Fine-grained robotic evaluation matters for understanding embodied models, going beyond binary success rates and rule-based process scores. We present PRM-as-a-Judge 1.5, a toolkit for robot process assessment that turns rollout videos into dense progress curves and derives multiple fine metrics. PRM-as-a-Judge 1.5 introduces three metrics, building on version 1.0, that characterize failure-side progress, post-drawdown recovery, and success-side execution quality, helping users understand embodied model capability. Based on the rollout videos from benchmarks, we perform a comprehensive assessment of the embodied models, providing some fine-grained metric results and key findings. We further introduce RoboPulse++ to evaluate the reliability of process reward models (PRM), providing evaluators with a more accurate testing platform. Moreover, we release a user-friendly assessment suite, including the benchmark, metric implementation, and visualization tools, to support reproducible manipulation process evaluation. We call on the community to rethink how robots are evaluated and establish transparent, procedural, and reproducible assessment as a foundation for the next generation of embodied intelligence.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The evolution of robotic metrics. Evaluation progresses from coarse binary outcomes to holistic process understanding. PRM-as-a-Judge 1.0 introduces multi-dimensional process assessment using OPD metrics. Building upon this foundation, PRM-as-a-Judge 1.5 not only evaluates execution quality but also produces a Model Assessment Report for embodied models, including VLAs and WAMs.
Figure 2: Overall pipeline of PRM-as-a-Judge 1.5. After receiving the rollout video and related inputs, PRM-as-a-Judge 1.5 first uses the PRM to obtain a progress curve. Additionally, we update the metrics of version 1.0. Based on this progress curve and the designed metrics, users can obtain a comprehensive report. This report includes fine-grained evaluation and assessment results of the embodied models.
Metric
Pref.
Definition
Interpretation
Outcome–level Metrics
Milestone Coverage (MC@ q )
↑
The proportion of rollouts whose maximum progress reaches milestone q .
Reveal where embodied models stop progressing.
Max Progress (MP)
↑
The maximum progress value attained during the whole rollout.
The furthest progress reached.
Process–level Metrics
Path-weighted Progress Length (PPL)
↑
Squared maximum progress divided by the total variation of the progress curve.
Measure how efficiently a rollout reaches its best progress.
Diagnosis- level Metrics
Table 1: Overview of the OPD Metric Suite. Pref. is Preference direction ( ↑ : higher is better, and vice versa). † represents new metrics added in PRM-as-a-Judge 1.5.
Embodied Model
MC@25 ↑ 1
MC@50 ↑ 1
MC@75 ↑ 1
MP ↑ 2
SR ↑ 3
PPL ↑ 4
DRR ↑ 5
FNS ↑ 6
SQS ↑ 7
CRA ↓ 8
STR ↓ 9
π0.5
85.29
60.59
38.82
59.90
17.06
28.93
100.00
45.39
82.08
5.22
21.81
InternVLA-A1
61.76
33.53
18.82
30.42
4.71
14.18
66.81
14.83
86.62
9.24
38.15
Xiaomi-Robotics-0
54.71
29.41
11.76
27.12
3.53
10.50
62.70
13.14
84.47
13.01
35.45
GalaxeaVLA (G0)
60.00
27.65
10.00
29.41
2.35
11.17
66.69
14.36
88.21
11.87
35.48
X-VLA
69.41
32.35
17.06
37.21
2.35
11.38
66.31
18.24
83.45
15.76
22.39
π0
54.12
21.18
7.65
26.99
1.76
10.69
71.27
12.96
88.57
10.15
38.80
Table 2: Comparisons on RoboDojo-RealWorld. ↑ represents a higher value, the better, the darker the color, and vice versa. Bold represents the best results, and underline represents the suboptimal results.
