General-purpose embodied intelligence requires robots to coordinate diverse skills over long horizons, track task progress, and recover from failures. Specialist policies alone do not ensure task-level reliability, while powerful multimodal agents rely on costly reasoning and external experience that compact models struggle to reproduce. We introduce OmniBrain-0, a lightweight unified embodied agent that coordinates manipulation and navigation through a shared high-level decision model, integrating task understanding, planning, progress tracking, and feedback-driven recovery. Our progressive training framework combines embodied pretraining, domain-specialized agent distillation, and multi-teacher on-policy distillation (MOPD). It distills powerful teachers' interaction experience into manipulation and navigation experts, then consolidates their decision capabilities into OmniBrain-0. Unification therefore occurs within the learned decision model rather than only at the tool interface. We further introduce Rubric-Guided Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI), a data flywheel in which a Meta-Agent turns execution evidence into refined rubrics, step-level reminders, and verified trajectories for domain-expert updates before their reconsolidation into OmniBrain-0 through MOPD. We evaluate OmniBrain-0 on LIBERO-Pro, LIBERO-Plus, RoboCasa365, RoboTwin 2.0, and R2R-CE Val-Unseen, as well as multiple real-world manipulation tasks. OmniBrain-0 combines strong cross-domain task performance with substantially lower inference and execution overhead than its closed-source teacher, demonstrating efficient transfer and consolidation of embodied capabilities into a compact unified agent.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Cross-domain embodied-agent performance. Success rates on LIBERO-Pro, RoboCasa365, RoboTwin 2.0, and R2R-CE Val-Unseen, comparing specialist policies, few-shot teachers, and OmniBrain-0.
Figure 2: Overview of OmniBrain-0. Top: Three-stage training: embodied pretraining, domain-specialized distillation into manipulation and navigation experts, and multi-expert consolidation (MOPD) into a single compact agent. Middle: Given a task instruction, observations, and an optional experience library, OmniBrain-0 understands, plans, orchestrates skills, and recovers from failures across manipulation and navigation. Bottom: Rubric-Guided Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI) uses interaction evidence to refine step-level reminders and curate verified trajectories, then updates domain experts and consolidates their capabilities through MOPD for the next interaction round. The radar chart reports success rates (%) on five benchmarks, comparing OmniBrain-0 with the baseline policy ( π0.5 for LIBERO-Pro, LIBERO-Plus, RoboTwin 2.0, and RoboCasa365; InternVLA-N1 for R2R-CE Val-Unseen) and the few-shot teacher GPT-5.6-Sol.
Figure 3: Agentic execution framework and task execution examples. Left: Unified agentic system design comprising general perception tools, VLA manipulation tools, VLN navigation tools, and an optional experience library. Center: OmniBrain-0 performs observation-driven reasoning and tool orchestration through closed-loop interaction with task environments, using execution feedback to guide subsequent decisions. Right: Representative manipulation and navigation examples illustrating step-by-step reasoning, tool invocation, and task progression.
Figure 4: Interaction data construction. Raw interaction logs, images, and environment states pass through interaction normalization, trajectory quality control, reasoning reconstruction, and consistency validation. Canonical successes and successful recoveries form the training data; incomplete, unsuccessful, noisy, evidence-deficient, or inconsistent trajectories are discarded.
Figure 5: Three-stage training framework of OmniBrain-0. Left: Embodied VQA and agent interaction data establish the shared OmniBrain-Base initialization. Middle: Curated expert trajectories, including canonical successes and successful recoveries, supervise domain-specialized manipulation and navigation agents. Right: MOPD consolidates the frozen domain experts into a unified student through masked reverse-KL supervision on student-generated decision prefixes, updating only the student.
Figure 6: Rubric-based policy update and reminder-policy validation. Left: A verifier assesses collected successful and failed trajectories. The Meta-Agent analyzes execution evidence and adds, revises, or reinforces robotics rubrics supported by trajectory patches. Right: Rubric candidates inform the reminder policy, which conditions OmniBrain-0 together with the task input while model parameters remain fixed. Verified evaluation trajectories provide feedback for the next round, and effective reminders are retained as valid reminders.
Figure 7: RSI data flywheel. OmniBrain-0 collects challenging cases that inform the rubric-guided reminder policy and trajectory curation. The Meta-Agent coordinates analysis, guidance, curation, and improvement, with task relevance, diversity, learning value, and difficulty considered during selection. Verified trajectories form manipulation and navigation pools for expert training. MOPD consolidates the updated experts into the unified model, which is redeployed for the next collection round.
