| # Render request — held-out benchmark, 20 tasks × 20 demos |
|
|
| Everything needed is in this folder. Read the attempt lists here, upload the rendered output here. |
|
|
| **What:** re-render 400 existing demonstrations (20 tasks × 20 attempts) for the **default Franka**, |
| at the **stage1_5k camera rig**, with **appearance pinned**. |
| |
| ### Why 20 and not 10 — and why the existing LIBERO-rig renders don't count |
| |
| Ten of these tasks are currently in the stage1_5k pretraining data, so they cannot be scored against |
| today's models. They are listed as `status: conditional`. The other ten are `status: active`. |
| |
| It would seem to follow that only the ten active tasks need rendering. It does not, for two reasons: |
| |
| 1. **The conditional ten become usable the moment a stage-1 run excludes the held-out set** — which |
| is planned. Rendering them now avoids a second round trip. |
| 2. **Their existing renders don't meet the appearance requirement.** Tasks 810/815/929/... already |
| have renders at the correct camera rig in `Franka-Datasets-v2-5k-LIBERO`. We checked those |
| manifests: they run `TextureModder` and `LightingModder` too. So they need re-rendering for |
| appearance regardless of the rig. |
|
|
| So the ask is all 20. If you have to stage it, do the ten marked `active` first. |
|
|
| **Why re-render:** these demonstrations currently exist only at a superseded camera rig. The |
| pretraining corpus (`stage1_5k_camera_fixed`) uses a different one, and this benchmark evaluates |
| models pretrained on it — so a mismatch would give every evaluated model a train/eval viewpoint |
| gap rather than measuring the model. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 1. The camera rig — must match exactly |
|
|
| Verified identical across sampled tasks of `Franka-Datasets-v2-5k-LIBERO` and |
| `Franka-Datasets-v2-30k-LIBERO`. Machine-readable copy: [`camera_rig.json`](camera_rig.json). |
|
|
| | | value | |
| |---|---| |
| | embodiment | **franka** (default) | |
| | camera group | **`camera_fixed`** | |
| | wrist camera | mounted on the **end-effector body**, hand→camera translation **`[0.05, 0.0, 0.0]`**, quat **`[0, 0.707108, 0.707108, 0]`**, **fovy 75°** | |
| | third-person camera | `camera_to_world` translation **`[1.0086, 0.0, 1.1904]`** | |
| | resolution | **640 × 360** | |
| | fps | **15** | |
| |
| **The wrist rig is the one that matters most.** The superseded batch had it at |
| `[-0.074, 0, 0.0292]` with fovy 51.9° — 12.7 cm away, on the opposite side of the hand, and 23° |
| narrower. If a render comes back at the old rig it is unusable, and the difference is invisible in |
| a single still frame: it only shows up in how the image moves. |
| |
| A quick self-check after rendering one episode: compose the inverse end-effector pose with the |
| recorded `camera_to_world` and confirm the translation is `[0.05, 0, 0]` to 3 decimals, and that it |
| is constant across frames (it should be rigid — ours measures a per-element std of ~7e-08). |
| |
| --- |
| |
| ## 1b. Appearance must be PINNED — this is new, and it matters more than the rig |
| |
| The existing demos are **appearance-randomized per demo**: the render pipeline runs |
| `TextureModder` and `LightingModder` off a per-attempt `variant_seed`, so each of a task's 20 |
| demonstrations has a different table material, a different floor and different lighting. We only |
| found this by looking at the frames — it is recorded in the render manifest, not in the task's |
| `domain_randomization` block, which contains position deltas only. |
| |
| For a 20-demo benchmark that is a problem. The policy has to learn appearance-invariance *and* the |
| manipulation skill from 20 samples, so the score conflates two abilities and cannot be attributed |
| to the one under test. Measured on the current demos: a reach task scores 82% while two |
| manipulation tasks score 2% and 0%, with 99 of 100 rollouts running to the step cap — acting, never |
| completing. |
| |
| **So please render all 20 demos of a task under ONE fixed appearance.** Everything in this list |
| held constant across every demo of every task: |
| |
| | pin | why | |
| |---|---| |
| | **table material** | varies per demo today — six demos of task 953 have six different tables | |
| | **floor / background** | varies with it; one demo sits on brown parquet, another on green grass | |
| | **lighting** | `LightingModder` is active per demo | |
| | **object materials / textures** | `TextureModder` recolours the OBJECTS too, so the same mesh reads as a different object between demos | |
| |
| Concretely: disable `TextureModder` and `LightingModder`, or hold `variant_seed` constant across |
| the whole batch. |
| |
| **Object meshes do NOT need changing** — we verified those are already consistent. The eval scene |
| loads `cup_2`, `muffin_4`, `sweet_potato_4`, `tissue_box_2` from exactly the same |
| `tabletopgen/task_88200032_layout_1_rand_00000` directory the training scene references. The |
| problem is purely that their *materials* are randomized, so identical geometry looks like a |
| different object from demo to demo. |
|
|
| Object PLACEMENT should keep varying — that is the axis the benchmark is meant to test. |
|
|
| If your pipeline cannot pin any of these, please say so rather than varying them — we would rather |
| know and design around it than discover it in the frames again. |
|
|
| ## 2. What to render |
|
|
| | file | contents | |
| |---|---| |
| | [`tasks.json`](tasks.json) | all 10 tasks, required + spare attempt ids, the rig | |
| | [`attempts/task_<id>.json`](attempts) | one file per task | |
| | [`attempts/all_attempts.csv`](attempts/all_attempts.csv) | flat table — `task_id, task_name, operation, role, attempt_id, n_frames, reward_final` | |
|
|
| See [`tasks.json`](tasks.json) and [`attempts/all_attempts.csv`](attempts/all_attempts.csv) |
| for all 20 tasks, each marked `active` or `conditional`. |
|
|
|
|
| **`attempt_id` is the identity — please render exactly those.** They are not arbitrary: they were |
| selected as the highest-reward demonstrations available for each task, and they are the only ones |
| with verified trace and goal data. Episode indices are renumbered by every build, so please key |
| your output on `attempt_id`, not on episode order. |
| |
| **`role = spare`** lists 40 further attempts per task, ranked. If a required attempt fails to |
| render, take the highest-ranked spare and say which you substituted — don't silently drop one, as |
| 20 demos is the whole adaptation budget and a missing demo is 5% of it. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 3. Where to upload |
|
|
| Please upload into `uploads/` in this same folder, one directory per task: |
|
|
| ``` |
| uploads/ |
| task_809/ |
| meta/ LeRobot v3.0 metadata |
| data/ parquet |
| videos/ observation.images.third_person/ and .wrist/ |
| render_manifest.json attempt_id -> episode_index, per episode |
| task_811/ |
| ... |
| ``` |
|
|
| `render_manifest.json` is the important one — without an `attempt_id → episode_index` mapping we |
| have to recover the pairing by matching trajectories, which works but is slower and needs checking. |
| If your pipeline already emits `task_manifest.json` in the usual shape, that is perfect; please just |
| make sure `records[]` is populated (two tasks in the previous batch shipped with `records: []` while |
| having over a thousand episodes). |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 4. Anything else |
|
|
| If a task can't be rendered at this rig for a structural reason, please say which and why rather |
| than substituting a different rig — we'd rather run a 9-task benchmark than one with a mixed rig. |
|
|
| Questions on any of this are welcome before rendering starts; a wrong rig is expensive to discover |
| afterwards. |
|
|