kaimingyang commited on
Commit
803f3ee
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): 766fbf8

Upload bench/protocol

Browse files
bench/protocol/action.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
 
 
1
+ {"format":"dream-exe.protocol","stage":"action","values":{"reference_frame":"world"}}
bench/protocol/evaluation.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ {
2
+ "format": "dream-exe.protocol",
3
+ "stage": "evaluation",
4
+ "values": {
5
+ "vlm": {
6
+ "task_prompt_suffixes": {
7
+ "standard": "(Static surveillance camera. No camera movement. One continuous shot. The robot arm moves to manipulate the target object.)",
8
+ "enhanced": ""
9
+ },
10
+ "rubrics": {
11
+ "subject_stability": {
12
+ "prompt_files": {
13
+ "robot_subject": "vlm/prompts/subject_stability_robot.txt",
14
+ "manipulated_object": "vlm/prompts/subject_stability_object.txt"
15
+ },
16
+ "sampling": {
17
+ "frame_fractions": [0.0, 0.75],
18
+ "grid": [1, 2]
19
+ },
20
+ "score_range": [1, 15]
21
+ },
22
+ "physical_plausibility": {
23
+ "prompt_file": "vlm/prompts/physical_plausibility.txt",
24
+ "sampling": {
25
+ "uniform_frames": 6,
26
+ "grid": [3, 2]
27
+ },
28
+ "score_range": [1, 5]
29
+ },
30
+ "task_adherence": {
31
+ "prompt_file": "vlm/prompts/task_adherence.txt",
32
+ "sampling": {
33
+ "uniform_frames": 6,
34
+ "grid": [3, 2]
35
+ },
36
+ "score_range": [1, 5]
37
+ }
38
+ },
39
+ "judges": [
40
+ {
41
+ "id": "gemini-3-pro",
42
+ "provider": "openai-compatible",
43
+ "model": "gemini-3-pro",
44
+ "base_url_env": "DREAM_EXE_GEMINI_BASE_URL",
45
+ "api_key_env": "DREAM_EXE_GEMINI_API_KEY"
46
+ },
47
+ {
48
+ "id": "qwen3-vl-plus",
49
+ "provider": "openai-compatible",
50
+ "model": "qwen3-vl-plus",
51
+ "base_url_env": "DREAM_EXE_QWEN_BASE_URL",
52
+ "api_key_env": "DREAM_EXE_QWEN_API_KEY"
53
+ }
54
+ ],
55
+ "aggregation": {
56
+ "method": "mean",
57
+ "required_judges": ["gemini-3-pro", "qwen3-vl-plus"]
58
+ }
59
+ },
60
+ "trajectory": {
61
+ "groups": ["EEF vis", "EEF tcp", "OBJ"],
62
+ "metrics": ["HSD", "DYN", "NDTW"]
63
+ },
64
+ "execution": {
65
+ "executability_metrics": ["E-SR", "nDTW", "Pos95", "Rot95", "Smth"],
66
+ "task_metrics": ["SR-B", "SR-P", "Rel", "Place", "Art", "Core"]
67
+ }
68
+ }
69
+ }
bench/protocol/execution.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
 
 
1
+ {"format":"dream-exe.protocol","stage":"execution","values":{}}
bench/protocol/generation.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
 
 
1
+ {"format":"dream-exe.protocol","stage":"generation","values":{"first_frame_required":true,"kind":"image_to_video","prompt_variants":["standard","enhanced"]}}
bench/protocol/video2traj.json ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
 