Method
Success Rate (%) ↑
Time ↓
Spat-T
Spat-S
Obj-T
Obj-S
Goal-T
Goal-S
L10-T
L10-S
Overall
Training-Based Skill Policies
OpenVLA [ 22 ]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
/
NORA [ 17 ]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
/
π0 [ 5 ]
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
/
MolmoAct [ 25 ]
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
1.5
/
Table 1: Success rates (%) on LIBERO-Pro under Task (T) and Swap (S) perturbations across four suites.
Method
Success Rate (%) ↑
Time ↓
Camera
Robot
Language
Light
Back- ground
Noise
Layout
Overall
Training-Based Skill Policies
OpenVLA [ 22 ]
0.8
3.5
23.0
8.1
34.8
15.2
28.5
15.6
/
NORA [ 17 ]
2.2
37.0
65.1
45.7
58.6
12.8
62.1
39.0
/
π0 [ 5 ]
13.8
6.0
58.8
85.0
81.4
79.0
68.9
53.6
/
OpenVLA-OFT [ 21 ]
56.4
31.9
79.5
88.7
93.3
75.8
74.2
69.6
/
Table 2: Success rates (%) on LIBERO-Plus across seven perturbation types.
Method
Success Rate (%) ↑
Time ↓
Atomic-Seen
Composite-Seen
Composite-Unseen
Overall
Training-Based Skill Policies
Diffusion Policy [ 10 ]
15.7
0.2
1.3
6.1
/
π0 [ 5 ]
34.6
6.1
1.1
14.8
/
π0.5 [ 4 ]
39.6
7.1
1.2
16.9
/
Giga World-Policy 0.1 [ 54 ]
44.4
11.8
2.9
20.7
/
Table 3: Success rates (%) on RoboCasa365 across seen and unseen task splits.
Method
Success Rate (%) ↑
Time ↓
Clean
Randomized
Overall
Training-Based Skill Policies
X-VLA [ 64 ]
72.8
41.2
57.0
/
π0.5 [ 4 ]
81.2
75.6
78.4
/
LingBot-VLA [ 49 ]
86.0
83.6
84.8
2.8
ABot-M0 [ 53 ]
86.06
85.08
85.57
/
Table 4: Success rates (%) on RoboTwin 2.0 under Clean and Randomized settings.
Method
SR ↑
SPL ↑
OSR ↑
NE ↓
Time ↓
Training-Based Skill Policies
NaVid [ 59 ]
37.4
35.9
49.1
5.47
/
Uni-NaVid [ 58 ]
47.0
42.7
53.3
5.58
/
AO-Planner [ 6 ]
47.0
33.0
59.0
5.55
/
ActiveVLN [ 62 ]
52.9
45.7
62.1
5.34
/
StreamVLN [ 48 ]
56.9
51.9
64.2
4.98
/
Table 5: R2R-CE Val-Unseen results. Skill policies use the full split; agents use the 100-episode rand100 subset. SR, SPL, and OSR are percentages; NE is in meters.
Method
Accuracy (%) ↑
MP3D
AI2-THOR
ScanNet
Overall
InternVL3-8B [ 69 ]
76.3
74.2
78.5
76.3
Cambrian-S-7B [ 52 ]
71.3
72.9
74.3
72.8
Qwen3.5-4B
77.7
71.8
77.1
75.5
Qwen3.5-9B
78.6
72.1
81.2
77.2
OmniBrain-0 (4B)
81.1
73.0
83.2
79.0
Table 6: Spatial question-answering accuracy (%) on EmbSpatial-Bench across three source environments.
Method
Accuracy (%) ↑
Location
Placement
Unseen
Overall
SpaceLLaVA [ 39 ]
5.8
4.3
4.0
4.8
RoboPoint [ 55 ]
22.9
9.3
8.4
13.9
Molmo-7B [ 11 ]
21.9
12.9
12.2
15.9
RoboRefer-2B-RFT [ 65 ]
52.0
54.0
41.6
49.8
Qwen3.5-4B
46.0
20.0
26.0
31.1
Table 7: Spatial referring accuracy (%) on RefSpatial-Bench: object localization (Location), free-space selection (Placement), and novel relation combinations (Unseen).
