Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 23 cited by

OpenHelix: A Short Survey, Empirical Analysis, and Open-Source Dual-System VLA Model for Robotic Manipulation

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A dual-system VLA with a frozen 7B MLLM, a prompt-tuned <ACT> token, and an auxiliary action head matches or beats fine-tuned baselines on CALVIN while preserving language generalization.

desk verdict Useful dual-system VLA ablation with a plausible but untested mechanism for its auxiliary head; deserves major-revision peer review, not desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03912 v1 pith:N4KIGEJW submitted 2025-05-06 cs.RO cs.CV

Can Cui , Pengxiang Ding , Wenxuan Song , Shuanghao Bai , Xinyang Tong , Zirui Ge , Runze Suo , Wanqi Zhou
show 5 more authors
Yang Liu Bofang Jia Han Zhao Siteng Huang Donglin Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords dual-systemVLAroboticmanipulationprompttuningauxiliaryactionpredictionlatentbridgingCALVINbenchmarkfrozenMLLMasynchronousinference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that expensive fine-tuning of the large vision-language model in a dual-system robot policy is unnecessary: keeping a 7B MLLM completely frozen and learning only a single prompt token plus an auxiliary action-prediction head matches or beats fine-tuned baselines on CALVIN. It also shows the latent goal token mostly transmits instruction semantics rather than visual state, and that asynchronous inference delays up to 60 policy steps cost little. The practical payoff is a low-cost, open-source recipe for connecting a strong frozen 'System 2' reasoner to a fast diffusion policy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the learnable <ACT> token appended to the instruction, a special vocabulary token whose embedding is the only part of the 7B MLLM that is updated. A linear auxiliary head reads the token's final-layer hidden state and predicts position, rotation, and gripper state, so the token must carry actionable information. That embedding is fed through a linear projector into a pre-trained 3D Diffuser Actor, which denoises action trajectories conditioned on 3D scene tokens. Two-stage training—first aligning the projector with both the MLLM and policy frozen, then jointly fine-tuning the prompt, projector, and policy—is what makes the connection between the two systems survive.

