Watch, Infer, Coordinate: Inferring Robot Partner Constraints for Zero-Shot Coordination

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.

A robot working alongside people must reason about what they have done, in what order, and with what intent. Video carries the spatial layouts, object histories, and gestures that language leaves underspecified, yet today's manipulation benchmarks pair an instruction with a single current image, offering no way to evaluate reasoning over observed human behavior. We introduce WatchAct, a benchmark for robot manipulation grounded in observed human behavior. Each instance pairs a real-world human-action video and a language instruction with an aligned simulator scene and an executable LIBERO task, enabling scalable and reproducible evaluation. WatchAct comprises 3,000 long-horizon instances across 14 tasks in four capability domains drawn from the cognitive demands of watching another agent: parsing events (Event Grounding), recovering procedural structure (Procedural Reasoning), inferring unstated intent (Implicit Intent Inference), and tracking how the scene was changed (Episodic Reasoning). We further propose a disentangled evaluation protocol that separately measures (i)~video-to-plan reasoning by vision-language models, (ii)~policy execution under oracle plans, and (iii)~full task completion by integrated planner--policy pipelines. In both simulation and on a Franka Research 3 robot, current systems remain far from solving WatchAct. The best pipeline, Gemini-3.1-Pro with $π_{0.5}$, reaches only 16.3% Success Rate (SR) in simulation and 14.0% on the real robot. Gemini-3.1-Pro attains just 36.8% Plan SR (vs. 97.1% for humans), while $π_{0.5}$ reaches only 21.5% Task SR under oracle plans and drops to 10.6% on out-of-domain scenarios. Dataset and code are available at https://baiqi-li.github.io/watchact_page/.

We present a structured large-language-model (LLM) architecture for zero-shot human--robot coordination in a cooperative construction task with private goal views. Guided by a Dec-POMDP formulation, the architecture decomposes decision-making into (i) action-conditioned Theory-of-Mind (ToM) inference, (ii) hierarchical planning, (iii) conversation interpretation, (iv) action verification, and (v) feedback-based replanning. We compare the proposed method with an ablation without ToM inference and a multi-agent reinforcement-learning policy trained offline over many goal pairs. In human-participant experiments, the proposed method required fewer interaction steps and yielded higher post-interaction trust ratings than both baselines. These results suggest that systematically decomposing the team decision problem, using LLMs as tractable surrogates for otherwise intractable inference and planning computations, and retaining conventional verification for physical feasibility can improve both task coordination and the human experience.