Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 91 references

IMBench shows that reasoning about physics and acting on it are sharply separated capabilities in current AI systems.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 22:41 UTC pith:QB4VTIWO

load-bearing objection IMBench is a genuinely useful benchmark artifact with coherent internal numbers, but the headline claim about a missing capability axis rests on a Stage 3 evaluation whose zero scores are confounded by an unvalidated action-primitive interface, and the full dataset is not actually released yet. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15641 v1 pith:QB4VTIWO submitted 2026-07-17 cs.RO cs.AI

IMBench: A Benchmark for Intuitive Robotic Manipulation

Anurag Maurya , Sukhvansh Jain , Prajwal Avhad , Gautham Balachandran , Ziyi Zhou , Atharva Kshirsagar , Satyam Singh , Bowen Li. Rishabh Mukund
show 4 more authors
Ritul Singh Jatin Vira Suvonil Chatterjee Devesh K. Jha
This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AI
keywords intuitive manipulationrobotic manipulation benchmarkphysical reasoningvision-language-action modelsembodied AIconstraint understandingclosed-loop executiongeneralization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces IMBench, a benchmark of 35 simulated manipulation tasks designed to test whether AI systems can do what humans do almost effortlessly: read a physical scene, infer hidden constraints, and act on that understanding. It argues that current evaluation separates physical reasoning from execution, and that the two should be measured as one integrated capability, called 'intuitive manipulation'. Using a three-stage protocol—constraint understanding, plan proposal, and closed-loop execution—the authors show that frontier vision-language models describe constraints with moderate accuracy (about 74%) but produce executable plans less often, and that success collapses to roughly 11% when plans must be executed. The benchmark's evidence supports the claim that intuitive manipulation is a missing axis: a capability current foundation models and robot policies do not yet possess. The release of 14K curated trajectories and scenario-generation tools is positioned as a measurement instrument for the field.

Core claim

The central claim is that intuitive manipulation—the conversion of physical understanding into goal-directed, constraint-satisfying action—is a distinct capability axis that existing benchmarks do not isolate and current models do not exhibit. IMBench operationalizes this claim by building 35 tasks around explicit 'inference bottlenecks': hidden facts about geometry, dynamics, causality, hidden state, or stability that must be inferred from observation to succeed. On these tasks, the paper measures a consistent cascade: vision-language models identify task constraints with moderate success (best mean 74.1%), convert them into correct high-level plans slightly less often (69.5%), and almost n

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the three-stage Understand–Infer–Act protocol, together with the task design principle of an 'inference bottleneck'. Stage 1 probes whether a vision-language model can extract task-critical physical constraints; Stage 2 has the model output an ordered sequence of sub-goals; Stage 3 executes those plans through a closed-loop reasoning-acting agent armed with eight motor primitives (move end-effector, lift, descend, open/close gripper, hold, atomic action, done). The 35 tasks are grouped into seven categories, each isolating one intuition type: geometry-constrained grasping, dynamics/trajectory prediction, causal/indirect action, tool use, hidden state, reactive

Load-bearing premise

The Stage 3 execution results assume the eight predefined action primitives are expressive enough to realize the physical strategies each task requires; if a task demands continuous force shaping or compliant contact that those primitives cannot express, zero percent scores would reflect interface limits rather than absent intuitive reasoning.