What would settle it

Take the authors' released model, run CALVIN tasks while occluding or perturbing the visual input at test time, and record whether the <ACT> embedding and predicted actions change. If the embedding stays nearly constant and success does not drop, the auxiliary task did not create visual grounding; alternatively, train the auxiliary head on randomized action targets and see whether the gains persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a dual-system VLA can be made simple and cheap without losing performance: freeze the MLLM, add one learnable <ACT> token to its vocabulary, train only that embedding and a linear projector, and add an auxiliary head that predicts the robot's actions from the <ACT> embedding. On CALVIN ABC-D this reaches 93.3% one-task and 46.0% five-task success, and on CALVIN-E with enriched language instructions it lifts five-task success to 20.2% versus 6.1% for the policy alone. The authors conclude that the auxiliary task is very helpful because it forces the frozen MLLM to encode visual information, and that prompt tuning preserves language generalization better than LoRA fine-tuning.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's explanation that the auxiliary head works by forcing the frozen MLLM to use visual information is never directly tested, so the improvement could come from extra regularization or language statistics rather than from true visual grounding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An auxiliary action-prediction head on the latent token is worth adding: it raises CALVIN ABC-D five-task chain success from 40.9% to 46.0% and CALVIN-E from 10.3% to 20.2%.
  • Prompt tuning preserves language generalization better than fine-tuning or frozen MLLMs under CLIP loss, as shown by the CALVIN-E results.
  • Asynchronous inference is nearly free: stepping the MLLM every 10 or 60 policy steps changes final performance by less than a point.
  • Without a pre-alignment stage that trains the projector while both models are frozen, joint training collapses to 0% success.
  • Removing visual input from the MLLM (treating it as an LLM only) drops five-task success from 47% to 10%, so the vision path is doing real work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The auxiliary head is trained on the same ground-truth actions as the policy, so its benefit may come from shared multi-task regularization or language-action statistics rather than from new visual grounding; the paper's 'forces visual input' explanation is plausible but unverified.
  • A visual-perturbation test—for example, occluding the workspace or moving objects after the MLLM sees the frame—would settle whether the <ACT> embedding actually tracks visual change, especially since the paper's own semantic-similarity analysis suggests it mostly does not.
  • The method's modularity suggests it should transfer to other frozen MLLMs and diffusion policies; if it does, dual-system VLA training reduces to prompt tuning plus a small auxiliary head, which would cut compute sharply.
  • CALVIN's near-static scenes may understate the need for asynchronous visual updates; the dynamic-scenario results show that MLLM latency can be masked when the low-level policy is robust on its own.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper combines a short survey of dual-system vision-language-action (VLA) architectures with an empirical study of design choices and a proposed method called OpenHelix. The empirical sections compare policy training paradigms, MLLM training strategies (frozen, fine-tuning, prompt tuning), projector pre-alignment, and asynchronous inference on the CALVIN benchmark, including a language-generalization variant (CALVIN-E) and a dynamic-scene variant (CALVIN-D). The proposed OpenHelix system keeps a LLaVA-7B MLLM frozen, optimizes only a learned <ACT> prompt embedding and a linear projector, and adds an auxiliary action-prediction head on top of the <ACT> latent to 'force' the MLLM to use visual information. The main result is reported in Table 8, where the auxiliary task plus 10-step asynchronous inference improves 5-of-5 success on CALVIN to 46.0% and on CALVIN-E to 20.2%.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide a useful low-cost recipe for dual-system VLA design: a frozen 7B MLLM with a single trainable prompt token plus a lightweight auxiliary head, together with an empirical map of which design dimensions matter. The controlled comparison across MLLM training strategies and the two-stage pre-alignment finding (Table 6) are practically valuable, and the asynchronous-inference insensitivity result (Figure 4) is an interesting negative result for the community. The paper is also honest about its limitations and future-work status. However, the significance is materially reduced by three load-bearing gaps: the causal mechanism for the auxiliary task is asserted but not tested, the ablation evidence is drawn from a 100-trial subset without seeds or confidence intervals, and the headline Table 8 comparison confounds the auxiliary task with a change in asynchronous setting. These issues make the empirical contribution currently insufficient to support the paper's main design rationale.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (1), Figure 5] The central causal claim that the auxiliary action-prediction head 'ensures that the large model has to utilize visual input information' is not tested. Section 2.4 and Figure 5 diagnose, on a model without AUX, that the <ACT> embedding is largely insensitive to scene changes and mostly encodes instruction semantics. The paper never re-runs this diagnostic on the final model with AUX, and no visual-perturbation or information-bottleneck control is reported. Because the auxiliary head is trained on the same ground-truth actions used by the policy and CALVIN scenes are near-static, the gains in Tables 7 and 8 could arise from multi-task regularization or better use of language priors rather than from genuine visual grounding. Please add a direct test: for example, re-run the Figure 5 embedding analysis on the AUX-equipped model, or evaluate with the input image perturbed (masked, shifted, or replaced) and measure whether the <ACT> embedding and downstream success change accordingly.
  2. [Section 2.1, Tables 3-7] All ablation experiments are evaluated on the first 100 of the standard 1000 CALVIN evaluations, with no repeated seeds or reported confidence intervals. At 100 binary trials, the standard error of a 50% success rate is about 5 percentage points, so many reported differences (e.g., 94 vs 90 in Table 4, 94 vs 81 on CALVIN-E 1-of-5 in Table 5, 77 vs 72 in Table 7) are within one standard error. The representativeness of the first 100 trials for the full 1000-trial distribution is not checked. Please report ablations over at least three seeds (or binomial confidence intervals) and show that the 100-trial subset orders the design choices in the same way as the full evaluation.
  3. [Table 8, Section 3.3] The conclusion that 'additional auxiliary tasks are very helpful' is based on a comparison that confounds the auxiliary task with the asynchronous setting: 'MLLM (PT) + AUX + Policy(P) + Asy(10)' is compared against 'MLLM (PT) + Policy(P)', which is not Asy(10). An isolated ablation with and without AUX under the same asynchronous setting is needed to attribute the difference to the auxiliary task. Table 7 provides an unconfounded comparison, but it uses the 100-trial subset and lacks error bars. Please add a full-1000-trial comparison with Asy(10) both with and without AUX.
  4. [Section 2.2, Table 2] The claim that single-system models 'directly fail' in dynamic scenarios is based on a single model (RF) and is explicitly acknowledged by the authors as not completely rigorous because π0 and GR00T-N1 were not tested. This is acceptable as a preliminary observation, but the paper subsequently uses this result to motivate the dual-system architecture. Please either soften the conclusion to a hypothesis or add at least one additional single-system baseline on CALVIN-D.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 2.3.1, Tables 3 and 4] Cross-reference error: 'The specific results are shown in Table 4' should refer to Table 3, which reports the policy training strategy comparison; the subsequent 'In Table 3' analysis is correct but the setup sentence is wrong.
  2. [Section 3.2] 'As we discussed in section 3.3' should be 'Section 2.4-2.5', since the earlier discussion of the MLLM's visual-insensitivity is in the empirical analysis, not in Section 3.3.
  3. [Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)] The loss weights ω1, ω2, ω3, and ω4 are introduced as hyperparameters but their values are never reported; please specify them for reproducibility, since the auxiliary loss is the proposed contribution.
  4. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract and title promise an 'open-source model', but the manuscript does not include code, weights, or a URL in the paper body; if the project page or GitHub repository contains them, please state this explicitly in the paper.
  5. [Figure 5] The third-row text in Figure 5 is garbled and difficult to read; please replace it with a cleaner rendering or a table of the top similar words.
  6. [References [14] and [15]] References [14] and [15] are duplicates of the same 'Visual Instruction Tuning' paper; consolidate them into one citation.
  7. [Section 2.3.2] The heading 'Intuitive hypothesis' appears twice in this section; use distinct headings such as 'Motivation' and 'Additional hypothesis' for clarity.
  8. [Table 1] The 'Helix' row contains N/A entries and is not from this work's experiments; clarify in the table caption that Helix is included for comparison based on public descriptions, not on results reproduced here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: results are external benchmark measurements; the auxiliary-task mechanism is an untested interpretation, not a construction-level reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons on the external CALVIN / CALVIN-E / CALVIN-D simulator, with no parameter fitted to a subset of data and then relabeled as a prediction. The proposed model uses a frozen MLLM with prompt tuning, an auxiliary action-prediction loss (Eq. 1), and a pre-trained diffusion policy (Eq. 2); the gains in Table 8 are benchmark measurements against ground-truth simulator rollouts, so there is no equation-level identity between an input and an output claim. The auxiliary task does share supervision labels with the policy objective, but that makes it a multi-task training signal, not a circular derivation of the paper's conclusions. The paper's explanation that the auxiliary task 'ensure[s] that the large model has to utilize visual input information' is an unsupported causal interpretation: the diagnostic in Figure 5 is run only before adding AUX, and the paper does not show that the final latent is visually grounded rather than relying on language priors or static-scene statistics. That is a correctness/evidence gap, not circularity, because the conclusion is not definitionally entailed by the loss. The only self-citation, CARP [8], appears in a survey sentence listing possible future policy architectures and is not load-bearing for any experimental result or design choice. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is renamed as a new organization. The paper even explicitly acknowledges its own limitations and unverified claims, which further supports a non-circular interpretation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, with at most a minor non-load-bearing self-citation and an unsupported interpretive claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on benchmark measurements, not on a mathematical derivation, so the ledger is dominated by evaluation and training assumptions rather than fitted constants. The loss weights are unreported hyperparameters; the pre-alignment schedule is load-bearing because Table 6 shows failure without it; the 100-trial ablation budget affects all non-final comparisons. The auxiliary-task 'visual grounding' claim is an untested interpretation, and the CALVIN benchmark is taken as a valid proxy for manipulation competence.