Figure 8: Real-world manipulation performance. Comparison of the standalone baseline π0.5 , the compact unified agent OmniBrain-0, and GPT-5.6-Sol (few-shot). Success rates are reported as percentages.
Method
LIBERO-Pro
LIBERO-Plus
RoboCasa365
RoboTwin 2.0
R2R-CE
GPT-5.6-Sol
1.7
2.2
3.0
1.4
0.163
OmniBrain-0 (4B)
0.65
1.2
0.71
0.13
0.042
OmniBrain-0 (9B)
0.38
0.86
0.85
0.11
0.044
Table 8: Average token consumption per task (millions of tokens, M).
Figure 9: Inference-time reminder-policy ablation. Success rates for execution without reminders and with the state-dependent reminder policy. The panels report Overall for LIBERO-Pro, LIBERO-Plus, RoboCasa365, and RoboTwin 2.0, and SR for R2R-CE.
Figure 10: Data-pipeline ablation on LIBERO-Pro. Success rates for removing reasoning reconstruction, removing recovery trajectories, and using the full data pipeline across task and swap conditions.
Figure 11: Experience-library ablation. Success rates with and without access to the Experience Library on LIBERO-Pro, RoboTwin 2.0, and RoboCasa365.
Figure 12: Examples of OmniBrain-0 on LIBERO-Pro. Top: turning on the stove and placing a moka pot on it. Bottom: placing a book in the back compartment of a caddy. Red annotations highlight the failed grasp.
Figure 13: Examples of OmniBrain-0 on RoboTwin 2.0. Top: arranging colored blocks in a row. Bottom: opening a microwave.
Figure 14: Examples of OmniBrain-0 on RoboCasa365. Top: stirring vegetables. Bottom: arranging a bread basket. Red annotations highlight a failed attempt in the vegetable task.
Figure 15: Examples of OmniBrain-0 on R2R-CE Val-Unseen. Top: navigating upstairs to a bathroom mirror. Bottom: navigating via a patio to a kitchen.
Figure 16: Real-world manipulation examples. Selected observations and structured decisions illustrate closed-loop perception, skill coordination, and execution feedback on a physical robot.
Figure 17: Reminder-guided manipulation. A wine-bottle placement example aligning visual observations (top), reminder-policy trigger states (middle), and OmniBrain-0’s tool invocations (bottom). For the task Put the wine bottle in the bowl , reminders are triggered at steps 2 and 3 before grasp and move_arm , respectively; the remaining displayed steps proceed without reminders. The sequence continues through bottle transport, release, and task termination.
Figure 18: Reminder-guided navigation. An illustrative bathroom-mirror navigation example aligning visual observations (top), reminder-policy trigger states (middle), and OmniBrain-0’s tool invocations (bottom). Reminders at steps 3 and 6 guide route selection and prevent premature termination, respectively.
Figure 8.1 : General Tools: Shared tools for environment observation, pixel-to-metric localization, text-guided object segmentation, execution termination, and mobile-base control.
Figure 8.2 : VLA-Specific Tools: Tools for end-effector motion, wrist orientation, gripper control, and multi-step manipulation or interaction through a learned VLA policy.
Figure 8.3 : VLN-Specific Tools: Tools for panoramic observation, instruction following, navigation-goal grounding and execution, point-directed navigation, and trajectory backtracking.
Figure 10.1 : Training data composition. (a) The VQA corpus contains 820,453 samples. (b) The initial agentic corpus contains 3,846 demonstrations. (c) RSI contributes 1,142 additional demonstrations. Percentages indicate each source’s share within the corresponding corpus.
Figure 11.1 : LIBERO-Pro task execution. Complete execution process for the task Pick the salad dressing and place it in the basket .
Figure 11.2 : RoboTwin 2.0 task execution. Complete execution process for placing the two specified bread loaves in the beige breadbasket.
Figure 11.3 : RoboCasa365 task execution. Complete execution process for placing a croissant and a jam jar together on the cutting board.
Figure 11.4 : R2R-CE task execution. Selected stages of a navigation task in the Val-Unseen split, illustrating landmark grounding, instruction following, obstacle avoidance, and endpoint verification.