What would settle it

Run the paper's own hand-written scripted policies—which solve the tasks using privileged simulator state—through the same eight-primitive action interface used for the vision-language agent. If the oracle also fails on the 13/16 tasks where the agent scored zero, the primitives are the bottleneck; if the oracle succeeds, the failures are attributable to the model's reasoning and grounding.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If IMBench measures what it claims, then high scores on physical-reasoning QA benchmarks do not imply the ability to manipulate objects; reasoning and execution must be evaluated jointly.
  • Generalist robot policies that saturate existing manipulation benchmarks should be expected to drop sharply on tasks whose success depends on physical inference.
  • Training or fine-tuning on physics-constrained tasks like IMBench's may be necessary for foundation models to ground reasoning in actionable plans.
  • The three-stage protocol offers a reusable template for localizing where a system loses competence: understanding, planning, or execution.
  • The benchmark's OOD perturbations provide a direct test of whether a policy generalizes along physical axes rather than memorizing patterns.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A likely confound not resolved by the paper: the Stage 3 action interface supplies only eight predefined primitives; if those primitives cannot express continuous force shaping or compliant sliding, the near-zero execution scores could understate what the evaluated models could do with a richer action space. A scripted oracle executing correct high-level plans through the same primitives would sep
  • The paper leaves open whether adding force/torque feedback (which the benchmark records but the baselines do not use) would close part of the Stage 3 gap; a natural extension is to test policies trained with wrist force and tactile inputs on the same tasks.
  • If the intuitive-manipulation axis is real, the benchmark could serve as a selection criterion for embodied foundation models, complementing trajectory-following metrics.
  • The mirror-pick-place task suggests a cheap diagnostic: because humans adapt to a flipped camera frame within tens of trials, it could serve as a minimal test of whether a system can learn new observation-action correspondences quickly.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces IMBench, a robosuite-based benchmark of 35 manipulation tasks organized into seven physical-reasoning categories (P1–P7, plus two miscellaneous tasks). It proposes an Understand–Infer–Act decomposition and evaluates three capabilities: VLM constraint understanding, high-level plan generation, and closed-loop execution, alongside end-to-end visuomotor policies. The dataset contains ~14K curated trajectories. The headline results are that frontier VLMs achieve ~74% on constraint understanding but Stage 3 closed-loop execution for GPT-5.5 succeeds on only 3 of 16 tasks (11.3% mean), and VLAs score near zero zero-shot and remain low after finetuning; OOD perturbations cause large drops, e.g., balance-medium from 0.71 to 0.12. The paper interprets these results as evidence that intuitive manipulation is a missing capability axis in current models.

Significance. If the measurement is valid, IMBench fills a useful gap: it is more integrated than physical-reasoning QA benchmarks and more physics-focused than standard manipulation benchmarks, and the three-stage design separates understanding, planning, and execution. The task suite is structured around explicit inference bottlenecks, the OOD axes are specified per task, and the policy evaluation covers several baselines. However, the central Stage 3 finding is currently confounded by the action-primitive interface, and the human-evaluation rubrics are not released. These issues must be addressed before the benchmark's main claim can be considered established.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2.1 / Table 10 / Appendix F.4] The claim that VLMs 'fail to produce executable plans' rests on the Stage 3 scores, but the action interface may itself be the binding constraint. Appendix F.4 restricts the agent to eight named primitives (MOVEEEF, CLOSEGRIPPER, OPENGRIPPER, LIFT, DESCEND, ATOMICACTION, HOLD, DONE) within a 24-step budget. Several zero-score tasks — recover-peg-insert, slide-catch, cup-extract, balance-medium — plausibly require continuous force shaping, velocity-matched release, or iterative contact adjustment that this vocabulary cannot express. The scripted oracles in Appendix C.3 use raw 6-DoF delta actions and privileged state, so they validate solvability under a different interface, not under the Stage 3 primitive set. Please add a control condition: a privileged oracle or scripted policy that selects from the same eight primitives with perfect state information, with per-task success rates. If t
  2. [§4.1 / Appendix F.2–F.3] Stage 1 and Stage 2 scores are human-evaluated, but the task-specific rubrics are not provided in the manuscript or supplement, and no inter-annotator agreement is reported. The text says full prompt templates and thresholds are 'provided in the supplementary material,' but the submission contains no such material. The Stage 2 criterion — a human verifier finds the plan sufficient — is underspecified. Since the Q1/Q2 results and the understanding-to-plan gap are central to the paper's narrative, please include the actual rubrics (or a representative sample covering each category) and report inter-annotator agreement (e.g., Cohen's or Fleiss' kappa) on a subset of responses.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table 2 vs Table 15] The Table 2 P2 mean for π0.5 FT is 0.09, but summing Table 15 task values (0.12 + 0.28 + 0.04 + 0 + 0 + 0.10 + 0 = 0.54 over 7 tasks) gives 0.077, not 0.09. Please correct or explain.
  2. [§4.3] The phrase 'rely heavily on memorized patterns' is stronger than the evidence. OOD success drops show lack of extrapolation, not necessarily memorization. Suggest rephrasing to 'do not generalize along the target physical axis' unless a representation-level analysis is added.
  3. [General] For a benchmark contribution, the release of data, code, evaluation harness, and full annotation rubrics is essential; currently only a 10-episode sample is available. Also remove the placeholder acknowledgment paragraph.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: IMBench's empirical claims rest on external model evaluations, not on fitted parameters or self-citation chains.