free parameters (4)
  • loss weighting coefficients omega_1..omega_4 = not reported
    Eqs. (1)-(2) define weighted sums of BCE and L1 losses; the values are not given, so the exact objective cannot be reproduced.
  • pre-alignment iteration count = 2000
    The first training stage (projector pre-alignment) duration is a hand-picked schedule; Table 6 shows that skipping this stage makes all variants fail.
  • policy checkpoint selection = 65,000 iterations
    The pre-trained 3DDA checkpoint at 65k iterations is chosen from the training curve; the choice can affect downstream performance and comparisons.
  • ablation evaluation budget = 100 trials
    Section 2.1: ablation tables use the first 100 of 1000 CALVIN evaluations 'to ensure rapid assessment'; this is an evaluation-side parameter affecting all ablation conclusions.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The CALVIN ABC-D benchmark and its success-rate metric are an accepted proxy for robotic manipulation competence.
    All conclusions about the dual-system design are drawn from CALVIN simulations; no real-robot experiments are reported (Section 4 states real-robot deployment is future work).
  • ad hoc to paper The first 100 trials of the standard 1000 CALVIN evaluations are representative for comparing ablations.
    Section 2.1: 'we used the first 100 evaluations from the standard 1000 evaluations, improving the testing efficiency for ablation experiments.' No statistical justification is given, and the final table switches to the full 1000.
  • ad hoc to paper The auxiliary action-prediction head forces the frozen MLLM to encode visual information into the <ACT> embedding.
    Section 3.2: 'we ensure that the large model has to utilize visual input information'. This is asserted, but there is no control test that removes or perturbs visual input to confirm the causal effect; the head is trained on the same ground-truth actions as the policy.
  • domain assumption Synchronous training with asynchronous testing, including Asy(60) where the MLLM infers only once, preserves performance.
    Section 2.4 reports that step count 1 to 60 gives similar performance; the claim applies to the tested CALVIN-D dynamics and is not verified in other environments.
  • domain assumption The pre-trained 3D Diffuser Actor checkpoint at 65,000 iterations is a suitable low-level policy and its training details from [11] carry over.
    The paper relies on 3DDA's training curriculum (cited [11]) and does not restate it; any mismatch would affect reproduction.
  • standard math The action-denoising objective used for the low-level policy is the standard diffusion-policy loss from [6,11,23] and is assumed well-behaved for this conditioning setup.
    Eq. (2) cites prior formulations; no derivation is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OpenHelix: A Short Survey, Empirical Analysis, and Open-Source Dual-System VLA Model for Robotic Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N4KIGEJW

