Execution Logs Sway VLM Judges of Robot Progress

Large vision-language models contain several priors about the world and object interactions, making them useful critics during inference to steer robot policies towards success. However, closed-loop robot manipulation requires judging small visual differences between success and failure, which remains a challenge for current VLMs. We introduce a method to fine-tune critics by constructing pairwise progress supervision using success and failure rollouts obtained from a policy. Our fine-tuned critic excels at fine-grained progress reasoning and subtle failure detection, outperforming prior progress reasoning baselines. Additionally, we use an action-conditioned video model to predict the visual effect of several candidate actions sampled from a policy, and show that our critic can correctly identify successful candidates to execute, improving the average policy success rate by 11% across real-world tasks and 5.9% across simulation tasks.

Robot world models now generate synthetic manipulation videos, but evaluating them is hard: realistic-looking outputs often violate physical laws, temporal consistency or task logic, while conventional metrics and monolithic Vision-Language Model (VLM) judges return scores that do not say what failed. We present RoboGaze, a training-free multi-agent VLM evaluator that grounds the task and scene, routes each subtask to dimension-specific specialists and verifies their findings with a critic, producing temporally localized diagnostic reports that state what failed, when, why and how severely, under a schema of 6 dimensions and 30 failure types whose annotation reliability and coverage we measure. To benchmark it, we introduce RoboGazeBench, 914 human-annotated clips from five generators, conditioned on simulated and real-world data and running from 4.9 to 148.9 s. Across eight open-source and proprietary VLM backbones, RoboGaze outperforms every baseline; even a published agentic detector given the same schema and a slightly larger inference budget trails it by 10.1-12.3 description-F1 points, a margin that blinded human raters confirm. On the strongest backbone it closes 83% of the gap between chain-of-thought prompting and human agreement, and its critic curbs the "cry-wolf" false positives of standard VLMs, lifting mean clean-clip accuracy from 17% to 85%. The advantage is largest on held-out generators and long clips, and carries over to selecting generated demonstrations (80% vs. 71% precision).

Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly act as judges that pick the best of several generated images, so their choices decide what users see. Such judges are usually validated by score agreement with human ratings, not by the images they return. We audit VLM judges as decision-makers: on 300 culturally situated prompts, we compare the returned image with human ratings the judge never sees and with random choice from the same candidates, and repeat every decision with the candidates reordered. A 4B-parameter judge barely beats random and falls short of a CLIP similarity baseline. It picks the first image shown in 49% of calls (chance: 28%), and reordering changes its choice on 60% of prompts. For this judge, agreement across orders is informative: decisions that survive reordering are much better than random, whereas agreement with a weaker second judge keeps the wrong ones. An 8B judge shows almost no position bias and outperforms CLIP, yet for it the same filter mostly discards good decisions. Agreement helps only when it targets the judge's failure mode, so filters must be re-audited whenever the judge changes. The 4B judge's slight rise in stereotype ratings is no longer detectable after aggregating across orders or with the larger judge.