TARSphere: A Robot-Oriented Full-Stack Framework for Long-Horizon Embodied Agents in Evolving Physical and Social Environments
Organizations: Zhejiang University · Fudan University
Abstract
Robots must act under physical and social constraints while adapting to changes in their environment and human needs. Existing embodied-agent systems often focus on specified goals or abstract execution into symbolic actions, limiting evaluation in an evolving world. We introduce TARSphere, a robot-oriented full-stack framework for physically and socially grounded long-horizon embodied agents. TARSphere-Infra runs robot policies in a physics simulator with embodied NPCs and constrained dialogue. An event-driven finite-state machine (FSM) uses completed actions and delivered information to update task states and evaluate outcomes. TARSphere-Harness, its embodied brain harness, lets a frozen multimodal large language model (MLLM) act through multi-level executable skills, using observations, hierarchical memory, and execution feedback to revise its decisions. On this foundation, agent-in-the-loop curation aligns task semantics, causal dependencies, and scene geometry to construct TARSphere-Bench: 360 episodes across 30 indoor scenes. Five paired conditions assess perceptual robustness, disruption adaptation, task update, human coordination, and intent understanding for navigate-and-report and fetch-and-deliver tasks. Our evaluation of 8 MLLMs shows that general-purpose models can outperform embodied models, while task updates and human interaction remain difficult. Frequent collisions and falls further motivate evaluating execution safety alongside task success, even with a shared action interface and decision budget.
Figures & tables
| Model | Progress / Success by Task Condition (%) | Execution Quality | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base | PR | DA | TU | HC | IU | Avg. | Rk. | Eff. | Cost | Safety | |
| navigate-and-report | |||||||||||
| GPT-5.6-Terra ∗ | 56.7/ 23.3 | 51.3/13.3 | 54.2/16.7 | 39.1/0.0 | 55.9 / 26.7 | 45.1/10.0 | 50.4/15.0 | 3 | 1.17 | 48.8/6.4k | 87/16 |
| Claude Sonnet-5 ∗ | 53.9/ 23.3 | 62.0 / 33.3 | 61.9 / 31.0 | 40.7/3.3 | 43.4/3.4 | 46.0 /6.7 | 51.3 / 16.9 | 2 | 1.48 | 54.9/12.9k | 93/33 |
| Gemini-3.8-Flash ∗ | 78.5 / 60.0 | 78.7 / 56.7 | 78.6 / 60.0 | 52.7 / 16.7 | 69.5 / 33.3 | 45.2 / 16.7 | 67.2 / 40.6 | 1 | 1.31 | 38.9/10.2k | 84/14 |
| Qwen3.7-Plus ∗ | 62.0 / 23.3 | 50.9/13.3 | 56.6/16.7 | 38.7/0.0 | 39.5/10.0 | 38.0/3.4 | 47.6/11.1 | 5 | 2.45 | 58.5/7.0k | 97/34 |
| Setting | Task Progress / Success Rate by Condition (%) | Execution Quality | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base | PR | DA | TU | HC | IU | Avg. | Eff. | Cost | Safety | ||
| Mechanisms vs. full harness | |||||||||||
| Obs. | w/o LiDAR | 72.6/41.7 | 70.7/ 50.0 | 54.5/25.0 | 61.7/33.3 | 57.8/25.0 | 48.5/ 25.0 | 61.0/33.3 | 1.12 | 37.1/9.6k | 97/32 |
| w/o action residuals | 74.2/50.0 | 75.8/41.7 | 67.6/41.7 | 55.0/16.7 | 59.3/33.3 | 48.0/ 25.0 | 63.3/34.7 | 1.18 | 49.8/10.1k | 94/19 | |
| Memory | w/o semantic spatial | 78.0 /41.7 | 76.3 / 58.3 | 69.1/33.3 | 68.3 / 41.7 | 67.6/ 58.3 | 46.8/16.7 | 67.7/ 41.7 | 1.40 | 49.5/9.9k | 94/19 |
| w/o self-managed | 76.2/50.0 | 73.0/ 50.0 | 72.3/25.0 | 65.8/25.0 | 68.7/ 41.7 | 48.2/16.7 | 67.4/34.7 | 1.00 | 41.0/9.8k | 92/24 | |
Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation
Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation measures whether AI agents can plan, act, remember, and stay reliable across extended tasks and changing environments.
See all 358 papers