Abstract
Coding agents synthesize generalized task and motion planning programs that outperform hand-engineered planners with lower computation.
Task and motion planning (TAMP) problems remain difficult even with full observability and object-centric states because discrete decisions are tightly coupled to geometric, kinematic, and dynamic constraints. Generalized TAMP addresses this difficulty by exploiting regularities across problem instances to reduce planning effort on new instances. However, existing methods require substantial TAMP-specific engineering. We investigate whether coding agents can automate this process by synthesizing programs that generalize across instances. Given a task description and simulator access, each agent chooses how to interact with the environment while developing a program within a fixed synthesis budget. The program is then frozen and evaluated on unseen instances. We evaluate Claude Code (Opus 5) and Codex (GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-6 Astra) on 28 simulated environments from KinDER and PDDLStream, with object counts beyond those evaluated in the original benchmark. Across all program synthesis methods, we evaluate 980 generated programs on 100 held-out instances each, 98,000 evaluation episodes in total. Overall, we find that coding agents are surprisingly effective at generalized TAMP: all three agent configurations outperform hand-engineered planners, one-shot generation, and an LLM-based generalized planning baseline in mean success (56% to 95% versus 47% for the planners, on the 16 environments where a planner is available). As object counts grow, the agents' programs maintain higher success than the planner, using an order of magnitude less computation per instance on average. Logs show agents using interaction to calibrate physical models, test edge cases, and refine strategies. We release all code, including the full prompts given to the agents. These findings suggest that coding agents are a strong baseline for generalized TAMP.
Community
How far can you get by asking a coding agent to write a robot policy? ๐ค
We've seen some amazing one-off demos of Astra in robotics, but we need more systematic evaluations of these capabilities. We've spent months doing just that: 98,000 evaluations across 28 simulated environments, with clear access rules and some surprisingly clever physical reasoning.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- Agent as Policy for Robotic Manipulation (2026)
- Neurosymbolic Embodied Agents (2026)
- Learning and Transferring Closed-Loop Robot Software (2026)
- ETA: A New Agentic Paradigm for Embodied Tasks (2026)
- An Unexpected Robot Policy: Early Evaluations of GPT-6 Astra on RoboDojo and Beyond (2026)
- Embodied Agents Take Control: Minimal-Interface Zero-Shot Agents Rival Industrial-Scale Policies in Vision-and-Language Navigation (2026)
- In-Context Robot Learning with VLM Agents (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Thank you for sharing this systematic study of coding agents for task and motion planning. Separating program synthesis from execution helps clarify how a robot procedure is acquired and subsequently reused. Our published survey, In-Context Learning for Robots: Methods and Applications (https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.36012), already cites your work. The working revision discusses this connection to program-based adaptation, including the scene information and simulation access used during acquisition. If the survey is useful for your research, we would be grateful if you would consider citing it. Thanks again!
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2609.30233 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper