Source-linked AI summary
Words to World: Benchmarking LLMs in Interactive Physical Environments
Xinnan Dai, Kaiqi Yang, Yaxin Li, Cheng Luo, Wanli Li, Mingqing Xiao, Xinyang Jiang, Daoan Zhang, Kaitao Song, Fengze Liu, Zefan Cai, Caihua Shan
TL;DR
Benchmarks leave open how reliably model–harness systems complete language-specified tasks through interaction with physical environments. W2W-Bench evaluates 11 task families across four capabilities, and its results show that performance depends on the model and harness, with no configuration leading on every task. The findings identify persistent interaction difficulties and point to observation, verification, and feedback-driven correction as priorities for future harness systems.
Problem
It remains unclear how reliably model–harness systems complete language-specified tasks in physical environments, where tool access alone does not ensure informative observations, correct feedback interpretation, or verification of intended effects.
Source: §1 · pp. 1–2Method
W2W-Bench evaluates complete model–harness systems across 11 physical-interaction task families and four capabilities, combining task-specific outcomes with process-level diagnostics.
Source: §1 · pp. 2–3Results
Performance depends on the model and harness, and no configuration leads across every task; persistent failures include spatial precision, temporal reasoning, device coordination, and recovery.
Source: §5 · p. 11Takeaways & Limitations
The findings point to better observation, verification, and feedback-driven correction as priorities for future interactive harness systems.
Source: §5 · p. 11
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Words are increasingly becoming an interface for action: large language models (LLMs) can now invoke tools, operate devices, and make decisions that affect the physical world. However, current benchmarks largely evaluate LLMs through static text responses, offline tool calls, or simulated tasks, leaving open the question of how well they can act in real physical environments. We present a benchmark for measuring LLMs in closed-loop physical interaction, where models control a harness system connected to real-world components including robotic arms, cameras, and sensors. In each task, the model must issue instructions, receive physical feedback from the environment, interpret the resulting state, and adapt its next action accordingly. This setting evaluates capabilities beyond language understanding, including grounded perception, action planning, tool selection, spatial reasoning, feedback-driven correction, and robustness to execution uncertainty. Through experiments with representative LLMs, we characterize their ability to translate linguistic reasoning into physical actions and identify common failure modes such as hallucinated state changes, poor recovery from unexpected outcomes, and unstable long-horizon plans. Our benchmark aims to provide a systematic foundation for evaluating LLMs as interactive agents that connect words, tools, and the physical world.
1 Introduction
The introduction argues that physical task completion requires a feedback loop connecting device commands, observations, and verification. W2W-Bench evaluates that interaction across four capabilities and reports distinct model–harness strengths and recurring failures.
1 Introduction
- A harness turns model proposals into iterative execution, evaluation, and revision, but tool access alone does not ensure reliable completion; feedback must update state estimates, plans, and execution.The loop includes device commands, observations, and verification of intended effects.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2, Figure 1 · p. 2
- W2W-Bench is a benchmark of 11 task families for systematically assessing complete model–harness systems on language-specified physical-environment tasks, organized around four complementary capability dimensions for diagnosing behavior throughout interaction.It groups heterogeneous tasks by their primary demands while accounting for dependencies between capabilities.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
- The benchmark combines task-specific outcomes with process-level diagnostics to assess both task completion and difficulties within the interaction loop.Its settings span visual capture and generation, scanning and recognition, experimental execution, document and time-series analysis, and device control.Source: §1 · p. 2
- Performance depends on the model, harness, and task: Opus 5 with Claude Code performs best overall, while GPT-6 Astra excels at planning and execution but struggles with basic spatial and temporal understanding.The evaluation also analyzes how spatial and temporal errors interact in broader failure patterns.Source: §1 · p. 3
2 W2W-Bench
W2W-Bench evaluates model–harness systems through an interaction loop across four capability domains and 11 physical-interaction task families. It assesses task outcomes and process-level behavior after each episode.
