Robotic manipulation often requires acting on information that is no longer visible, yet Vision-Language-Action policies are usually evaluated when the current observation largely determines the next action. Existing robotic memory benchmarks expose this gap, but they still rely mainly on final task success and therefore conflate forgetting with manipulation failure. We present MEMOBench, a benchmark for process level memory evaluation in robotic manipulation. MEMOBench includes 30 history dependent tasks, 1{,}500 expert demonstrations, and 4{,}200 executable checkpoint instances from 84 templates. Each checkpoint pairs coarse to fine language with a simulator predicate and labels one memory operation: Storage, Update, or Compression. These annotations define Memory Storage Rate, Memory Update Rate, and Memory Compression Rate, which measure memory fidelity alongside task success. Across standard and memory augmented VLA policies, the strongest memory module baseline reaches only 31.9% average success rate, and high storage often coexists with weak update and compression. Checkpoint language also supervises semantic, contrastive, and framewise memory alignment objectives, yielding modest gains across different memory operations. MEMOBench provides a diagnostic evaluation suite and training supervision for memory grounded robotic policies. The project page is available at https://github.com/Collab-Gen/MEMOBench.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of MEMOBench, including history dependent manipulation tasks, process level checkpoint annotations, and radar summaries for model evaluation and memory alignment.
Task Properties
Inputs
Annotations
Scale
Benchmark
Mem. Type
Non- Mkv.
Part. Obs.
Dyn. Scene
Vid.
Lang.
Subgoal
Keyframe
Mem. Op.
#Task
#Demo
Avg. Len.
General purpose manipulation benchmarks
RLBench James et al. (2020)
T
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✓
✗
18
1,800
137
CALVIN Mees et al. (2022)
T
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
✓
✗
34
1,000
584
LIBERO Liu et al. (2023)
T
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
✗
130
6,500
162
RoboCerebra Han et al. (2025)
T
✗
✗
✓
✗
✓
✓
✗
✗
100
1,000
2,972
Table 1: Comparison with existing manipulation benchmarks. Memory types: T = temporal, S = spatial, O = object, P = procedural, Seq = sequential, Cap = memory capacity. RLBench reports the commonly evaluated 18 task subset. RoboMemArena reports its simulation benchmark only, excluding 5 real robot tasks. The final column reports average trajectory length when available. MEMOBench is the first robotic manipulation memory benchmark with process level memory operation annotations, diagnosing which memory operation fails rather than only whether the task succeeds.
Figure 2: Overview of memory alignment from annotations. MEMOBench checkpoints provide subgoal text and frame level supervision for Semantic, Contrastive, and Framewise Memory Alignment.
Temporal Mem.
Spatial Mem.
Object Mem.
Procedural Mem.
Average
Model
SR
MSR
MUR
MCR
SR
MSR
MUR
MCR
SR
MSR
MUR
MCR
SR
MSR
MUR
MCR
Avg. SR
Avg. MSR
Avg. MUR
Avg. MCR
step = 5
π0 Black et al. (2026)
4.4
94.0
12.4
4.0
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
27.6
27.6
–
–
12.4
32.4
12.0
–
11.2
38.6
8.3
2.1
π0.5 Intelligence et al. (2025)
2.2
67.6
18.4
2.0
0.0
6.4
0.3
6.4
99.6
99.6
–
–
19.6
46.0
22.0
–
30.4
54.9
13.5
4.2
OpenVLA-OFT Kim et al. (2025)
0.4
5.6
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
1.6
0.3
33.2
33.2
–
–
6.4
9.6
15.3
–
10.0
12.2
5.8
0.6
MemoryVLA † Shi et al. (2026)
0.2
87.8
38.0
0.0
22.4
23.6
24.1
22.3
2.4
2.4
–
–
43.6
58.4
45.7
–
17.2
43.1
35.9
11.1
HiF-VLA † Lin et al. (2026)
0.2
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
79.6
79.6
–
–
4.0
10.4
14.3
–
21.0
23.0
4.8
0.1
Table 2: Main MEMOBench results under replan steps 5, 20, 35, and 50. Avg. columns macro average over applicable memory types. Bold and underline mark the best and second best values within each replan block. Dashes are excluded from averages, and † marks explicit memory mechanisms.
Temporal Mem.
Spatial Mem.
Object Mem.
Procedural Mem.