 
1
+ {"format":"dream-exe.protocol","stage":"video2traj","values":{"pose":{"backend":"foundationpose","config_path":""},"region":{"targets":{"eef":{"simulation":{"instance_name":"gripper0_right_right_gripper"}}}}}}
bench/protocol/vlm/prompts/physical_plausibility.txt ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ The provided image presents sequential frames, arranged in a grid, from a {view} perspective AI-generated task video about {description}
2
+ Does this video comply with common-sense expectations for human-level interactions?
3
+
4
+ # A. Anomaly Checks:
5
+ 1) Physical grounding violation: any part of the robot appears floating, or intersecting/penetrating other geometry.
6
+ 2) Spontaneous object appearance: any object or robotic agent that suddenly appears between frames without a plausible cause. Pay special attention to the top two frames, where such anomalies often occur early in the sequence.
7
+ 3) Non-contact attachment / false grasp: If the video involves a grasping interaction, carefully check whether the object remains attached to or moves with the robotic gripper/hand without clear physical contact, closure.
8
+ If either anomaly is present, treat it as a major violation and assign a low score (1–2).
9
+
10
+ # B. Human-Level Common-Sense Consistency:
11
+ Evaluate whether this video complies with common-sense expectations for human-level interactions?
12
+ Rate the video on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 means fully consistent with human common sense and 1 means major violations.
13
+
14
+ ### Special Notes:
15
+ 1) Be very cautious when assigning scores of 4 or 5: these scores should only be used when clearly correct, and free of errors. Do not give 4 or 5 lightly.
16
+ 2) Use step-by-step reasoning internally to make your selection.
17
+ 3) Your output must be a valid JSON object with two fields:
18
+ - "reason": a brief justification for the given score
19
+ - "score": an integer between 1 and 5
20
+ Return exactly: {json_example}
bench/protocol/vlm/prompts/subject_stability_object.txt ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ The provided image shows two sequential frames from an AI-generated video about robot doing a task.
2
+ The left frame is the correct reference image, while the right frame is the AI-generated video frame.
3
+ Focus on how '{manipulated_object}' appears in both frames, and evaluate the consistency of '{manipulated_object}' between the reference and the generated frame.
4
+
5
+ Note:
6
+ 1) Changes in orientation or position are acceptable and should not affect the consistency rating.
7
+ 2) Important: Do NOT assign option A or B lightly.
8
+
9
+ Question:
10
+ A: '{manipulated_object}' in the right frame is clear and consistent with the left image.
11
+ B: '{manipulated_object}' in the right frame is mostly consistent with the left image, with minor visual issues.
12
+ C: '{manipulated_object}' in the right frame shows noticeable inconsistencies compared with the left image.
13
+ D: '{manipulated_object}' in the right frame undergoes a major transformation, appears as an AI-generated artifact or is duplicated compared with the left image.
14
+ E: '{manipulated_object}' is missing in the right frame while it exists in the left image.
15
+ The options A to E represent increasing levels of inconsistency. Select the most suitable option.
16
+ Return exactly: {json_example}
bench/protocol/vlm/prompts/subject_stability_robot.txt ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ The provided image shows two sequential frames from an AI-generated video about robot doing a task.
2
+ The left frame is the correct reference image, while the right frame is the AI-generated video frame.
3
+ Focus on how '{robot_subject}' appears in both frames, and evaluate the consistency of '{robot_subject}' between the reference and the generated frame.
4
+
5
+ Note:
6
+ 1) Pay special attention to distinguishing between robotic gripper and robotic hand (if visible). Robotic gripper usually has a small number of rigid gripping jaws or prongs, while a robotic hand has multiple articulated fingers and more complex structures.
7
+ 2) Changes in orientation or position are acceptable and should not affect the consistency rating.
8
+ 3) Important: Do NOT assign option A or B lightly.
9
+
10
+ Question:
11
+ A: '{robot_subject}' in the right frame is clear and consistent with the left image.
12
+ B: '{robot_subject}' in the right frame is mostly consistent with the left image, with minor visual issues.
13
+ C: '{robot_subject}' in the right frame shows noticeable inconsistencies compared with the left image, such as changes in shape or structure.
14
+ D: '{robot_subject}' in the right frame is highly inconsistent with the left image or transforms into another type of '{robot_subject}'.
15
+ E: {terminal_option}
16
+ The options A to E represent increasing levels of inconsistency. Select the most suitable option.
17
+ Return exactly: {json_example}
bench/protocol/vlm/prompts/task_adherence.txt ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ The provided image presents sequential frames, arranged in a grid, from a {view} perspective AI-generated task video.
2
+ In this AI-generated video, does the robot successfully perform the task: "{description}"?
3
+ Please rate the video on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 indicates a perfect match and 1 indicates no relevance.
4
+
5
+ ### Special Notes:
6
+ 1) Be very cautious when assigning scores of 4 or 5: these scores should only be used when clearly correct, and free of errors. Do not give 4 or 5 lightly.
7
+ 2) Use step-by-step reasoning internally to make your selection.
8
+ 3) Your output must be a valid JSON object with two fields:
9
+ - "reason": a brief justification for the given score
10
+ - "score": an integer between 1 and 5
11
+ Return exactly: {json_example}