2 W2W-Bench
- At each step, the system chooses information to acquire or an action, receives observations or execution errors, and uses that feedback to decide what to do next.An independent evaluator scores outcomes and process-level diagnostics after the episode; hidden ground truth and scoring rules are unavailable to the system.Source: §2 · p. 3
2.1 11 Tasks for Physical Interaction
- The 11 tasks are organized into four categories spanning observation modalities, tool interfaces, action spaces, and environments.Together, they assess perception, planning, information gathering, and interaction.Source: §2.1 · p. 4
- Spatial-understanding tasks require interpreting geometry and viewpoint from incomplete observations, while temporal-understanding tasks involve deciding when and what to observe as information evolves.The task descriptions include document capture, 3D scanning, object recognition, multipage question answering, health time-series analysis, and dynamic household control.Source: §2.1 · p. 4
- High-level planning decomposes objectives and revises decisions as constraints change, while low-level execution grounds selected actions in device commands and control parameters.The task descriptions include LEGO construction and design, video generation, laboratory operations, and tabletop games requiring replanning.Source: §2.1 · pp. 4–5
2.2 Tool use in physical world
- Figure 3 is titled “Tool Usage by Category.”The supplied figure text does not specify the categories or a comparison to make.Source: Figure 3 · p. 5
2.3 Evaluation Setting
- The dataset uses open-source resources and randomly generates 10–30 evaluation cases for each LLM–harness system; evaluation combines task-specific outcomes with process-level diagnostics.Task outcomes may use task-specific measures such as 3D-scanning F-score, while process metrics aggregate binary success indicators or continuous scores.Source: §2.3 · pp. 5–6
3 Experiments
Across these experiments, model and harness strengths vary by task, while spatial perception, temporal control, and multidevice coordination remain challenging. Results also show that more observation or feedback does not reliably resolve these limitations.
Main Results
- GPT-6 Astra and Claude Opus 5 rank among the top two models overall, while Claude Code leads overall among harnesses and Codex CLI leads planning and execution.Claude Opus 5 performs consistently well across tasks; GPT-6 Astra is stronger in planning and execution than in basic sensing. Harness strengths vary by task.Source: Main Results · p. 6, Table 1 · p. 7
- Qwen 3.8 Max performs competitively in 3D spatial understanding but less well temporally, and fails on planning and execution tasks.This evaluation uses the Pi harness and representative tasks from four task categories.Source: Main Results · p. 6, Table 2 · p. 6
3.2.1 3D Spatial Understanding
- 3D scanning earns low F-scores across LLMs even at 10 mm tolerance, and LEGO assembly errors persist under multiview feedback.The reported failures include missing millimeter-scale deviations and blocks that overlap rather than properly assemble.Source: §3.2.1 · p. 7, Figure 4 · p. 8, Figure 5 · p. 8
- Occlusion ratio has no significant correlation with exploration steps, while poor evidence thresholds lead to under-exploration of complex cases or over-inspection of simple ones.The figure plots occlusion ratio against number of steps and shows a 95% confidence interval.Source: §3.2.1 · p. 7, Figure 6 · p. 8
3.2.2 Temproal understanding
- 66.7% (10/15) of temporal criteria were met by Claude Code × Opus 5, versus 53.3% (8/15) for Codex × Astra/Sol.Failures include scheduled workflows that miss later checkpoints or deadlines, and cases where future workflows are never established.Source: §3.2.2 · p. 8
- 6.4 future hours with autonomous timing achieved 56.7% Exact P@1 and 55.8% Exact P@5, versus 53.3% and 48.6% with a fixed 9-hour window.The fixed window increased observation cost by 40.6%; across configurations, longer observation did not consistently improve performance, with Pi × Opus 5 reaching 55.6% Exact P@1 using 48 hours.Source: §3.2.2 · p. 8, Table 3 · p. 9
3.2.3 Multiple object control in physical environment
- Dual-arm failures differ by model: GPT-6 mainly has collision-avoidance failures, while Claude Opus 5 is dominated by insufficient coordination and sequence misalignment.The failure categories include arms interfering, one arm failing to support the other’s manipulation, and operations occurring in the wrong order.Source: §3.2.3 · p. 9, Table 4 · p. 9
- Some physical anomalies go undetected, and recovery after detection depends on spatial configuration; Opus 5 fails to recover from a brick flipped by 180°.The evaluation classifies outcomes as successful recovery, unsuccessful recovery after detection, or failure to detect the anomaly.Source: §3.2.3 · pp. 9–10, Table 5 · p. 10
4 Related Work
Prior evaluations cover digital agents and several forms of physical interaction, but often focus on a bare model, end-to-end policy, or setting-specific loop. W2W-Bench evaluates complete model–harness systems across 11 device-grounded task families using a shared execution and evaluation pipeline.
