This study systematically dissects design choices along three dimensions: foundational components, perception essentials, and action modeling perspectives and distill 12 key findings that together form a practical recipe for building strong VLA models, resulting in a simple yet effective model, VLANeXt.
Abstract
Following the rise of large foundation models, Vision-Language-Action models (VLAs) emerged, leveraging strong visual and language understanding from Vision-Language Models for general-purpose policy learning. Yet, the current VLA landscape remains fragmented and exploratory. Although many groups have proposed their own VLA models, inconsistencies in training protocols and evaluation settings make it difficult to identify which design choices truly matter. To bring structure to this evolving space, we reexamine the VLA design space under a unified framework and evaluation setup. Starting from a simple VLA baseline similar to RT-2, which is the origin of VLA, we systematically dissect design choices along three dimensions: foundational components, perception essentials, and action modeling perspectives. From this study, we distill 12 key findings that together form a practical recipe for building strong VLA models. The outcome of this exploration is a simple yet effective model, VLANeXt. It outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on the LIBERO and LIBERO-plus benchmarks and demonstrates strong performance in real-world experiments. Beyond identifying the core recipe, we further ask how far these design principles extend to the emerging paradigms in VLAs. We thus expand VLANeXt along several emerging directions, including model scaling, latent-action pretraining, latent predictive representation learning, and world action modeling. These studies give rise to the VLANeXt family, spanning compact and scaled VLA variants, latent-action models, JEPA-style predictive models, and World Action Models. Our results show that the core recipe provides a strong foundation across different model scales and emerging paradigms.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.
Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 316 citations· ⚡15
From feet to fingertips — we are teaching robots intelligent whole-body control, fine dexterity, and teamwork to complete a broad range of complex tasks.
Known for his clear and elegant writing style, Bertsekas shaped fields from control and optimization to large-scale computation and artificial intelligence.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.