Embodied Model
MC@25 ↑ 1
MC@50 ↑ 1
MC@75 ↑ 1
MP ↑ 2
SR ↑ 3
PPL ↑ 4
DRR ↑ 5
FNS ↑ 6
SQS ↑ 7
CRA ↓ 8
STR ↓ 9
Hy-Embodied-0.5-VLA
67.01
46.53
28.82
47.68
11.46
18.81
83.06
19.99
77.77
9.75
35.80
π0.5
73.61
45.83
27.43
46.60
8.68
16.88
87.46
21.03
78.76
10.18
30.36
Spatial Forcing (w/ π0.5 )
70.83
44.44
29.17
44.88
8.68
16.98
93.47
20.15
74.19
11.45
29.59
X-WAM
73.96
41.67
23.26
41.19
7.29
16.03
80.51
19.38
77.86
10.89
30.88
GalaxeaVLA (G0)
51.05
31.82
17.13
26.14
6.29
10.15
74.13
11.55
77.07
13.62
38.52
X-VLA
62.59
41.61
23.08
39.84
6.29
13.82
65.52
17.64
81.74
11.17
28.41
Table 3: Comparisons on RoboDojo-Sim. Specific identification is the same as Table 2 .
Embodied Model
MC@25
MC@50
MC@75
MP
SR
PPL
DRR
FNS
SQS
CRA
STR
Avg.
π0.5
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
1
6
3
3
1
Hy-Embodied-0.5-VLA
4
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
8
1
6
2
Spatial Forcing (w/ π0.5 )
3
3
1
3
2
2
1
2
13
6
2
3
X-WAM
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
4
4
4
X-VLA
5
5
5
5
5
5
13
5
5
5
1
5
GigaWorld-Policy-0
6
6
6
6
11
6
14
6
9
2
11
6
Table 4: Rankings on RoboDojo-Sim. Specific values are shown in Table 3 .
Figure 3: Proportion of VLAs and WAMs ranked within the Top-3, Top-5, and Top-10 on RoboDojo-Sim. Percentages are normalized by the total number of evaluated models in each paradigm.
Figure 4: Model size versus overall ranking on RoboDojo-Sim. Each point represents one model. The dashed lines indicate the median model size and median average rank across metrics, dividing the models into four regions. The shaded regions highlight models whose size and performance lie on opposite sides of the two medians, and n denotes the number of models in each region.
Figure 5: Performance comparison across different metrics in RoboDojo. The further out the indicator is, the better the performance. SQS is not compared in the real-world setting because most models have low SR for a reliable estimate; its values are set to a common radius.
Figure 6: Task-category process profiles on RoboDojo-Sim. Each point represents one model’s category-level mean, with tasks weighted equally, and each box summarizes the distribution. The panels report metrics for 24 Generalization , 8 Precision , 8 Long-Horizon , and 8 Open-Vocabulary task conditions.
Figure 7: Simulation-to-real changes in performance ranking for the shared model set. The three panels trace within-benchmark rank changes for SR, MP, and FNS across the nine shared models. Colors highlight π0.5 , InternVLA-A1, and StarVLA; all other models are shown in gray.
Figure 8: Simulation-to-real performance gaps in Max Progress (MP). Each cell reports the Real-minus-Sim MP difference in percentage points across the six shared tasks. Orange cells (negative values) indicate lower progress in Real, whereas blue cells (positive values) indicate higher progress in Real.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 9: Task-semantic coverage of RoboPulse++.
Data source
Episodes
Tasks
Frames
Intervals
Real-World Data
RoboChallenge-Table30 ( Yakefu et al., 2025 )
79
25
3,448
882
RoboChallenge-Table30-V2 ( Yakefu et al., 2025 )
79
26
2,068
169
ViFailback ( Zeng et al., 2026 )
265
103
4,760
544
RoboFAC-Real ( Ye and others, 2025 )
16
6
261
33
Simulation Data
Appendix
Table 5: Data statistics of RoboPulse++ across different sources.