Harnessed LLMs in digital environments
- Digital benchmarks assess multi-step reasoning and tool use, while web and desktop benchmarks extend evaluation to interactive digital environments [Liu et al., 2024, Mialon et al., 2024] [Zhou et al., 2023, Xie et al., 2024].Long-running harnesses have also supported larger projects, including compiler construction, machine-learning studies, and algorithm discovery [Carlini, 2026, Lu et al., 2024, Novikov et al., 2025].Source: §4 · p. 10
LLMs in physical environments
- Physical benchmarks span fixed-evidence reasoning, active perception, and interactive planning and execution, including robotics, construction, laboratory, and device workflows.These evaluations typically assess a bare model, end-to-end policy, or setting-specific planner and controller [Salimpour et al., 2025].Source: §4 · p. 10
- W2W-Bench evaluates complete model–harness systems across 11 device-grounded task families with a shared execution and evaluation pipeline.Every task involves external devices or device-generated signals.Source: §4 · p. 11
5 Conclusion
W2W-Bench evaluates complete model–harness systems across 11 interactive task families and four capabilities. Results vary by model and harness, with persistent failures highlighting priorities for future systems.
5 Conclusion
- Performance depends on both the model and its harness, and no configuration leads across every task.W2W-Bench covers 11 interactive task families and four core capabilities.Source: §5 · p. 11
- Persistent failures in spatial precision, temporal reasoning, device coordination, and recovery show the difficulty of turning language-based plans into reliable physical actions.Source: §5 · p. 11
- Better observation, verification, and feedback-driven correction are priorities for future interactive harness systems.Source: §5 · p. 11
AI Policy
Generative AI tools supported synthetic-data generation, translation, figure and image work, experimental-parameter suggestions, coding, research artifacts, drafting, readability, and literature identification. The authors reviewed AI-assisted work, verified code, figures, and draft text, and accept responsibility for the final content.
AI Policy
- Generative AI tools were used for synthetic datasets, translation, figures and images, experimental parameters, code, research artifacts, drafting, readability, and literature identification.Source: AI Policy · p. 11
- The authors report not using generative AI tools for theoretical models, conceptual frameworks, hypotheses, methods, experiments, implementation, data analysis, or literature review.They also report not using AI for research-topic selection, brainstorming, information search, reference formatting, paper structure, or title and keyword proposals.Source: AI Policy · p. 11
- The authors reviewed all AI-assisted work; two authors verified AI-generated code, figures, and draft text and tested code where applicable.The authors take responsibility for the final content, including AI-assisted text, claims, and artifacts.Source: AI Policy · p. 11
A Task Pipeline
The task pipelines use an initialize–harness loop–finalize structure: the system gathers feedback, adjusts actions, and submits an output for evaluation. The four examples cover image capture, 3D scanning, object recognition, and multipage question answering.
A.1 Document Image Capture
- Document image capture repeats image inspection and camera-setting adjustments until quality requirements are met, then submits one image for evaluation.Evaluation considers framing, sharpness, lighting, glare, shadow, and occlusion.Source: §A.1 · p. 14
A.2 3D Scanning
- 3D scanning selects collision-free camera trajectories, fuses RGB-D frames into a point-cloud reconstruction, and repeats from coverage feedback for up to eight scans.The submitted reconstruction is evaluated against hidden target geometry using precision, recall, and F-score.Source: §A.2 · p. 14
A.3 Object Recognition
- Object recognition gathers multi-view evidence by adjusting camera azimuth, elevation, and distance before submitting a predicted label.Evaluation covers label correctness and whether an informative image was captured.Source: §A.3 · p. 14
A.4 Multipage Question Answering
- Multipage question answering inspects relevant pages, combines evidence across pages, and revisits uncertain information before submitting four field values with page references.Evaluation covers answer correctness, evidence precision and recall, and output validity.Source: §A.4 · p. 14
A.5 Health Time-Series Analysis
The appendix specifies closed-loop protocols across clinical, home, camera, robotic, laboratory, design, and game tasks, and catalogs the available interfaces.
