Evaluates embodied task planning and visual correspondence capabilities of vision-language models. It probes spatial-functional reasoning, multi-step action planning, and cross-view consistency in indoor scenes. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MomaGraph-Bench, BLINK, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy (%).
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill momagraph-bench-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Momagraph Bench Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-momagraph-bench-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: momagraph-bench-eval
description: Evaluates embodied task planning and visual correspondence capabilities of vision-language models. It probes spatial-functional reasoning, multi-step action planning, and cross-view consistency in indoor scenes. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MomaGraph-Bench, BLINK, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy (%).
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2512.16909
bibtex_key: ju2025momagraph
confidence: high
---
# momagraph-bench-eval
> MomaGraph: State-Aware Unified Scene Graphs with Vision-Language Model for Embodied Task Planning — Ju et al. (2025) (arXiv:2512.16909, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates embodied task planning and visual correspondence capabilities of vision-language models. It probes spatial-functional reasoning, multi-step action planning, and cross-view consistency in indoor scenes.
## Datasets
- **MomaGraph-Bench** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **BLINK** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `accuracy (%)` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Calculated as the number of correctly predicted task plans or correspondence answers divided by the total number of instances, multiplied by 100.
- `success rate (%)` — range: percent
- Calculated as the number of successful multi-step task trials divided by the total number of trials, multiplied by 100.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Multi-view RGB-D observations and natural language task instructions.
**Output**: Task-oriented scene graph G_T (nodes, spatial/functional edges, action types) followed by a structured action sequence, or direct task plan/answer.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_accuracy(predictions, gold):
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold) if p == g)
return (correct / len(gold)) * 100
def compute_success_rate(success_flags, total_trials):
return (sum(success_flags) / total_trials) * 100
```
## Common pitfalls
- Confusing the 'Direct Plan (w/o Graph)' baseline with the 'Graph-then-Plan (w/ Graph)' setting, which significantly impacts reported scores.
- Assuming overall accuracy masks severe degradation on higher-complexity tiers (T3/T4) where open-source models drop sharply.
- Overlooking that real-robot success rates are measured per trial across 10 viewpoint changes, not per individual action step.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We report accuracy (%) across four tiers (T1–T4) and the overall score, with and without graph-based reasoning.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{ju2025momagraph,
title={MomaGraph: State-Aware Unified Scene Graphs with Vision-Language Model for Embodied Task Planning},
author={Ju et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2512.16909}
}
```
- arXiv: 2512.16909

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!