full rationale

This paper is a benchmark and empirical study rather than a derivation, so most circularity patterns do not apply. The central concept, intuitive manipulation, is deliberately defined by the authors and then operationalized through the Understand–Infer–Act decomposition and three evaluation stages; this is a standard benchmark-construction choice, not a case where a predicted quantity is equivalent to a fitted input by construction. The headline empirical claims—VLMs show partial reasoning but weak executable planning, and policies generalize poorly—are supported by external evaluations of public models (GPT-5.5, Claude, Gemma, π0.5, GR00T, Diffusion Policy) against the benchmark's held-out seeds. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then reported as a prediction of a closely related quantity. The paper does not rely on a load-bearing self-citation or on a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work; references are predominantly to independent external benchmarks and models. The reader-identified concern about the Stage 3 action-primitive interface is a validity/confounding question about whether the eight primitives can express the required behaviors, not a circularity in which the result reduces to its own inputs. Accordingly, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The benchmark introduces a new concept label ('intuitive manipulation') and a task suite, but no new physical entities. The central numerical claims depend on hand-set curation thresholds and an action primitive set that directly influence measured success rates.

free parameters (5)
  • human rating threshold for trajectory curation = >=4 on a 1-5 scale
    Trajectories rated below 4 are discarded; this hand-set threshold determines dataset quality and the 14K trajectory count.
  • blur filter threshold = Sobel gradient < 0.3
    Hand-set threshold in the VLM-based filtering pipeline; determines which episodes are considered visually valid.
  • scene-change threshold = MAD score > 10.0
    Hand-set threshold for visual anomaly detection in the curation pipeline.
  • balance ridge widths = 12 mm (T31), 8 mm (T32)
    Hand-tuned to make the tasks solvable by humans but very hard for policies; directly sets the difficulty of the stability category.
  • Stage 3 primitive set = eight named primitives
    The action vocabulary the VLM agent is restricted to; its sparsity is a candidate explanation for the low Stage 3 success.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption robosuite/MuJoCo simulation is a faithful proxy for physical manipulation
    All tasks are simulated; the benchmark's conclusions about intuitive manipulation assume the simulator's contact and dynamics models are adequate.
  • domain assumption The Understand-Infer-Act decomposition fully captures intuitive manipulation
    The paper formalizes intuitive manipulation as this three-stage loop; if the decomposition omits other components, the benchmark may not measure the claimed capability.
  • domain assumption Human teleoperated demonstrations are high-quality and correct
    Teleoperation via an Xbox controller (58.7% mean success in a pilot) is the demonstration source; filtering keeps only >=4-rated episodes, but correctness is judged by annotators without reported inter-annotator agreement.
  • domain assumption The VLM evaluation rubrics are a valid ground truth
    Stage 1 and Stage 2 are graded by human evaluators against task-specific rubrics; the rubrics are not fully specified in the paper.
  • domain assumption The action interface does not artificially handicap the VLM agent
    Stage 3 uses a coarse primitive set; low execution success may be an artifact of this interface, not of missing physical reasoning.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 35266 in / 10701 out tokens · 94191 ms · 2026-08-01T22:41:07.615669+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15641 by Anurag Maurya, Atharva Kshirsagar, Bowen Li. Rishabh Mukund, Devesh K. Jha, Gautham Balachandran, Jatin Vira, Prajwal Avhad, Ritul Singh, Satyam Singh, Sukhvansh Jain, Suvonil Chatterjee, Ziyi Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: IMBench — a benchmark for intuitive manipulation. Top: Each task is decomposed into a three-stage cognitive loop. Understand extracts latent physical properties from perception (e.g., a thin plate flush on a table affords no top-down grasp). Infer simulates forward dynamics and selects sub-goals (e.g., slide-then-grasp). Act executes a closed-loop interactive policy . efficiently to achieve them [5]. We re… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: IMBench: 35 tasks across seven categories. Each targets a distinct inference bottleneck: geometry (P1), dynamics (P2), causal chains (P3), tool use (P4), hidden state (P5), reactive replanning (P6), stability (P7); two miscellaneous tasks in grey (bottom row). 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    McCarthy, D