A.5 Health Time-Series Analysis
- The anchor-time health pipeline reviews 24 hours of prior signals, gathers requested observations within a 72-hour horizon, then submits ranked ICD-9 predictions for post-hoc evaluation.The inference agent cannot access patient-associated labels or discharge diagnoses; ground truth is reserved for evaluation.Source: §A.5 · p. 15
A.6 SimuHome
- SimuHome episodes loop through room and device inspection, state-based control, and feedback until the household objective is satisfied, then assess outcome, safety, runtime, and evidence.Source: §A.6 · p. 15
A.7 3D Video Generation
- For 3D video generation, the LLM iteratively adjusts camera views using five images and feasibility checks, but receives no visual-quality scores during the episode.Source: §A.7 · pp. 15–16
A.8 LEGO Building
- In LEGO Building, the LLM selects and executes arm actions, checks physical feedback, and retries or rebuilds before submitting a completion judgment or unresolved failure.Source: §A.8 · p. 16
A.9 Automated Biology Laboratory
- The biology-lab loop validates each operation against laboratory constraints and budgets, returns outcomes for plan updates, and requires fresh evidence after uncertain or partial effects.Hidden container state, fault schedules, and target predicates remain unavailable to the LLM during the experiment.Source: §A.9 · p. 16
A.10 Functional LEGO Design
- Functional LEGO Design gives no reference structure or prescribed sequence; the LLM chooses components, builds, and revises its design from visual and execution feedback.It submits the inspected final physical design.Source: §A.10 · p. 17
A.11 Tabletop Games
- In tabletop games, legal choices advance the game only after physical transfers succeed; failed transfers can be retried, but three consecutive failed attempts abort the game.The harness does not substitute a random legal action for three unsuccessful LLM decisions.Source: §A.11 · p. 17
B Tool List; B.1 Category Overview
- The tool inventory contains 61 tool entries and 16 tabletop game-action entries, totaling 77; repeated interface names across tasks count separately.The table guide also identifies paired LEGO icons as the shared interface set for LEGO Building and Functional LEGO Design.Source: B Tool List · p. 18, §B.1 · p. 18
B.2 Observation Acquisition
The interface inventory distinguishes acquiring observations, executing actions, inspecting feedback, accessing context and resources, and coordinating planning and tools.
B.2 Observation Acquisition
- Observation acquisition covers visual and time-grounded evidence, including active camera control, experimental measurement, and selective access to signals or document images.Its table lists 14 interfaces.Source: §B.2 · p. 18, Table 6 · p. 18
B.3 Action Execution
- Action execution includes device commands and domain operations; tabletop game actions are interpreted by the harness rather than exposing direct robot-pose control.Its table lists 28 interfaces.Source: §B.3 · p. 19, Table 7 · p. 19
B.4 State and Feedback Inspection
- State and feedback inspection exposes current state, execution outcomes, and visual feedback for checking progress, without implying access to hidden evaluation scores.Its table lists 10 interfaces.Source: §B.4 · p. 20, Table 8 · p. 21
B.5 Context and Resource Access
- Context and resource access supplies visible context, reference material, and resources, including clinical context, coding dictionaries, manuals, rules, and catalogs.Its table lists 7 interfaces.Source: §B.5 · p. 21, Table 9 · p. 21
B.6 Planning and Tool Orchestration
- Planning and tool-orchestration interfaces support task initialization, observation planning, parameter validation, and tool orchestration.The category describes interface roles, not a claim that planning itself is performed by a tool.Source: §B.6 · p. 22, Table 10 · p. 22
B.7 Assessment and Submission
The appendix groups assessment, evidence recording, submission, and termination interfaces, while clarifying that interface categories are primary-role classifications rather than exclusive implementation properties.
B.7 Assessment and Submission
- The category combines two assessment and evidence-recording interfaces with eight submission and termination interfaces; final submissions can provide answers or artifacts and may end the episode.Source: §B.7 · p. 22, Table 11 · p. 23
- Each interface receives one primary category for aggregation, while auxiliary tags capture overlap; hidden ground truth and independent evaluation stay outside the agent-facing inventory.Source: §B.7 · p. 23
C Dataset
The dataset appendix describes task-specific samples and episode-generation procedures spanning visual, document, clinical, home, robotic, laboratory, design, and tabletop settings.