Judge Model
Rising
Falling
Overall
Precision
Recall
F1 Score
Precision
Recall
F1 Score
Macro-F1
Accuracy
Specialized PRMs
Robo-Dopamine (Forward)
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.79
0.50
0.61
0.77
0.84
Robo-Dopamine (Backward)
0.92
0.88
0.90
0.72
0.55
0.63
0.76
0.82
Robo-Dopamine (Incremental)
0.93
0.84
0.88
0.62
0.57
0.59
0.74
0.79
RoboMeter
0.89
0.86
0.87
0.47
0.54
0.50
0.69
0.80
Appendix
Table 6: Progress-direction performance of judge models on RoboPulse++ (700 episodes).
Failure type
# Intervals
Proportion
Interaction-relation failure
121
78.1%
Task-order failure
34
21.9%
Appendix
Table 7: Failure-type distribution of Falling intervals.
Evaluation subset
Robo-Dopamine (Forward)
RoboMeter
Rising
0.844
0.951
Falling
0.408
0.901
Overall
0.746
0.940
Appendix
Table 8: Accuracy of representative Pair Style and Sequence Style PRMs on context-dependent task patterns. Rising and Falling report class-conditioned accuracy, while Overall reports accuracy over all evaluated points.
Judge Model
Params. (B)
Peak Memory (GiB)
Runtime
Robo-Dopamine
4
11
29.3 min
Robo-Dopamine
8
19
31.7 min
VLAC
2
6
11.3 min
RoboMeter
4
12
46 s
TOPReward
8
17
12.3 min
PRIMO (w/ CoT)
7
17
19.6 h
Appendix
Table 9: Computational cost of representative progress judge models.
Setting
# Models
SR MAE (pp)
Mean Diff. (pp)
Spearman ρ
Simulation
16
1.57%
+1.29%
0.88
Real-World
9
1.32%
-0.35%
0.96
Appendix
Table 10: Model-level consistency between PRM-derived and benchmark-reported RoboDojo SR.
Figure 10: Drawdown recovery on the hang mugs task. The upper row shows the π0.5 rollout, and the lower row shows the Xiaomi-Robotics-0 rollout. The annotated drawdown and recovery intervals indicate how much progress each policy regains after its maximum-drawdown trough.
Figure 11: Drawdown recovery on the sort nesting dolls by size task. The upper row shows the X-WAM rollout, and the lower row shows the Fast-WAM rollout. The annotated drawdown and recovery intervals distinguish sustained post-drawdown recovery from partial recovery.
Figure 12: Successful-trajectory quality on the stand up bottles task. The upper row shows the InternVLA-A1 rollout, and the lower row shows the π0.5 rollout. The progress curves illustrate how SQS rewards efficient completion while penalizing regression and repeated corrective behavior.
Figure 13: Successful-trajectory quality on the put bottles into dustbin task. The upper row shows the X-WAM rollout, and the lower row shows the GalaxeaVLA rollout. The progress curves show how SQS distinguishes stable completion from a less efficient trajectory with intermediate regression.
Figure 14: Failure proximity on the plug in charger task. The upper row shows the π0.5 rollout, and the lower row shows the π0 rollout. Although both rollouts fail, FNS assigns a higher score to the trajectory that reaches the late-stage plug-in attempt than to the trajectory that repeatedly fails at grasping.
Figure 15: Failure proximity on the store laptop and headphones task. The upper row shows the AHA-WAM rollout, and the lower row shows the Fast-WAM rollout. FNS differentiates the near-complete trajectory from the rollout that remains stalled at the initial grasping stage.
Figure 16: Automatically Generated Evaluation Report. PRM-as-a-Judge 1.5 automatically generates a comprehensive report that summarizes model-level results and provides visual analyses of process metrics, success and failure profiles, failure progress, recovery, and individual trajectories.