    R. McCarthy, D. C. Tan, D. Schmidt, F. Acero, N. Herr, Y . Du, T. G. Thuruthel, and Z. Li. Towards generalist robot learning from internet video: A survey.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 83, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    J. R. Kubricht, K. J. Holyoak, and H. Lu. Intuitive physics: Current research and controversies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(10):749–759, 2017. ISSN 1364-6613. doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tics.2017.06.002. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1364661317301262

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.06.002 2017

  3. [3]

    McCloskey, A

    M. McCloskey, A. Washburn, and L. Felch. Intuitive physics: The straight-down belief and its origin.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9:636–649, 10

  4. [4]

    T. L. Griffiths, F. Callaway, M. B. Chang, E. Grant, P. M. Krueger, and F. Lieder. Doing more with less: meta-reasoning and meta-learning in humans and machines.Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 29:24–30, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    B. M. Lake, T. D. Ullman, J. B. Tenenbaum, and S. J. Gershman. Building machines that learn and think like people.Behavioral and brain sciences, 40:e253, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    D. M. Bear, E. Wang, D. Mrowca, F. J. Binder, H.-Y . F. Tung, R. Pramod, C. Holdaway, S. Tao, K. Smith, F.-Y . Sun, et al. Physion: Evaluating physical prediction from vision in humans and machines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08261, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Riochet, M

    R. Riochet, M. Y . Castro, M. Bernard, A. Lerer, R. Fergus, V . Izard, and E. Dupoux. Int- phys: A framework and benchmark for visual intuitive physics reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07616, 2018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    W. Chow, J. Mao, B. Li, D. Seita, V . Campagnolo Guizilini, and Y . Wang. Physbench: Bench- marking and enhancing vision-language models for physical world understanding. InInterna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 97959–98108, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Johnson, B

    J. Johnson, B. Hariharan, L. Van Der Maaten, L. Fei-Fei, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and R. Girshick. Clevr: A diagnostic dataset for compositional language and elementary visual reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2901– 2910, 2017

    2017

  10. [10]

    B. Wu, S. Yu, Z. Chen, J. B. Tenenbaum, and C. Gan. Star: A benchmark for situated reasoning in real-world videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09711, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    A. Wang, B. Wu, S. Chen, Z. Chen, H. Guan, W.-N. Lee, L. E. Li, and C. Gan. Sok-bench: A situated video reasoning benchmark with aligned open-world knowledge. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13384–13394, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    something something

    R. Goyal, S. Ebrahimi Kahou, V . Michalski, J. Materzynska, S. Westphal, H. Kim, V . Haenel, I. Fruend, P. Yianilos, M. Mueller-Freitag, et al. The" something something" video database for learning and evaluating visual common sense. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 5842–5850, 2017. 10

    2017

  13. [13]