@misc{pith2026250503912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OpenHelix: A Short Survey, Empirical Analysis, and Open-Source Dual-System VLA Model for Robotic Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N4KIGEJW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03912}
}
read the original abstract

Dual-system VLA (Vision-Language-Action) architectures have become a hot topic in embodied intelligence research, but there is a lack of sufficient open-source work for further performance analysis and optimization. To address this problem, this paper will summarize and compare the structural designs of existing dual-system architectures, and conduct systematic empirical evaluations on the core design elements of existing dual-system architectures. Ultimately, it will provide a low-cost open-source model for further exploration. Of course, this project will continue to update with more experimental conclusions and open-source models with improved performance for everyone to choose from. Project page: https://openhelix-robot.github.io/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03912 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Key Design of Dual-System VLAs. It mainly includes: MMLM Selection, Policy Selection, Latent Feature Representation Selection, MLLM Training Strategy, Policy Training Strategy, Dual-System Integration Strategy, and Dual-System Asynchronous Strategy. 1.5. Key Design of Dual-System VLAs The key question lies in how to design the architecture of these two systems and structure the information flow from the slower syste… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Three Different Evaluation Environments. dimensions, including the choice of base vision-language model (MLLM), downstream policy architecture, and latent selection mechanisms [5, 9, 19, 22, 24]. These discrepancies highlight the urgent need for a systematic and fair compari￾son, in order to assess the rationale behind different design choices and to establish a reference framework for future model development. In t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Three Different MLLM Training Strategy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluations on hierarchical inference. We evaluate the performance of the dual system on the CALVIN benchmark, with inference steps set to 1 and 60, respectively.“Steps" refers to the inference steps of action policy during a single MLLM inference step. The longest env…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evaluation on the shortcoming of existing dual systems. From top to bottom, the first row displays the input to the MLLM. The second row visualizes a special scenario where, at environment step 3, the blue block is manually shifted to the left. In the third row, we pre…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detailed framework. (a) The high-level MLLM (left) takes third-view RGB o ′ , task instruction l, and a learnable token <ACT> as input. After processing through the Large Language Model (LLM), we extract the feature embedding from the final layer of the <ACT> token as …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 23 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Generalizable Robotic Manipulation in Dynamic Environments

    cs.CV 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    DOMINO supplies 110K+ dynamic dual-arm trajectories across 35 tasks, and PUMA’s optical-flow history plus object-centric future queries raise dynamic success rate by 6.3 points over strong VLA baselines.

