RoboARCade: Benchmarking Agentic Robot Control
Organizations: Stanford University
Abstract
Improvements in multi-modal capabilities have enabled agents to act directly as robot policies, a setting we refer to as agentic robot control (ARC). We introduce RoboARCade, a benchmark of long-horizon manipulation tasks across three embodiments designed to test in-context adaptation, memory, and reasoning for precise control. The tasks build on existing open-source benchmarks, which we make harder by widening the range of initial conditions. RoboARCade is easy to use and extend: all tasks run on a single simulation backend, MuJoCo, each task is a self-contained data pack, and agents connect through interchangeable interfaces, so new tasks, agents, and interfaces can be added independently. The benchmark separates leading agents: GPT-6 Astra achieves 49.8% compared with 43.6% for Claude Fable 5.1, leaving substantial room for improvement. Comparing two interfaces, we find that a richer visual interface adds only 1.5 to 6.8 points at 1.7 to 2.3 times the cost. Failures stem mostly from choosing a poor manipulation strategy or executing a good one imprecisely, rarely from misunderstanding the scene, and agents incorrectly claim success on 24% to 39% of attempted subtasks. Agents can also improve without human input: one successful demonstration in context raises Astra's score from 53.5% to 73.0% on a five-task subset, and a prompt the agent writes and revises itself reaches 72.0%. Code, videos and full traces are available at roboarcade.org.
Figures & tables
| Model | Interface | Success (%) | Cost ($) | Turns/EEF | Calls/EEF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.6-Sol | VIA | 14.0 | 25.05 | 3.6 | 3.3 |
| Claude Opus 5 | VIA | 30.3 | 60.00 † | 4.9 | 5.5 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Multi-view RGBD | 36.8 | 33.16 | 1.0 | 1.7 |
| VIA | 43.6 | 55.50 | 2.2 | 7.0 | |
| GPT-6-Astra | Multi-view RGBD | 48.3 | 13.89 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| VIA | 49.8 | 31.84 | 2.3 | 3.0 |
| Method | Success (%) | Cost ($) | Turns/EEF | Calls/EEF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-6-Astra baseline | 53.5 | 27.60 | 2.5 | 3.4 |
| In-context success demo (ICL) | 73.0 | 30.55 | 3.1 | 4.2 |
| Text prompt, round 1 (T1) | 62.5 | 30.76 | 3.0 | 3.3 |
| Text prompt, round 2 (T2) | 72.0 | 22.75 | 2.3 | 3.2 |
| No successful episode available | ||||
| GPT-6-Astra baseline | 0.0 | 48.00 | 3.6 | 4.1 |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Source | Tasks | Robot | Assets and code |
|---|---|---|---|
| AutoBio ( Lan et al., 2026 ) | PCR setup, Start incubation, Vortex sample | Panda | Digitized lab instruments and consumables from AutoBio https://github.com/autobio-bench/AutoBio |
| Fabrica ( Tian et al., 2025 ) | Beam, Cooling manifold, Gamepad, Stool | Panda | Multi-part assembly CAD models from Fabrica https://github.com/yunshengtian/Fabrica |
| LIBERO ( Liu et al., 2023 ) | Serve warm drinks, Start making breakfast, Tidy counter | Panda | Kitchen scenes and objects from LIBERO https://github.com/Lifelong-Robot-Learning/LIBERO |
| OGBench ( Park et al., 2025 ) | Lights Out (6 by 7) | Panda | The puzzle-4x6 button board of OGBench, extended to 6 by 7, https://github.com/seohongpark/ogbench |
| SPD | Toss bottles in bin, Cup pyramid, Handover dominos, Jenga tower, Hang mugs and rack plates | Bimanual YAM | Bimanual VR teleoperation scenes and objects from SPD https://spd.bot |
| RoboDojo ( Chen et al., 2026b ) | Strongbox, Organize table and plug in charger, Pack tools into toolboxes, Sort Lego bricks | Bimanual Panda; bimanual YAM for Strongbox and Sort Lego | Task objects from RoboDojo https://github.com/RoboDojo-Benchmark/RoboDojo and the Lego bricks from https://abc.bot |
| Previous try failed by, then next try | Sol VIA | Opus VIA | Fable RGBD | Fable VIA | Astra RGBD | Astra VIA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| After a precision miss (share of retries) | 50% | 50% | 52% | 57% | 52% | 55% |
| then done | 9% | 12% | 27% | 37% | 26% | 33% |
| then precision miss | 66% | 67% | 56% | 46% | 52% | 50% |
| then wrong approach | 21% | 21% | 15% | 17% | 21% | 16% |
| then wrong object | 4% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 2% | 1% |
| After a wrong approach (share of retries) | 42% | 44% | 40% | 36% | 43% | 41% |
| Sol VIA | Opus VIA | Fable RGBD | Fable VIA | Astra RGBD | Astra VIA | |
| Ended the episode believing it was done, but not solved | 15/24 (63%) | 34/57 (60%) | 24/53 (45%) | 26/64 (41%) | 25/66 (38%) | 20/60 (33%) |
| Left a named single-object subtask undone for another subtask | 58/77 (75%) | 37/73 (51%) | 56/95 (59%) | 24/75 (32%) | 70/118 (59%) | 50/105 (48%) |
| Ended the episode saying it could not do it (not counted) | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 1 |
| Subtask verification accuracy | 27.7% | 45.4% | 45.9% | 64.0% | 48.4% | 57.6% |
| Task | Baseline | ICL | T1 | T2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beam | 5 / 2 | 8 / 1 | 8 / 1 | 9 / 0 |
| PCR setup | 5 / 2 | 8 / 0 | 5 / 1 | 5 / 0 |
| Cup pyramid | 3 / 7 | 5 / 4 | 5 / 3 | 7 / 3 |
| Stool | 3 / 2 | 4 / 1 | 3 / 0 | 4 / 1 |
| Handover dominos | 3 / 6 | 7 / 0 | 5 / 4 | 7 / 1 |
| All (of 50) | 19 / 19 | 32 / 6 | 26 / 9 | 32 / 5 |