← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.09794 · v1
Seeing What Matters: Benchmarking Task-Conditioned Actionable Spatial Belief for Manipulation
首次提交 2026-11-07 01:49
版本更新 2026-11-07 01:49
雷达观测 2026-11-09 13:22
摘要
When should a robot look at the cup, and when at the portafilter? Spatial-reasoning benchmarks evaluate whether a model can describe a scene, but manipulation needs something more specific: the ability to acquire the particular evidence that makes the current command executable. A view that is informative for one task can be useless for another, even at the same workstation. We introduce Seeing What Matters, a benchmark for task-conditioned actionable spatial belief in simulated tabletop manipulation. Across three domains--coffee workstation, drawer/cabinet, and microwave/appliance--the benchmark provides 860 frozen evaluation cases; expanding across methods, budgets, and inference repeats yields more than 115,000 evaluator episodes under two protocols: closed-loop actionability and same-object functional out-of-distribution generalization. Each case pairs a set of candidate RGB views with a manipulation command, shared scripted skills, and hidden postconditions, so the benchmark directly measures whether a view-selection policy acquires the observations its command actually needs. We also provide a diagnostic reference pipeline that maintains a spatial-functional belief state and ranks views by missing evidence. At primary budget settings, this pipeline reaches 98.8% closed-loop and 98.9% functional-OOD success; ablating the functional or command-binding components collapses performance to near zero. Seven vision-language models, evaluated on the same cases, reach only 26-43%. Replacing the reference pipeline's coverage metadata with frozen RGB-derived scores preserves 98.5%/98.9% success; shuffling the visual scores collapses it to 15%/11%, confirming that the result depends on image content. These gaps suggest that spatial belief for manipulation should be evaluated not by scene-level completeness, but by whether it acquires the evidence the current command requires.
作者备注：22 pages (8 main + 14 supplement). Extended cross-domain evaluation and physical robot validation in progress
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-07 01:49 · 最新观测版本
Seeing What Matters: Benchmarking Task-Conditioned Actionable Spatial Belief for Manipulation
When should a robot look at the cup, and when at the portafilter? Spatial-reasoning benchmarks evaluate whether a model can describe a scene, but manipulation needs something more specific: the ability to acquire the particular evidence that makes the current command executable. A view that is informative for one task can be useless for another, even at the same workstation. We introduce Seeing What Matters, a benchmark for task-conditioned actionable spatial belief in simulated tabletop manipulation. Across three domains--coffee workstation, drawer/cabinet, and microwave/appliance--the benchmark provides 860 frozen evaluation cases; expanding across methods, budgets, and inference repeats yields more than 115,000 evaluator episodes under two protocols: closed-loop actionability and same-object functional out-of-distribution generalization. Each case pairs a set of candidate RGB views with a manipulation command, shared scripted skills, and hidden postconditions, so the benchmark directly measures whether a view-selection policy acquires the observations its command actually needs. We also provide a diagnostic reference pipeline that maintains a spatial-functional belief state and ranks views by missing evidence. At primary budget settings, this pipeline reaches 98.8% closed-loop and 98.9% functional-OOD success; ablating the functional or command-binding components collapses performance to near zero. Seven vision-language models, evaluated on the same cases, reach only 26-43%. Replacing the reference pipeline's coverage metadata with frozen RGB-derived scores preserves 98.5%/98.9% success; shuffling the visual scores collapses it to 15%/11%, confirming that the result depends on image content. These gaps suggest that spatial belief for manipulation should be evaluated not by scene-level completeness, but by whether it acquires the evidence the current command requires.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