  2. Token-Wise Latent Streaming from Slow Reasoners to Fast Planners for Dynamic Vision Language Navigation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Streaming intermediate hidden states from a slow VLM to a fast flow-matching planner, token by token, improves dynamic social VLN success and reduces observation staleness.

  3. Generalizable VLA Finetuning via Representation Anchoring and Language-Action Alignment

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Preserving pretrained VLM features with layer-wise distillation plus supervising the language head on discretized action directions improves OOD generalization of VLA policies on LIBERO, CALVIN, and a real xArm7.

  4. $M^2$-VLA: Boosting Vision-Language Models for Generalizable Manipulation via Layer Mixture and Meta-Skills

    cs.RO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    M²-VLA shows that generalized VLMs can serve as direct backbones for robotic manipulation by selectively extracting task-critical features via Mixture of Layers and adding Meta Skill Modules for efficient trajectory learning.

  5. AsyncMDE: Real-Time Monocular Depth Estimation via Asynchronous Spatial Memory

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A lightweight fast path fusing foundation-model spatial memory reaches 237 FPS monocular depth, recovering 77% of the accuracy gap with bounded lag degradation and 161 FPS on Jetson Orin.

  6. Optimization landscapes of variational quantum algorithms

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    For multi-term VQA objectives (M>1), false traps can emerge from loss of spectral-order compatibility among terms, even with parameter-sufficient ansatze, unlike the trap-free M=1 case under standard assumptions.

  7. UAOR: Uncertainty-aware Observation Reinjection for Vision-Language-Action Models

    cs.CV 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Uncertainty-aware observation reinjection into FFN layers improves VLA manipulation success rates across LIBERO, SIMPLER, CALVIN, and real-robot tasks with no training.

  8. Mixture of Horizons in Action Chunking

    cs.RO 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A gated mixture of multiple action-chunk horizons in a shared full-attention transformer improves VLA manipulation success and enables consensus-based early stopping.

  9. Bridging the Semantic-Action Gap in Visual Token Pruning for Efficient VLA Inference

    cs.CV 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Token pruning for VLA models should use both prefill semantic attention and temporally smoothed action-decode attention; VLA-Pruner does this and preserves manipulation performance at high prune ratios.

  10. Galaxea Open-World Dataset and G0 Dual-System VLA Model

    cs.RO 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new open-world mobile manipulation dataset and a dual-system VLA model show that single-embodiment pre-training, not cross-embodiment pre-training, drives strong downstream task performance.

  11. ChatVLA-2: Vision-Language-Action Model with Open-World Embodied Reasoning from Pretrained Knowledge

    cs.RO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ChatVLA-2 uses dynamic mixture-of-experts and a two-stage training recipe to let a vision-language-action model retain pretrained reasoning while following robot instructions.

  12. WorldEval: World Model as Real-World Robot Policies Evaluator

    cs.RO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    WorldEval conditions a video generation model on a policy's internal action embeddings (Policy2Vec) and shows generated-video success rates correlate with real-world robot success rates.

  13. UP-VLA: A Unified Understanding and Prediction Model for Embodied Agent

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Combining multimodal understanding with future image prediction in one autoregressive model improves vision-language-action policy success rates in simulation and real-world manipulation.

  14. LIRA: Local Cross-Layer Information Routing for Vision-Language-Action Decoding

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A local cross-layer routing mechanism for VLA models, feeding each action-decoder block features from a small window of adjacent VLM layers, improves success rates on LIBERO, CALVIN, and LIBERO-Plus.

  15. Is Inter-Seed Cross-Play Enough? Evaluating the Robustness of Zero-Shot Coordination Algorithms to Implementation Details

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For Other-Play in Yokai, agents trained with different implementation details coordinate across implementations about as well as across seeds, supporting inter-seed cross-play as a proxy for cross-implementation evaluation.

  16. Towards Human-like Physical Intelligence: Lifelong Vision-Language-Action Learning for Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LifelongVLA pairs dual-timescale LoRA gating with stochastic cached-prefix replay to cut catastrophic forgetting in VLA policies, reporting 83.2% average success and 11.4% forgetting on a 10-task LIBERO stream.