    X. Wang, W. Ma, A. Wang, S. Chen, A. Kortylewski, and A. Yuille. Compositional 4d dynamic scenes understanding with physics priors for video question answering. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 93688–93700, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    K. Yi, C. Gan, Y . Li, P. Kohli, J. Wu, A. Torralba, and J. B. Tenenbaum. Clevrer: Collision events for video representation and reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01442, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  15. [15]

    M. Du, B. Wu, Z. Li, X.-J. Huang, and Z. Wei. Embspatial-bench: Benchmarking spatial understanding for embodied tasks with large vision-language models. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 346–355, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    X. Ma, S. Yong, Z. Zheng, Q. Li, Y . Liang, S.-C. Zhu, and S. Huang. Sqa3d: Situated question answering in 3d scenes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07474, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    B. Jia, Y . Chen, H. Yu, Y . Wang, X. Niu, T. Liu, Q. Li, and S. Huang. Sceneverse: Scaling 3d vision-language learning for grounded scene understanding. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 289–310. Springer, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    R. Lyu, J. Lin, T. Wang, S. Yang, X. Mao, Y . Chen, R. Xu, H. Huang, C. Zhu, D. Lin, et al. Mmscan: A multi-modal 3d scene dataset with hierarchical grounded language annotations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:50898–50924, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    J. Yang, S. Yang, A. W. Gupta, R. Han, L. Fei-Fei, and S. Xie. Thinking in space: How multimodal large language models see, remember, and recall spaces. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 10632–10643, 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    Q. Wu, H. Zhao, M. Saxon, T. Bui, W. Y . Wang, Y . Zhang, and S. Chang. Vsp: Assessing the dual challenges of perception and reasoning in spatial planning tasks for vlms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01863, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Majumdar, A

    A. Majumdar, A. Ajay, X. Zhang, P. Putta, S. Yenamandra, M. Henaff, S. Silwal, P. Mcvay, O. Maksymets, S. Arnaud, K. Yadav, Q. Li, B. Newman, M. Sharma, V . Berges, S. Zhang, P. Agrawal, Y . Bisk, D. Batra, M. Kalakrishnan, F. Meier, C. Paxton, S. Sax, and A. Rajeswaran. Openeqa: Embodied question answering in the era of foundation models. InConference on...

    2024

  22. [22]

    B. Liu, Y . Zhu, C. Gao, Y . Feng, Q. Liu, Y . Zhu, and P. Stone. Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 44776–44791, 2023

    2023

  23. [23]

    Nasiriany, A

    S. Nasiriany, A. Maddukuri, L. Zhang, A. Parikh, A. Lo, A. Joshi, A. Mandlekar, and Y . Zhu. Robocasa: Large-scale simulation of everyday tasks for generalist robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02523, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    T. Mu, Z. Ling, F. Xiang, D. Yang, X. Li, S. Tao, Z. Huang, Z. Jia, and H. Su. Maniskill: Generalizable manipulation skill benchmark with large-scale demonstrations, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.14483

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    James, Z

    S. James, Z. Ma, D. R. Arrojo, and A. J. Davison. Rlbench: The robot learning benchmark & learning environment.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2):3019–3026, 2020

    2020

  26. [26]

    Pumacay, I

    W. Pumacay, I. Singh, J. Duan, R. Krishna, J. Thomason, and D. Fox. The colosseum: A benchmark for evaluating generalization for robotic manipulation. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2024. doi:10.15607/RSS.2024.XX.133

    doi:10.15607/rss.2024.xx.133 2024

  27. [27]

    Zhang, Z

    S. Zhang, Z. Xu, P. Liu, X. Yu, Y . Li, Q. Gao, Z. Fei, Z. Yin, Z. Wu, Y .-G. Jiang, et al. Vlabench: A large-scale benchmark for language-conditioned robotics manipulation with long-horizon reasoning tasks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 11142–11152, 2025. 11

    2025

  28. [28]

