ORA Appendix
ORA

ORA Appendix

Evaluation details, failure audit and provenance for ORA: Open Robot-Use Agents.

Protocol

RoboTwinCohort rpent-zeroshot-v4-g004, source 654d265b; all 250 cases of the published C2R list, run directly on the randomized scenes with no clean-scene pass.
LIBERO-ProRefreshed cohort rpent-zeroshot-overhead-g005, run source a5ed51d8; 800 Task and Swap cases on the current LIBERO default.
LIBEROThe same g005 cohort reruns all 400 cases using official base-suite instructions. The previous table combined g003 with g004's 60 instruction-corrected cases (48/60 to 56/60 on those cases).
Model and budgetSelf-hosted DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, low reasoning effort, task memory off. One scored outcome per case; at most 80 robot decisions, 200 model calls, 10,000 simulator steps and six hours. Five g005 cases had an infrastructure failure without a verdict and were rerun once as explicit -r1 replacements. The original attempts remain in the evidence; scores use their replacements.
TermsTask: a benchmark task. Case: a task with one seed from the published list. Episode: one attempt at a case. Round: one attempt within a session of several rounds on the same scene. Decision: one call that moves the robot.
Success checkThe model may call check_task, which returns the official success result for the current state without ending the episode. It never sees the check's code. We have not confirmed whether RPent's agents have an equivalent query.
SuccessThe environment's own verdict, from a sealed, valid evaluation. A case without a valid outcome counts as a failure in the charts; the exact tables also give the rate over valid outcomes.
Versus RPentSame cases, different conditions: RGB-D images, geometry and grasp tools, ORA's task text (RPent's seed-specific wording for nine place_a2b cases), different action and time budgets. RPent's C2R protocol explores the clean scenes first and carries task memory to the randomized ones, with LingBot-VLA as its primitive.
Harness versionRoboTwin retains g004. LIBERO and LIBERO-Pro use g005 after the overhead-footprint change (integration 0084), with official base-suite instructions and restored observation rules. Several changes separate g005 from the old tables, so the rerun is not an ablation of overhead localization.
Leaderboard notesRPent lists GR00T-N1.7, π0.5 and StarVLA without stating how they were run. RPent / GPT-5.5's 62.4% is the repository's update; the paper's Codex row reports 58.0%.

What changed in the full rerun

On the 399 cases with valid outcomes in both LIBERO tables, the refreshed run rescued 36 failures and lost 34 previous successes (exact McNemar p = 0.91). On 796 LIBERO-Pro pairs, it rescued 67 and lost 52 (p = 0.20). The small overall increases do not establish a reliable gain. This rerun includes several harness changes and cannot isolate the effect of overhead localization. It replaces the earlier, incomplete progress readout.

Study identifiers

IdentifierWhat it refers toSource
g003Earlier LIBERO and LIBERO-Pro evaluationb35f5fee
g004The retained RoboTwin cohort and the earlier 60-case LIBERO instruction correction654d265b
g005The full 1,200-case LIBERO / LIBERO-Pro rerun used in this pagea5ed51d8
EXP11CThe 42-task, three-round RoboDojo scan and stacking replayc6b08a06
EXP12B g002The separate 79-episode timing sampleFigure A2
Delivery trim v1 / v2Observation-shortening tests before and after six rules were restoredIntegrations 0063 / 0068
EXP11A g012Earlier RoboDojo runs audited for rejected orientations and geometry errorsReachability and geometry findings below
Placement-centre testThe narrower paired test of overhead localizationc1911864, integration 0084

Sources

RPent percentages and available denominators, including contributor corrections and the updated GPT-5.5 Long results, come from the pinned leaderboard page and its versioned result data (revision 705bd44b, checked 2026-09-22). ORA counts come from queue records, with each counted run's plan, result, evaluation and seal hashes checked; snapshot 2026-10-12 11:25 PDT. Data and export scripts: page source.

