What Are We Actually Benchmarking in Robot Manipulation?
Authors: Tianchong Jiang, Xiangshan Tan, Samuel Wheeler, Luzhe Sun, Tewodros W. Ayalew, Matthew Walter
Organizations: Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA · Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA · University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
A robotics benchmark score measures success under one fixed evaluation setup, yet is routinely treated as evidence of general manipulation capability. We identify four failure modes, each of which weakens or invalidates a benchmark's role as a valid proxy for that capability: shortcut solvability, lack of statistical significance, creeping overfitting, and data-source dependence. We propose one diagnostic per failure mode. We audit LIBERO, CALVIN, SimplerEnv, RoboCasa, and RoboTwin 2.0 under these diagnostics. LIBERO and CALVIN fail multiple diagnostics. RoboCasa and RoboTwin 2.0 fail fewer, despite appearing far less often in recent progress claims. On LIBERO, a 0.09B probe with no language encoder scores at or near reported SOTA, and most reported gains are not provably statistically significant. On CALVIN, randomizing block poses within the training range drops performance for every tested policy. We release the four diagnostics with reference implementations for authors and reviewers to apply before treating a benchmark score as evidence of progress. Code and artifacts are available at https://ripl.github.io/manipulation_benchmark_audit/.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) or World Action (WAM) models have recently demonstrated remarkable performance in robotic manipulation. On LIBERO, SOTA method have achieved nearly 100% success rates, seemingly suggesting that the models are ready for deployment in real world. However, near perfect performance on existing benchmarks can be misleading: success under ideal conditions does not imply real world robustness. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate task completion from predefined initial states, while real world interactions inevitably involve failures such as failed grasps, collisions, and unintended object movements. A robot must therefore not only execute tasks successfully, but also recognize and recover from failures to continue the task. Yet this capability remains largely unmeasured, revealing a critical gap between benchmark performance and real world reliability. To address this gap, we introduce LIBERO-Recover Benchmark, a large scale benchmark for failure recovery in robotic manipulation. Built upon LIBERO, we collect real execution failures from SOTA embodied models and construct 1,000+ scenarios across four recovery levels: (1) Action Retry, (2) Action Adaptation, (3) Object State Recovery, and (4) Environmental Recovery. We evaluate four core capabilities: spatial understanding, object structure reasoning, interaction understanding, and topological reasoning. As the first large-scale benchmark for embodied failure recovery, LIBERO-Recover shifts evaluation from \emph{Can the robot succeed?''} to \emph{Can the robot recover after failure?''}, promoting robust and generalizable embodied agents. The project will be avaible in \textcolor{blue}{https://liulin815.github.io/LIBERO-Recovery/}.
We present EBench, a simulation benchmark that diagnoses generalist mobile manipulation policies beyond a single success-rate scalar. EBench comprises 26 diverse and challenging manipulation tasks annotated along 5 capability dimensions and 4 generalization dimensions. We evaluate state-of-the-art generalist manipulation models including π0, π0.5, XVLA, and InternVLA-A1, and reveal that the models exhibit strikingly different capability profiles: π0.5 achieves the highest test success rate, the best train--test retention, and the strongest mobile manipulation performance; π0 leads on dexterous fixed-base and high-precision tasks; XVLA and InternVLA-A1 exhibit complementary strengths across atomic skills and operating regimes. Beyond capability profiling, EBench analyzes the generalization ability from 4 representative perspectives, identifying the impact of different distribution shift factors. The results reveal strengths and weaknesses of models behind an overall score. We hope this benchmark offers a broad set of diagnostic signals to guide iteration on generalist manipulation models.
Although Vision--Action (VA) and Vision--Language--Action (VLA) policies have advanced robotic manipulation, their evaluation remains dominated by binary success rates, which obscure process-level differences among executions that complete the same task. We introduce Eval-Actions, a diagnostic evaluation methodology and real-robot benchmark for fine-grained execution-quality assessment of learned manipulation policies. Eval-Actions combines criteria-based Expert Grading (EG), Rank-Guided (RG) labels that align measurable motion indicators with expert rankings, and Chain-of-Thought-style (CoT) annotations that explain observable quality differences. The benchmark contains 13K+ teleoperated and policy-generated real-robot episodes covering 150+ tasks and approximately 52 hours of recordings with RGB-D videos, robot-state trajectories, task descriptions, and success/failure labels. Its densely annotated subset provides EG/RG/CoT supervision for training and evaluation. We further provide AutoEval, a reference multimodal evaluator that predicts quality scores, task outcomes, and diagnostic explanations from RGB temporal evidence and compact kinematic summaries. On the annotated Eval-Actions test split, AutoEval-S achieves Spearman rank correlations (SRCCs) of 0.81 and 0.84 under EG and RG, with success detection accuracies of 90.6% and 91.0%; AutoEval-P reaches 0.70 SRCC under CoT. Analyses of expert consistency, physical-metric baselines, modality ablations, structured generalization, and offline policy ranking show that Eval-Actions provides standardized, interpretable diagnostic signals complementary to success-rate evaluation.