Document Image Capture; 3D Scanning; Object Recognition; 3D Video Generation
- Document capture uses 20 synthetic samples across four fictional ID types; scanning uses 30 ModelNet10 Wu et al. [2015] and ABO20 Collins et al. [2022] assets, while recognition uses eight glTF assets across 20 samples.ABO20 Collins et al. [2022] also supplies 20 product samples for iterative camera-controlled 360-degree video generation.Source: C Dataset · pp. 23–24
Multipage Question Answering; Health Time-Series Analysis
- Multipage QA contains 20 documents of 20 pages with four questions each, while the clinical dataset draws de-identified records from 100 patients with incomplete, noisy time-series observations.The patient count is distinct from the number of constructed evaluation episodes.Source: C Dataset · p. 24
SimuHome
- SimuHome generates episodes from 36 task templates and deterministic seeds, using a shared home configuration with six room entries, 39 devices, and 17 device types.Episode configurations can include failures, unavailable devices, safety locks, or conflicting objectives.Source: C Dataset · p. 24
LEGO Building; Functional LEGO Design
- Basic LEGO-20 and Open Functional LEGO-20 each contain 20 samples, respectively covering predefined target-structure assemblies and functional objectives with geometric constraints.Source: C Dataset · p. 24
Automated Biology Laboratory
- Automated Biology Laboratory episodes combine 10 drug-screening task templates with seeds and may introduce occlusion, missing consumables, drift, delays, or partial action effects.Source: C Dataset · p. 24
Tabletop Games
- Tabletop game data for Hanabi, Regicide, and Pandemic are generated from rules and random seeds, with legal actions mapped to robotic movements and only successful executions updating game state.Source: C Dataset · p. 24
D Metrics of Tasks
This appendix defines task-specific outcome and process metrics, including strict success checks and diagnostics for how agents acquire evidence and execute actions. The measures distinguish final task quality from step-level performance and are generally not used to rank systems in the main-results table.
Metrics of Tasks
- Unless stated otherwise, component-level, strict-verdict, and process metrics are averaged over episodes and diagnose performance beyond the primary metrics rather than rank systems in the main-results table.The appendix notes that these metrics are not used for main-table ranking.Source: D Metrics of Tasks · p. 25
3D Scanning
- 3D scanning scores reconstructed surfaces with precision, recall, and F-scores at distance tolerance δ, alongside geometric and camera-execution diagnostics.Diagnostics include coverage, multi-view support, camera path, pose error, inverse-kinematics success, collision, and clearance.Source: D Metrics of Tasks · p. 25
Object Recognition and Multipage Question Answering
- Object recognition reports label accuracy separately from view informativeness, while multipage question answering tracks answer correctness and whether required evidence pages were visited and cited.Recognition diagnostics characterize view diversity and capture efficiency; question-answering diagnostics include strict pass and evidence precision and recall.Source: D Metrics of Tasks · p. 26
Health Time-Series Analysis and SimuHome
- Health time-series evaluation uses exact Precision@1 for diagnosis and separately records protocol-verified success, ranking quality, and observation or tool-call efficiency.SimuHome scores outcome, temporal, safety, recovery, and runtime clauses, and reports hard-pass rate and evidence coverage separately.Source: D Metrics of Tasks · p. 26
Document Image Capture and 3D Video Generation
- Document-image and video tasks use strict completion checks across quality dimensions, so a strong average or one successful dimension cannot compensate for a failed required check.Video requires all five shot types to exceed 0.60; document-image evaluation also reports its seven underlying quality scores.Source: D Metrics of Tasks · pp. 25, 27
LEGO Building
- LEGO Building evaluates brick correspondence after allowing identical-brick exchanges, planar translation, and 90° rotations, then diagnoses geometric, connection, and released-assembly stability errors.Position and orientation tolerances and connector and stability diagnostics localize near-miss failures.Source: D Metrics of Tasks · p. 27
Automated Biology Laboratory and Tabletop Games
- The biology-lab score combines six weighted dimensions and imposes conjunctive hard gates, while tabletop games retain separate native scores and define strict completion as reaching each game's maximum score.Biology gates include scientific goals, clean terminal state, complete evidence and device sequences, safety, and required recovery.Source: D Metrics of Tasks · pp. 27–28
Functional LEGO Design
- Functional LEGO Design tests the completed structure in a separate rollout without robot support, and success requires every specified physical predicate to hold.Textual completion claims and construction traces are diagnostic only; they do not determine functional success.Source: D Metrics of Tasks · pp. 27–28