Exact values by benchmark and suite

RoboTwin C2R

MethodSuccessCount
ORA · DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash69.2%173/250 cases; 0 without a valid outcome; 69.2% of valid outcomes
RPent / GPT-5.5 (xhigh)62.4%156/250
RPent / Opus-4.7 (max)58.4%250 cases
LingBot-VLA50.4%—
π0.547.9%—
GR00T-N1.720.7%—
StarVLA10.6%—

LIBERO-Pro

MethodSuccessCount
ORA · DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash81.4%651/800 cases; 0 without a valid outcome; 81.4% of valid outcomes
RPent / GPT-6 Astra (low) [a]92.63%741/800
RPent / Opus-4.7 (max)82.4%800 cases
RPent / GPT-5.5 (xhigh)75.13%800 cases
RPent Flash Mode / Molmo2-8B [b]72.63%581/800
RPent / Qwen3.6 27B (no reasoning)70.63%565/800
ASPIRE [c]61.36%—
π_RLinf50.0%—
π0.511.0%—
AtomVLA6.3%—
X-VLA3.8%—
MolmoAct1.5%—
π00.3%—
By suiteSpatial TaskSpatial SwapObject TaskObject SwapGoal TaskGoal SwapLong TaskLong Swap
ORA · DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash98/10091/10093/10098/10077/10078/10052/10064/100
RPent / GPT-6 Astra (low) [a]100%98%100%99%88%99%85%72%
RPent / GPT-5.5 (xhigh)81.0%69.0%94.0%91.0%75.0%66.0%70.00%55.00%
RPent Flash Mode / Molmo2-8B [b]79.00%70.00%86.00%93.00%74.00%65.00%60.00%54.00%
RPent / Qwen3.6 27B (no reasoning)82.00%78.00%83.00%84.00%68.00%68.00%61.00%41.00%
ASPIRE [c]60.0%51.0%95.0%98.0%45.0%81.0%38.3%22.6%
π_RLinf42.0%59.0%71.0%78.0%45.0%42.0%49.0%14.0%
π0.51.0%20.0%1.0%17.0%2.0%38.0%1.0%8.0%
AtomVLA1.0%16.0%0.0%10.0%11.0%2.0%9.0%1.0%
X-VLA0.0%0.0%8.0%2.0%9.0%1.0%10.0%0.0%
MolmoAct0.0%0.0%0.0%6.0%0.0%0.0%6.0%0.0%
π00.0%0.0%0.0%2.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cap-X14.0%12.0%18.0%22.0%17.0%26.0%——
RPent / GPT-6 Motor Only (low)——————38.0%—
RATS31.0%29.0%63.0%61.0%36.0%43.0%——

LIBERO

MethodSuccessCount
ORA · DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash83.5%334/400 cases; 0 without a valid outcome; 83.5% of valid outcomes
AtomVLA97.0%—
RPent / Opus-4.7 (max)96.0%384/400
π_RLinf95.3%—
π094.2%—
NORA79.5%—
OpenVLA76.5%—
By suiteSpatialObjectGoalLong
ORA · DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash95/10092/10084/10063/100
AtomVLA96.4%99.6%97.6%94.4%
RPent / Opus-4.7 (max)97.0%100.0%94.0%93.0%
π_RLinf99.0%96.0%97.0%89.0%
π096.8%98.8%95.8%85.2%
NORA85.6%89.4%80.0%63.0%
OpenVLA84.7%88.4%79.2%53.7%

Ours: rate over all cases, a case without a valid outcome counting as a failure; suite cells are successes / valid outcomes. — not reported; missing suites are not inferred. [a] Astra uses separately frozen exploration-memory snapshots for Long (157/200) and the other six suites (584/600). [b] Flash Mode uses released GPT-5.5 exploration memory and reports the best-performing seed from s0–s9. [c] ASPIRE's 61.36% is the board's mean of eight reported percentages; its Long results use zero-shot transfer from a LIBERO-90 skill library[1]. The suite table also keeps RPent's motor-only Astra result (38% on Long Task only), which uses neither VLA primitives nor Memory.

