditional branching and plan repair during execution. Our evaluations of leading vision language models show that performance drops sharply without visual input, revealing weaknesses in visual grounding and state tracking that ultimately undermine interactive planning. Our benchmark zeroes in on a narrower question: can a model actually use what it sees to adapt a plan when things do not go as expected? Comments: 19 figures, 6 tables, including appendix Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Robotics (cs.RO) ACM classes: I.2.8; I.2.10 Cite as: arXiv:2603.15888 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2603.15888v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.15888 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Andrea Tupini [view email] [v1] Mon, 16 Mar 2026 20:31:43 UTC (2,432 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-03 Change to browse by: cs cs.CV cs.RO References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Archived
    Mar 18, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