Embodied planning requires agents to make coherent multi-step decisions based on dynamic visual observations and verbal goals. While recent vision-language models (VLMs) excel at static perception tasks, they struggle in interactive environments. Reinforcement learning (RL) offers a natural way to address this limitation, yet online RL approaches suffer from costly interaction and sparse rewards in embodied settings. This paper introduces ORBIT, an On-policy Reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT) framework with offline rewards for EmBodIed Task Planning, that preserves the generalization benefits of RFT while addressing the challenges of costly interaction and sparse rewards, supported by solid theoretical guarantees. Our approach is evaluated on EmbodiedBench, a recent benchmark for interactive embodied tasks, covering both in-domain and out-of-domain scenarios. Experimental results show that ORBIT achieves SOTA performance on EB-ALFRED, outperforming all closed-source and online-RL-based methods, while being substantially more efficient in training speed and computational cost, remaining robust to sub-optimal expert trajectories, and exhibiting strong generalization to unseen environments. We released all code and data at https://github.com/mail-taii/Reinforced-Reasoning-for-Embodied-Planning.

Image captioning has been a longstanding challenge in vision-language research. With the rise of LLMs, modern Vision-Language Models (VLMs) generate detailed and comprehensive image descriptions. However, benchmarking the quality of such captions remains unresolved. This paper addresses two key questions: (1) How well do VLMs actually perform on image captioning, particularly compared to humans? We built CapArena, a platform with over 6000 pairwise caption battles and high-quality human preference votes. Our Arena-style evaluation marks a milestone, showing that leading models like GPT-4o achieve or even surpass human performance, while most open-source models lag behind. (2) Can automated metrics reliably assess caption quality? Using human annotations from CapArena, we evaluate traditional and recent captioning metrics, as well as VLM-as-a-Judge. Our analysis reveals that while some metrics (e.g., METEOR) show high caption-level agreement with humans, their systematic biases lead to inconsistencies in model ranking. In contrast, VLM-as-a-Judge demonstrates robust discernment at both the caption and model levels. Building on these insights, we release CapArena-Auto, an accurate and efficient automated benchmark for detailed captioning, achieving 93.4% correlation with human rankings at just $4 per test. All data and evaluation resources have been open-sourced.