Gantry · measurement 13 September 2026

The demonstrations are almost all successes, and episode length does not tell you which ones finished early

Hillbot, haosulab/ManiSkill_Demonstrations. Measured for this page from the public release.

33,304 episodes across 16 environments, read from the success and fail flags in the release's own trajectory sidecars. 33,279 are labelled a success, which is 99.9%, and two are labelled a fail. That is a cleaner demonstration corpus than most. The part worth knowing is that 12,731 episodes, 38.2%, run to the step cap and are still labelled a success, so a curation rule that trims long episodes would cut working demonstrations.

episodes
33,304
across 16 environments, 36 sidecar files
labelled success
99.9%
33,279 of 33,304
ran to the step cap
38.2%
12,731 episodes
labelled fail
2
both in PegInsertionSide-v1

The breakdown

environment source episodes success at the cap
PegInsertionSide-v1 rl 1,000 97.5% 100.0%
AnymalC-Reach-v1 rl 1,022 100.0% 99.7%
PickCube-v1 rl 1,022 100.0% 99.7%
PickCube-v1 rl 1,013 100.0% 99.0%
TwoRobotStackCube-v1 rl 1,007 100.0% 52.8%
LiftPegUpright-v1 rl 1,015 100.0% 50.0%
DrawTriangle-v1 motionplanning 1,000 100.0% 0.0%
all 36 files 33,304 99.9% 38.2%

What else the release says

By source, the reinforcement learning demonstrations are 24,294 episodes at 100.0% success, motion planning is 8,000 at 100.0%, and the one unset file is 1,000 at 97.5%. Teleoperation is 10 episodes.

PegInsertionSide-v1 under reinforcement learning is the one set where both things are true at once. All 1,000 episodes reach the step cap and 25 of them are not successes, so for that environment the cap is doing the terminating and the flag is doing the judging.

How to check this without taking our word

Fetch any demos///trajectory.json from the release and count episodes where success is true and where elapsed_steps equals env_info.max_episode_steps. Thirty six files, a few hundred kilobytes each.

What has been measured so far

The evaluation record

Every report on the results page takes a public robot dataset, measures one property of it across every episode, removes the part that scores worst, and retrains on what is left. The corpus figures, the defect rates and the cuts are computed from the releases themselves. The lift column on that page is read from each report's fine tune table rather than from a training run, and the page says so.

datasets graded
38
across 31 organisations
episodes examined
2,212,712
every one scored
episodes removed
123,143
5.6% of the total
rollouts graded
30,020
234 tasks

The one result that comes off physical hardware is Stera-10M. Two arms on a four arm SO-ARM101 bench, identical per task fine tunes, 127 unpaired rollouts per cell, and the only difference between the arms is whether the human video pre-training stage happened.

Baseline
21.9%
Task success with no human video training. CI 18.8 to 25.3 · n=635
With ego stage
36.9%
Task success after learning from human video first. CI 33.2 to 40.7 · n=635
Pooled lift
+15.0 pp
All five tasks together. 95% range +10.0 to +19.8
Bench rollouts
1,270
Attempts on the physical SO-ARM101 bench. 5 tasks · 2 arms · 127 each

What a full grading adds

This page is the part that can be computed from a published manifest and the labels a release ships. The full grading retrains on the corpus with the worst scoring part removed and reports whether the smaller version scores higher, with the rollout counts and the intervals. That needs the data itself and a conversation about which property is worth measuring on your corpus rather than ours.