Average
Method
SR
MSR
MUR
MCR
SR
MSR
MUR
MCR
SR
MSR
MUR
MCR
SR
MSR
MUR
MCR
Avg. SR
Avg. MSR
Avg. MUR
Avg. MCR
step = 5
Contrastive Memory Alignment
14.4
91.8
39.6
14.0
1.4
7.6
1.6
8.3
99.2
99.2
–
–
23.6
40.4
23.0
–
34.7
59.8
21.4
11.1
Semantic Memory Alignment
12.4
97.8
36.5
12.0
0.2
5.6
0.5
4.3
99.2
99.2
–
–
15.6
40.4
15.0
–
31.9
60.8
17.4
8.1
Framewise Memory Alignment
10.4
99.4
25.6
10.0
1.4
3.6
1.6
4.3
99.2
99.2
–
–
19.6
34.4
19.0
–
32.7
59.2
15.4
7.1
Memory module
9.8
92.0
32.2
10.0
2.0
8.4
1.7
5.6
99.6
99.6
–
–
16.0
32.4
15.7
–
31.9
58.1
16.5
7.8
step = 20
Contrastive Memory Alignment
12.4
97.8
25.6
12.0
1.4
7.6
1.6
6.3
99.2
99.2
–
–
5.6
14.4
5.0
–
29.7
54.8
10.7
9.1
Table 3: Memory alignment results for the RoboMME π0.5 memory module Dai et al. (2026) . Alignment variants add auxiliary training losses, while Memory module is the unaligned baseline. Bold and underline mark the best and second best values within each replan block. Dashes are excluded from averages.
Figure 3: Metric correlations from Table 2 . Each point is one model, replan step, and memory type entry. Shading marks temporal cases with high MSR but low SR. Pearson correlations use all applicable entries for each process metric.
Figure 4: Failure taxonomy for a representative temporal task. Bars summarize coarse, intermediate, and fine-grained 50 episode rollout logs.
Memory type
SR
MSR
MUR
MCR
Temporal
2.2/54.9
67.6/68.0
18.4/54.2
2.0/53.0
Spatial
0.0/45.8
6.4/77.9
0.3/84.1
6.4/60.7
Object
99.6/96.8
99.6/96.8
–
–
Procedural
19.6/10.0
46.0/13.2
22.0/20.3
–
Average
30.4/51.9
54.9/64.0
13.5/52.9
4.2/56.8
Table 4: Oracle memory decomposition at replan step 5. Each cell reports standard π0.5 and, after the slash, the same backbone fine tuned and evaluated with ground truth memory text appended to the prompt. Dashes mark memory types without the corresponding operation.
Figure 5: Shuffled memory control on the temporal task from Figure 4 . Lines show prefix checkpoint completion, and final labels show successful rollouts.
Figure 6: Annotation granularity ablation on the temporal task from Figure 4 . Lines show prefix checkpoint completion, and final labels show successful rollouts.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Type
Family
Task Variants
Ops.
#Task
#Ckpt.
Temporal
Drawer checking
Top drawer, middle drawer, all three drawers
S/U/C
3
5
Appliance tracking
Microwave open/close, microwave open/close plus bowl placement
S/U/C
2
5
Stove transition
Stove on/off, near shelf variant, two frying pan placement variants
S/U
4
10
Drawer transfer
Check middle drawer, then place black bowl in top drawer and close it
S/U
1
3
Spatial
Single drawer placement
Artichoke, broccoli, brussels sprouts, charger, or tomato into top drawer
S/U/C
5
15
Two drawer placement
Five paired object variants for top and middle drawers
S/U/C
5
30
Appendix
Table 5: Task family summary for MEMOBench. Ops. gives the memory operations covered by each family, where S = Storage, U = Update, and C = Compression. #Ckpt. reports executable checkpoint templates before expanding them across demonstrations.
Family
Tasks
Episodes
Steps
Avg.
Median
P95
Max
Storage
Object
5
250
121,276
485.10
492.00
526.00
556
44.53 GiB
Procedural
5
250
250,204
1,000.82
876.00
1,649.50
2,012
91.79 GiB
Spatial
10
500
357,865
715.73
727.00
1,101.10
1,513
131.58 GiB
Temporal
10
500
198,099
396.20
400.50
679.05
779
72.66 GiB
Total
30
1,500
927,444
618.30
489.00
1,110.10
2,012
340.56 GiB
Appendix
Table 6: Family level statistics for the expert demonstrations. Steps count action or control steps, and storage is measured from the HDF5 task files.
Length bucket
Episodes
Share
0–199
50
3.33%
200–399
199
13.27%
400–599
687
45.80%
600–799
108
7.20%
800–999
290
19.33%
1,000–1,199
110
7.33%
Appendix
Table 7: Distribution of expert demonstration lengths in action steps.
