R2S-Eval: Robot Evaluation with Real-to-Sim Calibration via Vision-Language Models

Robot Evaluation with Real-to-Sim Calibration via Vision-Language Models

R2S-Eval pipeline: policy evaluation rollouts are generated in calibrated simulation, compared by a vision-language model, aggregated into rankings, and validated.
Overview of the R2S-Eval pipeline for ranking robot policies using real-to-sim calibration and VLM-based preference evaluation.

Paper overview

Abstract

Evaluating robot manipulation policies is becoming increasingly important as generalist models, particularly vision-language-action (VLA) models, are deployed on physical robots. However, conventional real-world evaluation remains labor-intensive, unstable, and insufficiently informative. It requires repeated hardware trials, manual scene resets, and continuous operator monitoring, may produce different policy rankings across repeated evaluations, and primarily relies on success rate metrics that provide limited information about execution quality. In contrast, humans assess robot performance by observing and comparing complete behaviors rather than relying solely on binary success outcomes. To this end, we propose R2S-Eval, an automated evaluation pipeline that combines real-to-sim calibration with vision-language model (VLM) preference evaluation. The real-to-sim calibration component efficiently generates rollout videos in a simulator calibrated to the real-world evaluation setting, thereby reducing the need for repeated hardware robot trials. The VLM evaluator assesses the execution quality of rollout videos and produces pairwise preferences, which are subsequently aggregated into policy rankings. We further introduce a validation protocol to assess whether the proposed evaluation pipeline yields validated policy conclusions while mitigating the key challenges of conventional real-world evaluation. Experiments in both simulation and real-world settings demonstrate that R2S-Eval produces reliable and stable policy conclusions, achieves agreement with human preferences, substantially reduces hardware manual effort, and reveals behavior-quality differences that are not captured by binary success labels. In general, R2S-Eval advances robot evaluation from manual success counting toward automated, statistically stable, and quality-aware evaluation of robot behavior.

Real-to-Sim Calibration

R2S-Eval uses real-to-sim calibration as an efficient source of behavior videos. The simulator calibrates the factors that determine policy behavior—robot geometry, kinematics, joint limits, control interface, task objects, camera viewpoints, and initializations—without requiring a perfectly photorealistic digital twin. Across seven tabletop tasks, the videos compare teleoperated real trajectories with recorded joint-angle action replays in the calibrated NVIDIA Isaac Sim environment.

Cover Ball with Cup
Pick Ball Place in Box
Pick Ball Place in Cup
Pick Cup Place on Plate
Stack Blocks
Take Block Out Box
Upright Fallen Cup

Policy Evaluation Rollouts

Candidate policies are evaluated through independently executed closed-loop rollouts in both the physical setup and the calibrated simulator. For each of the seven tasks, the two videos follow the same task definition, initialization range, observation and action interfaces, and success criterion, allowing simulation-side policy outcomes to be compared with hardware performance. Selecting a task updates both videos and their shared label.

Real Hardware rollout
Sim Calibrated simulation

Cover Ball with Cup

VLM Preference

R2S-Eval repeatedly samples rollout pairs from candidate-policy video sets and uses a VLM as an automated preference judge. For each video, the model first describes task progress, action continuity, control quality, and final task completion, then compares the paired descriptions to produce a preference; balanced pairwise observations are aggregated with a Bradley–Terry model into policy scores and rankings. The shown both-failure and both-success cases illustrate execution-quality differences that binary labels cannot reveal.

Both Failed

TaskTake Block Out Box

Policy A

× Failure

Policy B

× Failure
  • Smoothness
  • Success
  • Progress
  • Continuity

VLM Judgment

Policy A is preferred over Policy B.

Both Succeeded

TaskCover Ball with Cup

Policy C

✓ Success

Policy D

✓ Success
  • Smoothness
  • Success
  • Progress
  • Continuity

VLM Judgment

Policy D is preferred over Policy C.

Evaluation Results

Across 40 LIBERO tasks and seven calibrated tasks derived from the real-world setup, we evaluate six candidate VLA policies with eight VLM judges. Reference success performance, Bradley–Terry preference scores, bootstrap confidence intervals, and human annotations jointly assess ranking reliability, stability, and human agreement.

Simulation benchmark

LIBERO

Forty language-conditioned manipulation tasks across four suites test spatial reasoning, object interaction, goal completion, and long-horizon execution.

Evaluator reliability. Across eight VLM judges, the preference ranking averages a Spearman correlation of 0.823 with the reference success ordering, while preference scores average a Pearson correlation of 0.924 with success rates; pairwise judgments reach 82.9% agreement with human annotations.

Simulator reference

Task success

LIBERO success rates for six policies: X-VLA 97.5, pi 0.5 96.8, pi 0 92.8, NORA-Long 82.2, SmolVLA 76.2, and OpenVLA 70.7 percent.
Average ground-truth success rate across the four LIBERO task suites.

Behavior preference

VLM preference score

LIBERO VLM preference scores for six policies: X-VLA 18.0, pi 0.5 20.7, pi 0 20.5, NORA-Long 14.9, SmolVLA 14.4, and OpenVLA 11.5 percent.
Bradley–Terry preference strength averaged over all eight VLM judges.
Table III reports per-VLM Spearman correlation, Pearson correlation, mean maximum rank violation, score confidence interval width, and human agreement rate for LIBERO.
Per-judge ranking reliability, score correlation, uncertainty, and human agreement on LIBERO.

Calibrated evaluation

Real-to-Sim Calibration

Seven calibrated simulation counterparts of real-world tabletop tasks support comparison between preference-based policy conclusions and hardware reference performance.

Evaluator reliability. Across eight VLM judges, the preference ranking averages a Spearman correlation of 0.957 with the hardware success ordering, while preference scores average a Pearson correlation of 0.978 with hardware success rates; pairwise judgments reach 91.9% agreement with human annotations.

Hardware reference

Task success

Real-to-Sim Calibration hardware success rates for six policies: X-VLA 65.7, pi 0.5 63.6, pi 0 53.6, NORA-Long 4.3, SmolVLA 2.1, and OpenVLA 7.1 percent.
Average hardware success rate across all seven real-world tasks.

Behavior preference

VLM preference score

Real-to-Sim Calibration VLM preference scores for six policies: X-VLA 30.1, pi 0.5 31.2, pi 0 24.5, NORA-Long 5.4, SmolVLA 0.1, and OpenVLA 8.8 percent.
Bradley–Terry preference strength averaged over all eight VLM judges.
Table II reports real and simulation success rates for six VLA policies on seven calibrated manipulation tasks.
Task-level real/simulation success rates and aggregate policy performance.
Table IV reports per-VLM Spearman correlation, Pearson correlation, mean maximum rank violation, score confidence interval width, and human agreement rate for the Real-to-Sim Calibration evaluation.
Per-judge reliability, uncertainty, and human agreement in the Real-to-Sim Calibration setting.
X-VLA π0.5 π0 NORA-Long SmolVLA OpenVLA

VLM preference scores use the Bradley–Terry model. Human agreement is measured from 200 sampled video pairs per setting, annotated by three people and aggregated by majority vote.