Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Products

aiqbench analysis

This study reveals a counterintuitive finding where embodied LLM agents solve physical puzzles more effectively with noisy RGB inputs than with perfect ground-truth data, suggesting that moderate perceptual errors can break repetitive reasoning loops. The research challenges standard evaluation metrics by demonstrating that high success rates in closed-loop robotic tasks may mask underlying failures in robust problem-solving when information is too precise. These insights are critical for advancing the reliability of AI-driven robotics and understanding the limits of current large language models in physical environments.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Probing an Embodied LLM: When Higher Observation Fidelity Hurts Problem Solving

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2605.20072v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as cognitive components for robotic systems, yet their opaque decision processes make it difficult to explain success or failure in closed-loop embodied tasks. Following an empirical AI methodology, we study an embodied LLM agent behaviorally by varying the available information and measuring the resulting changes in behavior. Using the Lockbox, a sequential mechanical puzzle with hidden interdependencies, we evaluate LLMs across RGB, RGB-D, and ground-truth symbolic observations in a physical robotic setup and use simulation to probe the resulting behavior. Counterintuitively, agents perform best under raw RGB input and worst under perfect ground-truth observations. In simulation, we probe this effect by randomly flipping perceived action outcomes and find that moderate noise improves performance, peaking at a 40% flip probability with a 2.85-fold success rate increase over the noise-free baseline. Further analysis links this gain to a reduction in repetitive action loops. These findings suggest that success rates alone are insufficient for evaluating LLMs, as measured performance may reflect the interaction between perceptual errors and reasoning failures rather than robust problem solving.

Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as cognitive components for robotic systems, yet their opaque decision processes make it difficult to explain success or failure in closed-loop embodied tasks. Following an empirical AI methodology, we study an embodied LLM agent behaviorally by varying the available information and measuring the resulting changes in behavior. Using the Lockbox, a sequential mechanical puzzle with hidden interdependencies, we evaluate LLMs across RGB, RGB-D, and ground-truth symbolic observations in a physical robotic setup and use simulation to probe the resulting behavior. Counterintuitively, agents perform best under raw RGB input and worst under perfect ground-truth observations. In simulation, we probe this effect by randomly flipping perceived action outcomes and find that moderate noise improves performance, peaking at a 40% flip probability with a 2.85-fold success rate increase over the noise-free baseline. Further analysis links this gain to a reduction in repetitive action loops. These findings suggest that success rates alone are insufficient for evaluating LLMs, as measured performance may reflect the interaction between perceptual errors and reasoning failures rather than robust problem solving.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Robotics (cs.RO)

arXiv:2605.20072 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2605.20072v2 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.20072 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-39953-3_25 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 282 words

Related coverage