  17. TS-Mask VLA: 2D Temporal-Spatial Masking for Vision-Language-Action Model with Effective Bridging

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 0.5B VLA with bridge-conditioned discrete diffusion and 2D temporal–spatial action masking reaches 95.7% LIBERO success and 4.19 CALVIN average length.

  18. When Vision Overrides Language: Evaluating and Mitigating Counterfactual Failures in VLAs

    cs.CV 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    VLAs fail most counterfactual instructions because vision shortcuts dominate language; the new LIBERO-CF benchmark quantifies this, and CAG, an inference-time action mixer, improves grounding and success.

  19. RationalVLA: A Rational Vision-Language-Action Model with Dual System

    cs.RO 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    RAMA, a new benchmark with defective instructions, and RationalVLA, a dual-system model with <ACT> and <REJ> tokens, let a robot reject infeasible commands while still performing unseen executable tasks, with higher s...

  20. On the Dual-Use Dilemma in Physical Reasoning and Force

    cs.RO 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Adding Asimov-style safety prompts to vision-language models lowers both harmful and helpful force generation for contact-rich robotic tasks.

  21. Rethinking Latent Redundancy in Behavior Cloning: An Information Bottleneck Approach for Robot Manipulation

    cs.RO 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Adding an information bottleneck regularizer that penalizes I(X,Z) between fused input features and the latent representation improves average success rates in behavior cloning benchmarks, though gains depend on a per...

  22. Efficient Vision-Language-Action Models for Embodied Manipulation: A Systematic Survey

    cs.RO 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that groups VLA efficiency techniques into four categories: model architecture, perception features, action generation, and training/inference strategies.

  23. ReconVLA: Reconstructive Vision-Language-Action Model as Effective Robot Perceiver

    cs.RO 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Adding a reconstruction target that redraws the object region makes a vision-language-action model focus its attention on the right object and manipulate more precisely.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 23 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Minivla: A better vla with a smaller footprint

    S Belkhale and D Sadigh. Minivla: A better vla with a smaller footprint. 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Gr00t n1: An open foun- dation model for generalist humanoid robots

    Johan Bjorck, Fernando Castañeda, Nikita Cherniadev, Xingye Da, Runyu Ding, Linxi Fan, Yu Fang, Dieter Fox, Fengyuan Hu, Spencer Huang, et al. Gr00t n1: An open foun- dation model for generalist humanoid robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025. 2, 3, 5, 6

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    A vision-language- action flow model for general robot control

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, et al. A vision-language- action flow model for general robot control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024. 2, 3, 5

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale, 2023

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakr- ishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Tomas Jackson, Sally Jes- month, Nikhil J Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Yuheng Kuang, Isabel Leal, Kuang-Huei Lee, Sergey Levine, Yao Lu, Utsav Mal...

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Towards synergistic, generalized, and efficient dual-system for robotic manipula- tion

    Qingwen Bu, Hongyang Li, Li Chen, Jisong Cai, Jia Zeng, Heming Cui, Maoqing Yao, and Yu Qiao. Towards synergistic, generalized, and efficient dual-system for robotic manipula- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08001, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 5

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffu- sion

    Cheng Chi, Zhenjia Xu, Siyuan Feng, Eric Cousineau, Yilun Du, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, and Shuran Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffu- sion. The International Journal of Robotics Research, page 02783649241273668, 2023. 10

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Dual-processing accounts of reason- ing, judgment, and social cognition

    Jonathan St BT Evans. Dual-processing accounts of reason- ing, judgment, and social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59 (1):255–278, 2008. 1

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Carp: Visuomotor policy learning via coarse-to-fine autore- gressive prediction

    Zhefei Gong, Pengxiang Ding, Shangke Lyu, Siteng Huang, Mingyang Sun, Wei Zhao, Zhaoxin Fan, and Donglin Wang. Carp: Visuomotor policy learning via coarse-to-fine autore- gressive prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06782, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    A dual process vla: Efficient robotic manipulation leveraging vlm

    ByungOk Han, Jaehong Kim, and Jinhyeok Jang. A dual process vla: Efficient robotic manipulation leveraging vlm. In Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2024. 2, 3, 4

    2024

  2. [10]

