Benchmark Almanac

EBench

π 0.5 \pi_{0.5} 41% tops its leaderboard
Not in model cards

26 Isaac Sim household mobile-manipulation task types annotated by 5 capability and 4 generalization dimensions. Platform-scored success rate.

Diagnostic profile instead of one scalar. Leaderboard uses held-out Test-Mini split. Board lacks dates and trial counts. In September 2026 the maker raised the step limits for the bottle and shop tasks from 3,000 to 5,000 and called it a minor fix.

Released
June 2026
Kind
Simulated robots
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
Public, plus a private test set

In the authors’ words

We present EBench, a simulation benchmark that diagnoses generalist mobile manipulation policies beyond a single success-rate scalar. EBench comprises 26 diverse and challenging manipulation tasks annotated along 5 capability dimensions and 4 generalization dimensions. We evaluate state-of-the-art generalist manipulation models including π₀, π0.5, XVLA, and InternVLA-A1, and reveal that the models exhibit strikingly different capability profiles: π0.5 achieves the highest test success rate, the best train–test retention, and the strongest mobile manipulation performance; π₀ leads on dexterous fixed-base and high-precision tasks; XVLA and InternVLA-A1 exhibit complementary strengths across atomic skills and operating regimes. Beyond capability profiling, EBench analyzes the generalization ability from 4 representative perspectives, identifying the impact of different distribution shift factors. The results reveal strengths and weaknesses of models behind an overall score. We hope this benchmark offers a broad set of diagnostic signals to guide iteration on generalist manipulation models.

Abstract of EBench: Elemental Diagnosis of Generalist Mobile Manipulation Policies (arXiv:2606.18239, CC0)
4
Entries on its own leaderboard, 0 models we track

π 0.5 \pi_{0.5} tops the leaderboard with 41%

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

  1. 1 π 0.5 \pi_{0.5} 41%
  2. 2 π 0 \pi_{0} 34.4%
  3. 3 InternVLA-A1 27.6%
  4. 4 XVLA 24.7%

Source: Official EBench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 π 0.5 \pi_{0.5} 41% Official leaderboard
2 π 0 \pi_{0} 34.4% Official leaderboard
3 InternVLA-A1 27.6% Official leaderboard
4 XVLA 24.7% Official leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Robotics

All 103 in Robotics
  • ERQA In use 400 multiple-choice visual questions from robot and egocentric footage on spatial, trajectory, action and state reasoning. Accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 78.5%
  • RoboDojo In use Generalist manipulation policies run 42 Isaac Sim tasks and 18 remote real-robot tasks. Scored by task score and success rate. GPT-6 Astra 29%
  • RoboLab In use Zero-shot DROID Franka policies in Isaac Lab on 120 tabletop tasks at three instruction levels, 10 episodes each. Success rate. FLUX 3 Action 42.9%
  • Progress classification (Google DeepMind) In use Models assign each frame of a robot video to one of five task-progress bands from 0 to 100 percent. Scored by accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 57.4%
  • Human proximity (Google DeepMind robotics) In use Models judge from robot camera views whether a human is within 1 meter, a spatial awareness check for safe robot behavior. Scored by accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 93%
  • Moment finding (Google DeepMind) In use Models find the moment in a robot video when an event happens. Scored by accuracy and mean absolute time distance in seconds. Gemini Robotics ER 2 91.3%