HumanoidToolBench: Benchmarking Humanoid Tool Use from Selection to Mobile Execution

Humans combine reasoning and motor control to solve complex manipulation tasks under diverse constraints. They build an understanding of the physical world that helps them convert reasoning into actions and quickly adapt to new scenes, tasks, and rules. We refer to this capability as intuitive manipulation. Existing benchmarks fail to capture this integration: they evaluate physical reasoning in isolation from execution, or measure policy performance without requiring explicit reasoning. We introduce IMBENCH, a benchmark designed to evaluate intuitive manipulation as an integrated capability spanning perception, physical reasoning, action generation, and iterative execution. Our tasks require models to infer task-relevant physical structure and generate feasible action sequences under explicit constraints, including contact-rich manipulation, tool use, and multi-stage dependencies. We introduce a benchmark of 35 tasks, 14K filtered trajectories, and scalable tools for generating diverse scenarios. Experiments reveal a consistent gap: vision language models show partial physical reasoning ability but fail to produce executable plans, while state-of-the-art vision-language-action models struggle to satisfy task constraints and generalize across scenarios. These results identify intuitive manipulation as a missing axis in current foundation models and generalist robot policies, and position IMBENCH as a step toward evaluating and enabling more integrated, adaptive physical intelligence.

How well can general-purpose multimodal models turn visual understanding and reasoning into embodied manipulation via executable code? We introduce CodeActionBench, a benchmark of 25 manipulation tasks that evaluates this capability through agentic Code-as-Policy. Without task-specific fine-tuning, demonstrations, external specialist perception or grasp modules, privileged scene state, or predefined task policies, agents should select visual evidence, form task-relevant 3D estimates, construct manipulation targets, and iteratively execute and revise their policies. A shared robot API provides RGB observations, calibrated geometric operations, robot feedback, and bounded motion, leaving task-dependent decisions to the evaluated agent. Fixed task instances, resource budgets, and a hidden physical-outcome verifier support controlled comparisons across models and harness configurations. Extensive evaluations across nine configurations and 675 attempts achieve success rates ranging from 2.7% to 73.3%. The strongest configuration, GPT-6 Astra with Codex CLI, solves 22 of 25 tasks at least once in three attempts, demonstrating the best performance while still leaving substantial room for improvement. Trajectory analyses reveal difficulties in spatial alignment, object retention, and completion judgment, including task failures despite successfully completed motions. CodeActionBench provides a controlled testbed for measuring how general-purpose models translate their capabilities into manipulation behavior and for examining typical failure scenarios in that process.

Generalist manipulation policies are increasingly presented as foundation models for robotic control, but their real-world generalization remains difficult to diagnose. A policy may succeed on demonstrated tasks while still failing to execute fine-grained atomic skills or recombine learned skills in new task structures. We introduce \textbf{ATOM-Bench}, a real-world benchmark for evaluating both atomic skills and compositional generalization in manipulation policies. ATOM-Bench factorizes tabletop manipulation into motor atoms and instruction atoms, and contains 30 atomic tasks and 24 held-out compositional tasks across paired single-arm and dual-arm robot tracks. We collect 3,000 human demonstrations for atomic fine-tuning and release both the demonstration data and evaluation rollout data to support reproducible real-world evaluation. Policies are fine-tuned on atomic tasks and evaluated on both atomic skill acquisition and held-out compositional tasks. We further introduce Atomic Score (AS) and Compositional Failure Share (CFS) to distinguish failures caused by weak atomic skills from failures caused by limited compositional reuse. Through 2,700 physical rollouts on five representative manipulation policies, we find that current policies can acquire simple instruction-grounding skills, but still struggle with fine-grained motor atoms, counting, and logical filtering. More importantly, strong atomic performance does not reliably transfer to held-out compositional tasks. ATOM-Bench provides a diagnostic testbed for studying whether failures arise from weak motor execution, poor instruction grounding, or limited compositional reuse.