Current robotic evaluation is still largely dominated by binary success rates, which collapse rich execution processes into a single outcome and obscure critical qualities such as progress, efficiency, and stability. To address this limitation, we propose PRM-as-a-Judge, a dense evaluation paradigm that leverages Process Reward Models (PRMs) to audit policy execution directly from trajectory videos by estimating task progress from observation sequences. Central to this paradigm is the OPD (Outcome-Process-Diagnosis) metric system, which explicitly formalizes execution quality via a task-aligned progress potential. We characterize dense robotic evaluation through two axiomatic properties: macro-consistency, which requires additive and path-consistent aggregation, and micro-resolution, which requires sensitivity to fine-grained physical evolution. Under this formulation, potential-based PRM judges provide a natural instantiation of dense evaluation, with macro-consistency following directly from the induced scalar potential. We empirically validate the micro-resolution property using RoboPulse, a diagnostic benchmark specifically designed for probing micro-scale progress discrimination, where several trajectory-trained PRM judges outperform discriminative similarity-based methods and general-purpose foundation-model judges. Finally, leveraging PRM-as-a-Judge and the OPD metric system, we conduct a structured audit of mainstream policy paradigms across long-horizon tasks, revealing behavioral signatures and failure modes that are invisible to outcome-only metrics.
Yuheng Ji, Yuyang Liu, Huajie Tan +15
State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University +4
Vision-language models (VLMs) used as robotic critics, reward generators, and failure detectors must understand how manipulation unfolds, not only whether it succeeds. Yet fine-grained process supervision is not readily available in a unified form, and existing evaluations do not systematically diagnose these abilities. We introduce Robo2Process, a trace-grounded framework for scalable construction of process-aware supervision from heterogeneous robotic execution data. It aligns visual observations with source-native signals and annotations, extracts local process units (LPUs), and generates structured QA supervision through task-specific sampling, deterministic label construction, and ambiguity filtering. We instantiate this framework as RoboProcessBench, a diagnostic benchmark with 12 question families spanning static monitoring and dynamic reasoning, and ProcessData, a corpus of 57,892 QA pairs across four data sources and 260 manipulation tasks, split into ProcessData-SFT and ProcessData-Eval. Evaluation of a broad suite of VLMs reveals uneven process understanding. Supervision from ProcessData-SFT improves Qwen2.5-VL-7B and InternVL-3-8B on local state, motion, progress, and primitive-aware cues. External evaluation on RoboRewardBench shows Robo2Process enables out-of-distribution process-aware reasoning abilities. Overall, Robo2Process provides a source-aware pipeline, diagnostic benchmark, and learnable substrate for process-aware understanding in robotic manipulation.
Dayu Xia, Yue Shi, Yao Mu +7
Shanghai AI Laboratory · Zhejiang University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University +2
Video generation models are promising foundations for embodied world models, but only if their generated rollouts are physically valid and faithful to task instructions. Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used to judge these properties, yet their agreement with human judgments on embodied videos has not been systematically evaluated. To address this gap, we introduce RoboJudge-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating MLLMs as judges of embodied video generation. The benchmark measures two fundamental dimensions, Physical Adherence and Instruction Alignment, across 800 human-annotated videos from 8 source corpora and 10 video generators, spanning grippers, human hands, and dexterous hands. Experiments reveal uneven alignment between existing judges and human ratings: general-purpose MLLMs show lower agreement on physical adherence, while specialized video judges designed for general-domain physical reasoning do not consistently transfer to embodied scenarios. Motivated by these findings, we construct RoboJudge-Train, comprising 12K videos annotated with 25K human-verified scores and model-assisted rationales for Physical Adherence and Instruction Alignment. We fine-tune a 9B MLLM on this dataset with supervised learning followed by reinforcement learning, yielding RoboJudge-9B. Among the model judges evaluated on RoboJudge-Bench, RoboJudge-9B achieves the highest overall agreement, reaching a Pearson correlation of 0.719 with a statistically significant 0.089 gain over Gemini-3.7-Flash, the best-performing proprietary baseline in our evaluation. Training on RoboJudge-Train also yields gains on external benchmarks, including VideoPhy2 and Physion-Eval. We further use RoboJudge-9B as a downstream evaluator to benchmark video generation models according to Physical Adherence and Instruction Alignment.
Siyuan Ma, Yu Qi, Cheng Ye +8
The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Northeastern University · University of California, San Diego +3