    S. Park, K. Frans, B. Eysenbach, and S. Levine. Ogbench: Benchmarking offline goal- conditioned rl. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 94937–94982, 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Zitkovich, T

    B. Zitkovich, T. Yu, S. Xu, P. Xu, T. Xiao, F. Xia, J. Wu, P. Wohlhart, S. Welker, A. Wahid, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 2165–2183. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    O. M. Team, D. Ghosh, H. Walke, K. Pertsch, K. Black, O. Mees, S. Dasari, J. Hejna, T. Kreiman, C. Xu, et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    H. Zhen, X. Qiu, P. Chen, J. Yang, X. Yan, Y . Du, Y . Hong, and C. Gan. 3d-vla: A 3d vision-language-action generative world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09631, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Huang, C

    W. Huang, C. Wang, R. Zhang, Y . Li, J. Wu, and L. Fei-Fei. V oxposer: Composable 3d value maps for robotic manipulation with language models. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 540–562. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  34. [34]

    D. Niu, Y . Sharma, G. Biamby, J. Quenum, Y . Bai, B. Shi, T. Darrell, and R. Herzig. Llarva: Vision-action instruction tuning enhances robot learning. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 3333–3355. PMLR, 2025

    2025

  35. [35]

    C. Wang, L. Fan, J. Sun, R. Zhang, L. Fei-Fei, D. Xu, Y . Zhu, and A. Anandkumar. Mimicplay: Long-horizon imitation learning by watching human play. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 201–221. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  36. [36]

    Zawalski, W

    M. Zawalski, W. Chen, K. Pertsch, O. Mees, C. Finn, and S. Levine. Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 3157–3181. PMLR, 2025

    2025

  37. [37]

    Y . Zhu, J. Wong, A. Mandlekar, and R. Martín-Martín. robosuite: A modular simulation framework and benchmark for robot learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 10950–10957. IEEE, 2020. doi: 10.1109/IROS45743.2020.9340558

    arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y . Du, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 44(10-11):1684–1704, 2025

    2025

  39. [39]

    Intelligence, K

    P. Intelligence, K. Black, N. Brown, J. Darpinian, K. Dhabalia, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, et al. π0.5: A vision-language-action model with open-world generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16054, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    S. Cai, B. Zhang, Z. Wang, X. Ma, A. Liu, and Y . Liang. GROOT-1.5: Learning to follow multi-modal instructions from weak supervision. InMulti-modal Foundation Model meets Embodied AI Workshop @ ICML2024, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= zxdi4Kdfjq

    2024

  41. [41]

    Bakhtin, L

    A. Bakhtin, L. van der Maaten, J. Johnson, L. Gustafson, and R. Girshick. Phyre: A new benchmark for physical reasoning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  42. [42]

    S. Li, K. Wu, C. Zhang, and Y . Zhu. I-phyre: Interactive physical reasoning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 28195–28215, 2024. 12

    2024

  43. [43]

    Matthews, M

    M. Matthews, M. Beukman, C. Lu, and J. Foerster. Kinetix: Investigating the training of general agents through open-ended physics-based control tasks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 58515–58564, 2025

    2025

  44. [44]

    K. R. Allen, K. A. Smith, and J. B. Tenenbaum. Rapid trial-and-error learning with simulation supports flexible tool use and physical reasoning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(47):29302–29310, 2020

    2020

  45. [45]

    H.-Y . Tung, M. Ding, Z. Chen, D. Bear, C. Gan, J. Tenenbaum, D. Yamins, J. Fan, and K. Smith. Physion++: Evaluating physical scene understanding that requires online inference of different physical properties.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:67048–67068, 2023

    2023

  46. [46]

    Z. Chen, K. Yi, Y . Li, M. Ding, A. Torralba, J. B. Tenenbaum, and C. Gan. Comphy: Composi- tional physical reasoning of objects and events from videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01089, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    T. Ates, M. Ate¸ so˘glu, Ç. Yi ˘git, I. Kesen, M. Kobas, E. Erdem, A. Erdem, T. Goksun, and D. Yuret. Craft: A benchmark for causal reasoning about forces and interactions. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 2602–2627, 2022

