RACAS: Controlling Diverse Robots With a Single Agentic System

Dylan R. Ashley, Jan Przepióra, Yimeng Chen, Ali Abualsaud, Nurzhan Yesmagambet, Shinkyu Park, Eric Feron, Jürgen Schmidhuber · Mar 5, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Many robotic platforms expose an API through which external software can command their actuators and read their sensors. However, transitioning from these low-level interfaces to high-level autonomous behaviour requires a complicated pipeline, whose components demand distinct areas of expertise. Existing approaches to bridging this gap either require retraining for every new embodiment or have only been validated across structurally similar platforms. We introduce RACAS (Robot-Agnostic Control via Agentic Systems), a cooperative agentic architecture in which three LLM/VLM-based modules (Monitors, a Controller, and a Memory Curator) communicate exclusively through natural language to provide closed-loop robot control. RACAS requires only a natural language description of the robot, a definition of available actions, and a task specification; no source code, model weights, or reward functions need to be modified to move between platforms. We evaluate RACAS on several tasks using a wheeled ground robot, a recently published novel multi-jointed robotic limb, and an underwater vehicle. RACAS consistently solved all assigned tasks across these radically different platforms, demonstrating the potential of agentic AI to substantially reduce the barrier to prototyping robotic solutions.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.