100.0LGApr 16
$π_{0.7}$: a Steerable Generalist Robotic Foundation Model with Emergent CapabilitiesPhysical Intelligence, Bo Ai, Ali Amin et al. · mit
We present a new robotic foundation model, called $π_{0.7}$, that can enable strong out-of-the-box performance in a wide range of scenarios. $π_{0.7}$ can follow diverse language instructions in unseen environments, including multi-stage tasks with various kitchen appliances, provide zero-shot cross-embodiment generalization, for example enabling a robot to fold laundry without seeing the task before, and perform challenging tasks such as operating an espresso machine out of the box at a level of performance that matches much more specialized RL-finetuned models. The main idea behind $π_{0.7}$ is to use diverse context conditioning during training. This conditioning information, contained in the prompt, makes it possible to steer the model precisely to perform many tasks with different strategies. It is conditioned not just on a language command that describes what it should do, but on additional multimodal information that also describes the manner or strategy in which it should do it, including metadata about task performance and subgoal images. This enables $π_{0.7}$ to use very diverse data, including demonstrations, potentially suboptimal (autonomous) data including failures, and data from non-robot sources. Our experiments evaluate $π_{0.7}$ across numerous tasks with multiple robot platforms, on tasks that require speed and dexterity, language following, and compositional task generalization.
99.2AIApr 10
HiL-Bench (Human-in-Loop Benchmark): Do Agents Know When to Ask for Help?Mohamed Elfeki, Tu Trinh, Kelvin Luu et al.
Frontier coding agents solve complex tasks when given complete context but collapse when specifications are incomplete or ambiguous. The bottleneck is not raw capability, but judgment: knowing when to act autonomously and when to ask for help. Current benchmarks are blind to this failure mode. They supply unambiguous detailed instructions and solely reward execution correctness, so an agent that makes a lucky guess for a missing requirement will score identically to one that would have asked to be certain. We present HiL-Bench (Human-in-the-Loop Benchmark) to measure this selective escalation skill. Each task contains human-validated blockers (missing information, ambiguous requests, contradictory information) that surface only through progressive exploration, not upfront inspection. Our core metric, Ask-F1, the harmonic mean of question precision and blocker recall, captures the tension between over-asking and silent guessing; its structure architecturally prevents gaming through question spam. Evaluation across SWE and text-to-SQL domains reveals a large universal judgment gap: no frontier model recovers more than a fraction of its full-information performance when deciding whether to ask. Failure analysis identifies three key help-seeking patterns: overconfident wrong beliefs with no gap detection; high uncertainty detection yet persistent errors; broad, imprecise escalation without self-correction. These consistent patterns confirm poor help-seeking is a model-level flaw, not task-specific. RL training on shaped Ask-F1 reward shows judgment is trainable: a 32B model improves both help-seeking quality and task pass rate, with gains that transfer across domains. The model does not learn domain-specific heuristics for when to ask; it learns to detect unresolvable uncertainty and act on it.