This evaluation probes a model's embodied reasoning capabilities, including spatial understanding, visual grounding, task planning, and closed-loop robotic control. It measures how well vision-language models transfer general multimodal knowledge to robot-specific manipulation tasks and identifies the domain gap between internet-scale pretraining and real-world embodiment. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ERQA, Ego-Plan2, Where2place, Pointarena, Paco-Lavis, Pixmo-Points, VSI-Bench, Re...
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Vlaser Embodied Reasoning Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-vlaser-embodied-reasoning-eval)
---
name: vlaser-embodied-reasoning-eval
description: This evaluation probes a model's embodied reasoning capabilities, including spatial understanding, visual grounding, task planning, and closed-loop robotic control. It measures how well vision-language models transfer general multimodal knowledge to robot-specific manipulation tasks and identifies the domain gap between internet-scale pretraining and real-world embodiment. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ERQA, Ego-Plan2, Where2place, Pointarena, Paco-Lavis, Pixmo-Points, VSI-Bench, RefSpatial-Bench, MMSI-Bench, VLABench, EmbodiedBench, SimplerEnv, Robotwin, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2510.11027
bibtex_key: yang2025vlaser
confidence: high
---
# vlaser-embodied-reasoning-eval
> Vlaser: Vision-Language-Action Model with Synergistic Embodied Reasoning — Yang et al. (2025) (arXiv:2510.11027, 2025)
## What this evaluates
This evaluation probes a model's embodied reasoning capabilities, including spatial understanding, visual grounding, task planning, and closed-loop robotic control. It measures how well vision-language models transfer general multimodal knowledge to robot-specific manipulation tasks and identifies the domain gap between internet-scale pretraining and real-world embodiment.
## Datasets
- **ERQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Ego-Plan2** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Where2place** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Pointarena** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Paco-Lavis** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Pixmo-Points** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **VSI-Bench** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **RefSpatial-Bench** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MMSI-Bench** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **VLABench** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **EmbodiedBench** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **SimplerEnv** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Robotwin** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Percentage of correctly answered questions or correctly grounded points across all instances. Computed as (correct predictions / total instances) * 100.
- `success rate` — range: percent
- Percentage of successfully completed robotic manipulation episodes. Computed as (successful episodes / total episodes) * 100.
- `normalized average accuracy` — range: percent
- Arithmetic mean of the accuracy/success rates across all 12 embodied reasoning benchmarks and simulation environments.
## Input / output format
**Input**: RGB images (single or multi-view) paired with natural language questions, spatial queries, or task instructions for manipulation.
**Output**: Natural language answers (e.g., object names, coordinates, step-by-step plans) or discrete action tokens for robot control.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_score(predictions, golds, task_type):
if task_type in ['reasoning', 'grounding', 'planning']:
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if normalize(p) == normalize(g))
return (correct / len(golds)) * 100
elif task_type == 'robot_control':
success = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if p == g)
return (success / len(golds)) * 100
return 0.0
```
## Common pitfalls
- Normalizing averages across benchmarks with different scales can obscure performance drops on specific sub-tasks like spatial intelligence.
- High scores on internet-sourced reasoning benchmarks do not guarantee high success rates on closed-loop robot control due to domain shift between pretraining data and real embodiments.
- Model scaling is non-monotonic; smaller models (2B) can outperform larger ones (8B) on simple grounding tasks requiring direct answers.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Table 2: SimplerEnv Evaluation on WidowX Robot Tasks. Avg indicates the average success rate among the four tasks. Model sizes are indicated within parentheses. The result of RT-1-X, Octo-Base, OpenVLA, RoboVLM and SpatialVLA are from Qu et al. while the results of π0 is from Zren.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{yang2025vlaser,
title={Vlaser: Vision-Language-Action Model with Synergistic Embodied Reasoning},
author={Yang et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2510.11027}
}
```
- arXiv: 2510.11027