Vision-language-action policies solve the same manipulation task through different action interfaces, but task success alone does not establish whether their physical executions agree, so a low cross-policy distance does not imply interchangeability.
Abstract
Vision-language-action (VLA) policies solve the same manipulation task through different action interfaces, but task success alone does not establish whether their physical executions agree. We study cross-policy end-effector geometry in 15,000 closed-loop LIBERO rollouts from four policies. The primary clean-condition analysis forms 3,600 configuration-matched, and therefore dependent, policy pairs. Both-success pairs have a median normalized dynamic time warping distance of 0.0120 m versus 0.0380 m when exactly one policy succeeds. This ordering holds in every task, every policy pair, and nine sampling and band-limited representations; however, the ratio varies severalfold across representations, so we report the direction rather than a fixed multiple. Both-failure pairs are more separated again but rest on thin, uneven support, so we report them as exploratory. Within successful executions, partner replacements separate more across tasks than across initial states. A matched baseline still reveals measurable, heterogeneous residual policy differences, so a low cross-policy distance does not imply interchangeability. Successful executions sit about as far from same-task demonstrations as those demonstrations sit from each other, compatible with task-associated geometry without separating training-data overlap from task constraints. A common 72-action window preserves the ordering but reduces its magnitude; endpoint and duration adjustment likewise leaves a positive mixed-outcome coefficient relative to both-success pairs, though its magnitude is specification-dependent. Under composite visual stress, policy rankings and pair composition change together.
Cross-task generalization remains difficult for world action models (WAMs), even when their predicted futures depict plausible manipulation. This gap can be attributed directly: we make this gap directly testable by decoupling a WAM into a world model and an inverse-dynamics model (IDM), then holding the IDM fixed whil...
Chen Zhao, Zi-Peng Ye, Yi-Han Lin et al.· 0 citations
Instruction following is central to language-conditioned robot policies: language should determine what to do when the same scene permits multiple valid actions. Yet successful execution alone cannot establish whether a policy follows the instruction or infers the task from the scene. We study this ambiguity through sc...
Shao-Han Jiang, Jia-Hang Cao, Qi-Duo He et al.· 0 citations
Vision-language-action (VLA) models generalize broadly across robotic manipulation tasks, but complex environments require balancing task success with unintended contact. Runtime shields can correct individual actions, but they leave the underlying policy unchanged, so repeated disagreements may create a persistent pol...
M.-Y. Cui, Zhe-Yuan Liu, Yi-Han Zhu et al.· 0 citations
Simulation and real-robot experiments show that PRISM preserves or improves general-task performance while raising mean end-to-end success from 38.3% to 86.7% across drive connector insertion, bimanual connector mating, and screw tightening, substantially extending the precision boundary of existing embodied policies w...
Cheng-Hao Yue, Pei-Yan Li, Hao Wang et al.· 0 citations
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models map visual observations and language instructions directly to robot actions, but they do not explicitly represent the phase structure of manipulation tasks or the rigid-body dynamics governing execution. We present ActionGround, a neuro-symbolic, training-free runtime layer that wrap...
N. Chandra, Madhur Thareja, Shriram Damodaran et al.· 0 citations
Recent Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models increasingly use natural-language instructions to condition autonomous driving behavior. Yet existing closed-loop benchmarks primarily measure route completion, safety, and rule compliance, leaving a fundamental question unresolved: does language actually determine which feasi...
Zi-Han You, Ze-Hua Fan, Wenqi Lyu et al.· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduJul 30, 2026
From feet to fingertips — we are teaching robots intelligent whole-body control, fine dexterity, and teamwork to complete a broad range of complex tasks.