    2022

  48. [48]

    Baradel, N

    F. Baradel, N. Neverova, J. Mille, G. Mori, and C. Wolf. Cophy: Counterfactual learning of physical dynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.12000, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  49. [49]

    J. Wu, J. J. Lim, H. Zhang, J. B. Tenenbaum, and W. T. Freeman. Physics 101: Learning physical object properties from unlabeled videos. InBMVC, volume 2, page 7, 2016

    2016

  50. [50]

    Patel, T

    M. Patel, T. Gokhale, C. Baral, and Y . Yang. Cripp-vqa: Counterfactual reasoning about implicit physical properties via video question answering. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9856–9870, 2022

    2022

  51. [51]

    Girdhar and D

    R. Girdhar and D. Ramanan. Cater: A diagnostic dataset for compositional actions and temporal reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.04744, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  52. [52]

    Bansal, Z

    H. Bansal, Z. Lin, T. Xie, Z. Zong, M. Yarom, Y . Bitton, C. Jiang, Y . Sun, K.-W. Chang, and A. Grover. Videophy: Evaluating physical commonsense for video generation. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 102075–102121, 2025

    2025

  53. [53]

    J. Duan, S. Yu, S. Poria, B. Wen, and C. Tan. Pip: Physical interaction prediction via mental simulation with span selection. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 405–421. Springer, 2022

    2022

  54. [54]

    O. Mees, L. Hermann, E. Rosete-Beas, and W. Burgard. Calvin: A benchmark for language- conditioned policy learning for long-horizon robot manipulation tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3):7327–7334, 2022

    2022

  55. [55]

    Shukla, S

    A. Shukla, S. Tao, and H. Su. Maniskill-hab: A benchmark for low-level manipulation in home rearrangement tasks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 15288–15317, 2025

    2025

  56. [56]

    C. Li, R. Zhang, J. Wong, C. Gokmen, S. Srivastava, R. Martín-Martín, C. Wang, G. Levine, M. Lingelbach, J. Sun, et al. Behavior-1k: A benchmark for embodied ai with 1,000 everyday activities and realistic simulation. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 80–93. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  57. [57]

    M. Heo, Y . Lee, D. Lee, and J. J. Lim. Furniturebench: Reproducible real-world benchmark for long-horizon complex manipulation.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 44 (10-11):1863–1891, 2025. 13

    2025

  58. [58]

    Chernyadev, N

    N. Chernyadev, N. Backshall, X. Ma, Y . Lu, Y . Seo, and S. James. Bigym: A demo-driven mobile bi-manual manipulation benchmark. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 4201–

  59. [59]

    Huang, B

    S. Huang, B. Chen, H. Xu, and V . Sitzmann. Dittogym: Learning to control soft shape-shifting robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13231, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Shridhar, J

    M. Shridhar, J. Thomason, D. Gordon, Y . Bisk, W. Han, R. Mottaghi, L. Zettlemoyer, and D. Fox. Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10740–10749, 2020

    2020

  61. [61]

    Kolve, R

    E. Kolve, R. Mottaghi, W. Han, E. VanderBilt, L. Weihs, A. Herrasti, M. Deitke, K. Ehsani, D. Gordon, Y . Zhu, et al. Ai2-thor: An interactive 3d environment for visual ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05474, 2017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    Jiang, A

    Y . Jiang, A. Gupta, Z. Zhang, G. Wang, Y . Dou, Y . Chen, L. Fei-Fei, A. Anandkumar, Y . Zhu, and L. Fan. Vima: Robot manipulation with multimodal prompts. 2023

    2023

  63. [63]

