/ Paper arXiv 2611.12177
In short
In shortReport a mistake
Key numbers
From the paperCopied from the abstract, not written by AI.
Why this ranked
MeasuredPublic numbers, not AIHow ranking works
25 / 100#6 of 955 papers that day, from GitHub, Hugging Face, Hacker News and Semantic Scholar, looked up the morning it was ranked.
Builder evidence8 / 40
- Code released
Community attention14.4 / 30
- ▲ 27 upvotes on Hugging Face
Author track record2.5 / 15
- From MLL Lab
What the paper shows0 / 15
- Nothing found
Abstract
From the paperThe authors' own words.
Early successes on agentic robotics point to a potential paradigm shift toward using coding agents to control robots. Existing robotics benchmarks are built around visuomotor policy learning, leaving it open whether coding agents can reliably control diverse robots under physical-world constraints. We therefore introduce the Embodied First Exam, a unified, comprehensive, and agent-native evaluation framework where coding agents can choose their own control approach: direct control, code to control, or train a policy to control. We hope it serves as a first exam for coding agents before they enter the physical world, with 1,156 tasks in 35 suites on 47 robots, including 9 new suites that go beyond pick-and-place to spatial puzzles, dexterous manipulation, multi-robot interaction, dynamic whole-body control, and sim-to-sim engineering. Each task can be run in up to three evaluation settings. The Standard Setting mimics the real world: the agent receives only sensor observations and, by default, cannot reset the environment. Its Realtime variant keeps the environment running while the agent reasons. The Privileged Setting gives the agent access to the full simulator state and unlimited resets, allowing it to search for an oracle solution for training purposes. Success rates in this setting serve as an approximate upper bound. On the 456 core tasks, the strongest of eight agents, GPT-6 Astra in Codex, achieves a success rate of 34% in the Standard Setting, leaving much room for improvement. To see where agents fail, we label the stage at which failed attempts go wrong and compare failures across agents, settings, and stage categories.
From the full paper
From the paperCopied from the paper itself by our code.
Reading the paper on arXiv…
Ask this paper
/ Ask a questionAnswers come from the full paper and name the section
/ Your notes
Select text in the abstract to highlight it or add a note. They stay in this browser.