Statistic
Value
Fleiss’ κ (three raters)
0.799
Pairwise Cohen’s κ
0.695 / 0.835 / 0.868
Exact three rater agreement
70/84 (83.3%)
Majority vote vs. released labels
71/84 (84.5%)
Pooled vs. released labels
203/252 (80.6%)
Per rater vs. released labels
77.4% / 79.8% / 84.5%
Appendix
Table 8: Agreement statistics for the blind relabeling study over the 84 checkpoint templates. Pooled agreement counts each of the three annotator decisions per template, for 252 decisions in total.
Released label
Ann. S
Ann. U
Ann. C
S (35 templates)
100
5
0
U (32 templates)
2
90
4
C (17 templates)
0
38
13
Appendix
Table 9: Pooled confusion matrix between released operation labels and annotator labels in the blind relabeling study. Each row pools the three annotator decisions per template, so rows sum to three times the template count.
Figure 7: Radar summaries for Table 2 (left) and Table 3 (right). Each axis takes the best value over replan settings for each method and metric, then normalizes by the axis maximum.
Memory type
SR
MSR
MUR
MCR
Temporal
62.4
63.8
61.7
63.0
Spatial
50.4
84.3
52.8
77.6
Object
93.2
93.2
–
–
Procedural
19.6
20.4
21.0
–
Average
56.4
65.4
45.2
70.3
Appendix
Table 10: MemER results on MEMOBench. MemER receives checkpoint based keyframe and subtask supervision, so we report it as a privileged supervision reference row rather than a matched baseline for Table 2 . Dashes mark memory types without the corresponding operation.
Robotic manipulation policies have made rapid progress in recent years, yet most existing approaches give limited consideration to memory capabilities. Consequently, they struggle to solve tasks that require reasoning over historical observations and maintaining task-relevant information over time, which are common requirements in real-world manipulation scenarios. Although several memory-aware policies have been proposed, systematic evaluation of memory-dependent manipulation remains underexplored, and the relationship between architectural design choices and memory performance is still not well understood. To address this gap, we introduce RMBench, a simulation benchmark comprising 9 manipulation tasks that span multiple levels of memory complexity, enabling systematic evaluation of policy memory capabilities. We further propose Mem-0, a modular manipulation policy with explicit memory components designed to support controlled ablation studies. Through extensive simulation and real-world experiments, we identify memory-related limitations in existing policies and provide empirical insights into how architectural design choices influence memory performance. The website is available at https://rmbench.github.io/.
Memory is critical for long-horizon and history-dependent robotic manipulation. Such tasks often involve counting repeated actions or manipulating objects that become temporarily occluded. Recent vision-language-action (VLA) models have begun to incorporate memory mechanisms; however, their evaluations remain confined to narrow, non-standardized settings. This limits systematic understanding, comparison, and progress measurement. To address these challenges, we introduce RoboMME: a large-scale standardized benchmark for evaluating and advancing VLA models in long-horizon, history-dependent scenarios. Our benchmark comprises 16 manipulation tasks constructed under a carefully designed taxonomy that evaluates temporal, spatial, object, and procedural memory. We further develop a suite of 14 memory-augmented VLA variants built on the π0.5 backbone to systematically explore different memory representations across multiple integration strategies. Experimental results show that the effectiveness of memory representations is highly task-dependent, with each design offering distinct advantages and limitations across different tasks. Videos and code can be found at our website https://robomme.github.io.
Yinpei Dai, Hongze Fu, Jayjun Lee +6
University of Michigan · Stanford University · Figure AI
Vision-language-action policies often see only one or a few recent frames, which makes it difficult to evaluate how they use information that disappears during a task. We introduce MIKASA-Robo-VLA, a benchmark of 90 language-conditioned manipulation tasks. All but 10 hide the cue an action depends on. Those 10 are reactive controls. MIKASA-Robo, the suite it rebuilds, has 32 tasks and uses language only in a representative VLA subset. Here every task provides an instruction, while memory-dependent tasks hide a task-relevant cue and reactive controls keep it available. For 70 tasks, environment phase timings specify an information gap, and for 28 of them the gap exceeds the 16-frame window of the widest fixed-context VLA we survey. The gap counts only the interval the cue is provably absent, not the full duration a policy must retain it, so every memory-dependent task still requires memory by construction, including the ones whose measured gap is short. We release 22,500 oracle trajectories across 10 memory types in RLDS and LeRobotDataset v3. A reference π0.5 baseline with current images and proprioception, but no observation history or explicit memory module, is fine-tuned on 14 tasks and achieves 0.211 ± 0.044 mean task success. Its lower success on the evaluated Long-split tasks is confounded by open-loop chunking and the memory types represented in that subset. Project page: https://mikasarobo.github.io/
Egor Cherepanov, Nikita Kachaev, Aleksandr I. Panov +1
AXXX, Moscow, Russia · MIRIAI, Moscow, Russia · HSE University, Moscow, Russia