    Khazatsky, K

    A. Khazatsky, K. Pertsch, S. Nair, A. Balakrishna, S. Dasari, S. Karamcheti, S. Nasiriany, M. K. Srirama, L. Y . Chen, K. Ellis, et al. Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    H. R. Walke, K. Black, T. Z. Zhao, Q. Vuong, C. Zheng, P. Hansen-Estruch, A. W. He, V . Myers, M. J. Kim, M. Du, et al. Bridgedata v2: A dataset for robot learning at scale. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 1723–1736. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  65. [65]

    Huang, B

    Y . Huang, B. Li, V . Saxena, Y . Liang, U. A. Mishra, L. Ji, L. Zha, J. Wu, N. Kumar, S. Scherer, et al. Kinder: A physical reasoning benchmark for robot learning and planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.25788, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    Driess, F

    D. Driess, F. Xia, M. S. Sajjadi, C. Lynch, A. Chowdhery, B. Ichter, A. Wahid, J. Tompson, Q. Vuong, T. Yu, et al. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    A. Ye, Z. Zhang, B. Wang, X. Wang, D. Zhang, and Z. Zhu. Vla-r1: Enhancing reasoning in vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01623, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    G. R. Team, S. Abeyruwan, J. Ainslie, J.-B. Alayrac, M. G. Arenas, T. Armstrong, A. Balakr- ishna, R. Baruch, M. Bauza, M. Blokzijl, et al. Gemini robotics: Bringing ai into the physical world.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20020, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    C. H. Song, J. Wu, C. Washington, B. M. Sadler, W.-L. Chao, and Y . Su. Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 2998–3009, 2023

    2023

  70. [70]

    S. Wang, M. Han, Z. Jiao, Z. Zhang, Y . N. Wu, S.-C. Zhu, and H. Liu. Llm^ 3: Large language model-based task and motion planning with motion failure reasoning. In2024 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pages 12086–12092. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  71. [71]

    Cherian, R

    A. Cherian, R. Corcodel, S. Jain, and D. Romeres. Llmphy: Complex physical reasoning using large language models and world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08027, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Y . Wang, J. Duan, D. Fox, and S. Srinivasa. Newton: Are large language models capable of physical reasoning? InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9743–9758, 2023. 14

    2023

  73. [73]

    R. Yang, H. Chen, J. Zhang, M. Zhao, C. Qian, K. Wang, Q. Wang, T. V . Koripella, M. Movahedi, M. Li, et al. Embodiedbench: Comprehensive benchmarking multi-modal large language models for vision-driven embodied agents. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 70576–70631. PMLR, 2025

    2025

  74. [74]

    F. Liu, K. Fang, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine. Moka: Open-world robotic manipulation through mark-based visual prompting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03174, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Nasiriany, F

    S. Nasiriany, F. Xia, W. Yu, T. Xiao, J. Liang, I. Dasgupta, A. Xie, D. Driess, A. Wahid, Z. Xu, et al. Pivot: Iterative visual prompting elicits actionable knowledge for vlms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07872, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    J. Gao, B. Sarkar, F. Xia, T. Xiao, J. Wu, B. Ichter, A. Majumdar, and D. Sadigh. Physi- cally grounded vision-language models for robotic manipulation. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 12462–12469. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  77. [77]

    B. Chen, Z. Xu, S. Kirmani, B. Ichter, D. Sadigh, L. Guibas, and F. Xia. Spatialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14455–14465, 2024

    2024

  78. [78]

    Cheng, H

    A.-C. Cheng, H. Yin, Y . Fu, Q. Guo, R. Yang, J. Kautz, X. Wang, and S. Liu. Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision-language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:135062–135093, 2024

    2024

  79. [79]

    N. F. Rajani, R. Zhang, Y . C. Tan, S. Zheng, J. Weiss, A. Vyas, A. Gupta, C. Xiong, R. Socher, and D. Radev. Esprit: Explaining solutions to physical reasoning tasks. InProceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7906–7917, 2020

    2020

  80. [80]

    L. P. Kaelbling and T. Lozano-Perez. Integrated task and motion planning in belief space, July

Showing first 80 references.