Success by task family, our runs only
LIBEROPro · TaskPro · Swap
Spatial95/10098/10091/100
Object92/10093/10098/100
Goal84/10077/10078/100
Long63/10052/10064/100

Successes / valid official outcomes. Long is the weakest family in all three settings.

Cost

Historical cost samples cover the earlier g003/g004 benchmark cohorts and the RoboDojo scan. They do not estimate the refreshed g005 cohort. Token usage is priced at CNY 0.02 / 1.00 / 4.00 per million cached input, uncached input and output tokens, with 7.1 CNY per USD (recorded September 17 rates). The self-hosted service does not report cache hits. The cost script infers cacheable tokens from request lengths, so the estimated 84% to 86% cached-input share is an assumption, not a measured hit rate. Simulator and GPU costs are excluded.

BenchmarkEpisodesMedian episodeMean episodeSpend per solved task
RoboTwin250$0.12$0.23$0.33
LIBERO-Pro800$0.10$0.28$0.35
LIBERO400$0.10$0.24$0.29
RoboDojo scan126$0.33$0.37$2.57

Earlier API runs in September: $0.38 per randomized RoboTwin episode at off-peak list prices ($0.76 at peak, 44 episodes), $0.29 per clean episode (391) and $0.37 per LIBERO-Pro episode (164).

Failure audit and time

Figure A1. Main cause of each failed RoboDojo round. EXP11C scan, source c6b08a06, one auditor judgement per round; 27 of the 64 motion cases are low-confidence. No round exhausted its decision budget. Most failed rounds ended when the model stopped immediately after a failed motion. The auditor judged recovery still possible in only three rounds. In two earlier scans, 91% of 746 failed inverse-kinematics attempts found no solution from 32 seeds although the targets were inside the workspace bounds.

Figure A2. Where episode time goes. Time shares come from EXP12B g002: 79 episodes, 12,206 model calls and 91.7 episode-hours, using paired trace timestamps. The episode medians come from different, later cohorts (RoboTwin g004; LIBERO and LIBERO-Pro g005): RoboTwin 25.0 min, LIBERO-Pro 15.9 min, LIBERO 13.8 min. A paragraph-level classifier labelled 58% of reasoning paragraphs as concerning geometry, a broader category and a different unit from responses that compute geometry by hand. The audit estimated that batching independent read-only calls could remove at most 7% of model calls in this sample.

Media and case provenance

ItemEpisodeRunSource
Terminal replay (top)RoboDojo stack blocks by language, round 3 of 3robodojo-fsmbz-v2-sweep-robodojo-648308b8c5c4c6b08a06
Look before actingLIBERO-Pro object swap, task 4, seed 4rpent-zeroshot-hdev-libero-pro-729b0ef3dd0f (g003)b35f5fee
Trial and errorRoboDojo match and pick from conveyorrobodojo-fsmbz-v2-sweep-robodojo-bd2b69f14ecbc6b08a06
Learning across roundsRoboDojo stack blocks by language, rounds 1–2robodojo-fsmbz-v2-sweep-robodojo-648308b8c5c4c6b08a06
Check before doneRoboTwin press stapler, clean scene, October trial cohort (not evaluated above)rpent-trial-hdev-robotwin-3d9edce7e882c58d6b00
Screenshots in WhySlide photo by D. Mishkin; Robocurve video stillX post, X post—

Clips and the replay use original captured frames, not simulator reconstructions, at simulation time with model and tool waiting removed. Text panels show visible model text, tool calls, results and receipts only. Hero tiles run from reset to official success at native resolution or above: RoboTwin tiles are clean scenes from EXP12B warm-up sessions (not evaluation runs), LIBERO and LIBERO-Pro from g003, RoboDojo from the first scans, frame-interpolated from 10 Hz. Manifests and hashes: page/assets/fresh-v41/media-manifest.json, teaser/v12/panels.json.