Figure 11.5 : R2R-CE navigation comparisons. Each sequence compares InternVLA-N1 (left) and OmniBrain-0 (right) on the same Val-Unseen task. Cells pair front-view observations with top-down trajectories at the indicated environment steps. Blue annotations show OmniBrain-0’s decisions, and gray annotations describe InternVLA-N1’s behavior.
Current embodied systems largely rely on pretrained capabilities that remain fixed after deployment, limiting their ability to learn from physical interaction. We introduce MachEmbodied-Brain (ME-Brain), a self-evolving embodied system organized around a closed loop of action execution, experience acquisition, experience evolution, and improved execution. Evolvable Memory consolidates multimodal trajectories into hierarchical, reusable experience; Cognitive Core transforms physical experience into transferable skills; and the Action Model combines event-driven keyframes, EventCell local-world prediction, and action-conditioned memory modulation to focus computation on decision-critical moments, regions, and historical evidence. Together, these modules shift embodied intelligence from train-and-freeze to deploy-and-evolve without model retraining. Cognitive Core outperforms the strongest comparison models by 8.2 and 9.6 points on embodied and agent benchmarks. The Action Model achieves 47.88% mean success on RoboMME, a 3.26-point improvement over the strongest baseline. On RoboDojo, it reaches a 21.51 mean Score and 16.03% success rate, exceeding π0.5 by 10.10 and 9.12 points. On the six-task ME-RealBench, ME-Brain achieves a 69.5 mean Score and 66.7% success rate, outperforming DM0.5 by 12.8 and 11.7 points, respectively.
We introduce Riemann-1.0, a fully causal autoregressive World Action Model for embodied intelligence. Riemann-1.0 jointly models multi-view visual observations, robot states, and embodiment-specific actions within a unified causal autoregressive sequence, representing robot actions and world evolution as causal state transitions. Unlike existing WAMs based on joint generation, video-first prediction, or decoupled modeling paradigms, Riemann-1.0 unifies online robot policy execution and action-conditioned world simulation within a single model, enabling it to function as both an executable robot policy and a multi-embodiment visual world simulator. To scale embodied experience across heterogeneous data sources, we further develop a progressive embodied pretraining framework that unifies learning from egocentric human videos, handheld-gripper demonstrations, and heterogeneous robot trajectories under a shared World Action Modeling objective. Built upon 200K+ hours of interaction data, Riemann-1.0 progressively transfers large-scale embodied experience into executable robot manipulation capabilities. Riemann-1.0 achieves state-of-the-art performance across both simulation benchmarks and real-world manipulation tasks. It achieves success rates of 94.3% on RoboTwin2.0, 99.0% on LIBERO, and 62.6% on the long-horizon compositional benchmark RoboCasa-365, outperforming the previous best method by 8.4% On long-horizon real-world manipulation tasks, Riemann-1.0 achieves a Success Rate (SR) of 85.0% and a Progress Success Rate (PSR) of 94.4%, exceeding the strongest open-source baseline by 15% in SR. These results demonstrate that unified World Action Modeling together with progressive embodied pretraining effectively transforms large-scale embodied experience into generalizable robot manipulation capabilities.
Haofeng Sun, Jiangbo Pei, Fei Kang +13
Riemann Dynamics · Research Intern at Riemann Dynamics
We introduce RynnUnify, a 16B unified embodied model that combines strong embodied understanding with long-horizon visual planning through interleaved video--language reasoning. With capabilities spanning spatial reasoning, physical prediction, and grounding, RynnUnify connects an understanding of the physical world with visual anticipation of how it evolves across successive subtasks. Building on these capabilities, we further develop an agentic extension through reinforcement learning to selectively use video predictions for reasoning about unobserved states and interaction outcomes. We also develop a world-action extension of the full RynnUnify model, translating its understanding and prediction capabilities into robot control. To evaluate these capabilities, we introduce Rynn-VP and Rynn-GEU for long-horizon visual planning and anticipatory reasoning. Experiments show that RynnUnify achieves the highest average embodied understanding score among the evaluated unified multimodal models and improves the Rynn-VP overall score by 9.75 points over Cosmos 3 Nano. Its agentic extension improves the Rynn-GEU average by 6.0 points over direct reasoning, while the world-action extension achieves 51.5% success on 20 selected composite RoboCasa365 tasks and 46.7% average success across three real-robot tasks. Together, these results establish RynnUnify as a shared foundation for embodied understanding, visual planning, and robot control, taking a step toward a unified embodied brain.