    Thinking, fast and slow

    Daniel Kahneman. Thinking, fast and slow. macmillan, 2011. 1

    2011

  3. [11]

    3d diffuser actor: Policy diffusion with 3d scene representations

    Tsung-Wei Ke, Nikolaos Gkanatsios, and Katerina Fragki- adaki. 3d diffuser actor: Policy diffusion with 3d scene representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10885, 2024. 2, 4, 8, 10, 11

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Lego: L earning ego cen- tric action frame generation via visual instruction tuning

    Bolin Lai, Xiaoliang Dai, Lawrence Chen, Guan Pang, James M Rehg, and Miao Liu. Lego: L earning ego cen- tric action frame generation via visual instruction tuning. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 135–155. Springer, 2024. 3

    2024

  5. [13]

    Vision-language foundation models as effective robot imitators

    Xinghang Li, Minghuan Liu, Hanbo Zhang, Cunjun Yu, Jie Xu, Hongtao Wu, Chilam Cheang, Ya Jing, Weinan Zhang, Huaping Liu, et al. Vision-language foundation models as effective robot imitators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01378,

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08485,

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. 11

    2023

  8. [16]

    Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner.Psychological science, 17(5):428–433, 2006

    Wim De Neys. Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner.Psychological science, 17(5):428–433, 2006. 1

    2006

  9. [17]

    Trans- fer between modalities with metaqueries

    Xichen Pan, Satya Narayan Shukla, Aashu Singh, Zhuokai Zhao, Shlok Kumar Mishra, Jialiang Wang, Zhiyang Xu, Jiuhai Chen, Kunpeng Li, Felix Juefei-Xu, et al. Trans- fer between modalities with metaqueries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06256, 2025. 3

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Flower: De- mocratizing generalist robot policies with efficient vision- language-action flow policies

    Moritz Reuss, Hongyi Zhou, Marcel Rühle, Ömer Erdinç Ya˘gmurlu, Fabian Otto, and Rudolf Lioutikov. Flower: De- mocratizing generalist robot policies with efficient vision- language-action flow policies. In 7th Robot Learning Work- shop: Towards Robots with Human-Level Abilities. 3

  11. [19]

    From llms to actions: Latent codes as bridges in hierarchical robot control

    Yide Shentu, Philipp Wu, Aravind Rajeswaran, and Pieter Abbeel. From llms to actions: Latent codes as bridges in hierarchical robot control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04798,

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dense policy: Bidi- rectional autoregressive learning of actions

    Yue Su, Xinyu Zhan, Hongjie Fang, Han Xue, Hao-Shu Fang, Yong-Lu Li, Cewu Lu, and Lixin Yang. Dense policy: Bidi- rectional autoregressive learning of actions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13217, 2025. 3

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Judgment under un- certainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty

    Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. Judgment under un- certainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science, 185 (4157):1124–1131, 1974. 1

    1974

  14. [22]

    Dexvla: Vision-language model with plug-in diffusion expert for general robot control

    Junjie Wen, Yichen Zhu, Jinming Li, Zhibin Tang, Chaomin Shen, and Feifei Feng. Dexvla: Vision-language model with plug-in diffusion expert for general robot control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05855, 2025. 2, 4

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations

    Yanjie Ze, Gu Zhang, Kangning Zhang, Chenyuan Hu, Muhan Wang, and Huazhe Xu. 3d diffusion policy: Generalizable visuomotor policy learning via simple 3d representations. In ICRA 2024 Workshop on 3D Visual Representations for Robot Manipulation, 2024. 10

    2024

  16. [24]

    Hirt: En- hancing robotic control with hierarchical robot transformers

    Jianke Zhang, Yanjiang Guo, Xiaoyu Chen, Yen-Jen Wang, Yucheng Hu, Chengming Shi, and Jianyu Chen. Hirt: En- hancing robotic control with hierarchical robot transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05273, 2024. 2, 3, 4

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Scaling diffusion policy in transformer to 1 billion parameters for robotic manipulation

    Minjie Zhu, Yichen Zhu, Jinming Li, Junjie Wen, Zhiyuan Xu, Ning Liu, Ran Cheng, Chaomin Shen, Yaxin Peng, Feifei Feng, et al. Scaling diffusion policy in transformer to 1 billion parameters for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14411, 2024. 2 12

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.