CaseRunRounds
Bread to skilletrpent-trial-hdev-robotwin-a767c785acb0--20261006T023137Z
October 5, 19:31 PDT
23 decisions, failed → 8, succeeded
Open laptoprpent-trial-hdev-robotwin-c61fb78d64c5--20261006T022806Z
October 5, 19:28 PDT
23 decisions, failed → 6, succeeded

Both are two-round sessions on a repeated seed (source c58d6b0), task memory off, chosen after inspecting outcomes rather than sampled. The laptop quotes are the model's visible text, events 59, 348, 396 and 426; receipt hashes are in page/cases-v41.json.

Evidence for the findings

FindingEvidenceKind
Overhead footprint localizationOverhead footprint centre vs mask median, LIBERO libero_10 t04/t06: 29 → 42 of 59 paired states, McNemar p = 0.011; 30 states from other families 25 → 21, p = 0.13. Source c1911864, integration 0084.paired A/B
Observation shortening and restored rulesDelivery trim v1 vs untrimmed, RoboDojo, same commit: 10 vs 17 of 27 rounds, 24% more model calls. Trim v2 (six rules restored): 15 vs 13 of 24 complete pairs. Integrations 0063, 0068.same-commit A/B
Guessed robot constants28 of 46 runs guessed the controlled-point-to-fingertip offset (0–0.103 m) although grasp_plan had returned it; three ALOHA runs estimated the jaw opening at 45, 50 and 55 mm against 94.9 mm.run audit
Reachability feedback after refusalsEXP11A g012 runs abandoned refused poses as unreachable. Offline sweeps found tilted alternatives; in a replay of 77 refusals, nearest reachable orientations resolved 69 (098655fa). Bare argument errors: 14 identical GPT-6 Astra calls in five minutes (dde39f75).run audit, offline replay
Geometry calculations in model responsesA corpus audit labelled 12.2% of 35,270 responses as manual geometry derivations. A separate prompt-only test on 11 completed pairs of previously failed RoboTwin cases found arithmetic in 76.2% of baseline reasoning calls and 76.3% with calculator-routing instructions (912f4f10). These are different populations and measures. Three g012 runs wrote an upward quaternion for “approach from above”; world-axes poses added in 7cc9e9eb.corpus count, run audit

Two controlled tests did not establish an improvement: RoboDojo motion-safety fixes, 12 rounds with the fixes against 11 without, of 102 each (same commit b08e706f). A closed grasp skill on LIBERO: 35 with the skill against 41 without, of 60 paired states (p = 0.18). Single LIBERO reruns are noisy: 15 of 30 control failures succeeded on a plain rerun.

Still open

Long tasks: 52–64% on LIBERO-Long and the two LIBERO-Pro long suites, against 91–98% on Spatial and Object. RoboDojo: a first scan of 42 two-arm tasks[2] on October 6, on an earlier harness, solved 18 of 126 rounds and 9 tasks at least once. In 64 of the 108 failed rounds the target was reasonable and the motion went wrong (27 of these judgements are low-confidence). The benchmark tables compare complete systems in simulation using one ORA language model. The component tests above evaluate individual changes under narrower conditions.

What goes wrongHarness change it points to
Free-space moves and the return home ignore objects on the table and allow joint jumps of about 3 rad; an arm can sweep away a block it just placed.Check the path, not only the end point.
A grasp slips in transport and the receipt does not say so; the model places with an empty gripper.Report a dropped object.
Many requested orientations have no inverse-kinematics solution across 32 solver seeds, leading to refused requests.Answer with the nearest reachable pose.
In the timing sample, a classifier labelled 58% of reasoning paragraphs as geometry-related.Hand the model derived geometry.

References

  1. ASPIRE: Agentic Skills Discovery for Robotics. arxiv.org/html/2607.00272v1 ↩
  2. RoboDojo benchmark. github.com/RoboDojo-Benchmark/RoboDojo ↩