Abstract
Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Low-cost arms such as the SO-101 have become the most common entry point to robot learning, yet no released policy performs spatially constrained, language-conditioned tasks on them out of the box, and existing SO-101 benchmarks run only on physical hardware with simple tasks and few held-out objects. We introduce SO-101 Bench, a simulated benchmark for language-conditioned spatial manipulation built on an Isaac Lab digital twin of a real SO-101 setup. It has four tasks scored as five families, 138 objects in seen, unseen-instance and unseen-class splits, 916 evaluation episodes with subsets for held-out appearances, rotate-to-fit planning and occlusion memory, and 3,629 simulated demonstrations on which every learned policy is fine-tuned under an equal compute budget. The twin ranks policies as the real robot does: five policies trained without real data, four VLAs and an LLM agent, keep their exact ranking when the same weights run on the physical arm in an unseen environment with unseen objects (Spearman rho = 1.00, MMRV = 0.000), although simulation overestimates success. Across nine VLAs and world-action models, the best learned policies score near 61%, with spatial placement, unseen object classes and rotate-to-fit planning remaining open. An LLM agent that writes code and hands grasping to a learned policy scores 83.2%, and an ablation shows that this lead comes from the choice of harness and the choice of language model.
Results and benchmarks
Low-cost arms such as the SO-101 have become the most common entry point to robot learning, yet no released policy performs spatially constrained, language-conditioned tasks on them out of the box, and existing SO-101 benchmarks run only on physical hardware with simple tasks and few held-out objects.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Repositories and ecosystem
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
- eerstar/LLM-Agent-paper-daily
Confidence: Low · 0 stars
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use, Scientific computing
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models, AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.