Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Decoding Task Progress from VLA Representations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single linear probe on a vision-language-action model's internal activations reads out how far a task has progressed, and can flag stalled rollouts without any failure labels.

desk verdict A genuinely useful label-free OOD detector built on a linearly readable time-remaining signal, with an interpretability headline ('semantic progress') that outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13474 v1 pith:ZYICUV2H submitted 2026-08-13 cs.RO

Atiksh Bhardwaj , Edward Weiyi Duan , Prithwish Dan , Wei-Chiu Ma , Preston Culbertson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords vision-language-actionmodelstaskprogresslinearprobingmechanisticinterpretabilityout-of-distributiondetectionsteerabilityresidualstreamPaliGemma
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 asks whether a deployed vision-language-action model (VLA) carries a readable signal of its own task progress, and answers yes. Probing the residual-stream activations of π0.5 with a single linear map, the authors recover the normalized time remaining in a trajectory, $\tau = 1 - t/T$, with low error. The signal is present in the pretrained PaliGemma backbone, is sharpened by large-scale robot pre-training, and transfers to unseen tasks, and a probe trained only on in-distribution data flags out-of-distribution stalls at a level competitive with supervised detectors. A naive probe ignores language-prompt swaps, but training with counterfactual prompts restores language sensitivity; injecting the feature does not steer the policy. If correct, the result gives a lightweight, label-free runtime monitor for VLA deployments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linear probe $\varphi(z_i)=w^\top z_i + b$ applied to mean-pooled activations $z_i$ at a chosen transformer layer, trained under an L1 loss on labels $\tau_t = 1 - t/T$. The paper pairs the probe with three graded definitions — weak decodability (in-distribution accuracy), strong decodability (accuracy under counterfactual input transformations), and steerability (whether injecting the probe direction changes the action distribution) — and with the residual score $V_\tau(t)=\tau_{\text{pred}} - (1 - t/E[T|\ell])$ that converts probe output into an OOD flag when it exceeds a threshold. For strong decodability, a within-pair hinge separates swapped-prompt activations from original ones by a time-dependent margin, anchored by a BCE term on absolute progress. The probe's direction $w$ is also the steering vector in the injection test, so the same learned feature supports reading, monitoring, and the controllability experiment.

What would settle it

Collect rollouts where the robot executes the same task at half speed, or pauses mid-trajectory while staying on track, and check whether the probe's predicted progress follows wall-clock time instead of completion fraction; if it follows time, the semantic-progress interpretation fails. Separately, execute a swapped instruction to actual completion and test whether a probe trained with the proxy label τ=1.0 still reads true progress.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: task progress, defined as the normalized fraction of a trajectory remaining ($\tau(x_t)=1-t/T$), is weakly and strongly decodable from π0.5's mean-pooled residual-stream activations but not steerable. The same linear probe, fit with an L1 loss on in-distribution demonstrations, generalizes across unseen tasks once enough tasks are included; a probe on raw observations fails out of distribution, showing the representation, not the raw inputs, carries the signal. The probe also functions as an out-of-distribution detector: comparing predicted progress against expected progress $1 - t/E[T|\ell]$ flags stalled rollouts, matching or beating supervised baselines on unseen tasks and unseen perturbation types. Language counterfactuals reveal that a naively trained probe ignores the instruction, while a contrastive probe trained with swapped prompts labeled as zero progress separates the two prompts, at the cost of lower in-distribution $R^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The paper labels task progress by normalized elapsed time in successful demonstrations, and the counterfactual training treats any swapped prompt as zero progress, so the claim that the decoded quantity is semantic progress rather than a time index rests on those labeling choices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A VLA can be instrumented at runtime with a single linear probe: no OOD labels, no separate failure model, just a threshold on the residual between predicted and expected progress.
  • The same probe doubles as a language-grounding diagnostic: a probe that ignores prompt swaps reveals where fine-tuning has degraded instruction following.
  • Progress is observable but not linearly controllable; injecting the readout direction does not change action outputs, so monitoring and steering are different capabilities.
  • The signal's presence before robot fine-tuning and its sharpening by pre-training means progress readout transfers across the π0.x family without per-task probe retraining.
  • When aggregated per episode, the progress residual beats supervised baselines on unseen perturbation types, making it a candidate for deployment monitoring where OOD examples cannot be enumerated in advance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same probing protocol could be applied to other VLA families to test whether linear progress decodability is a general property of imitation-trained policies or specific to the π0.x lineage.
  • Because Vτ is a scalar residual, it could be wrapped in conformal prediction to convert the OOD flag into a failure guarantee with statistical coverage; the paper does not do this.
  • A speed-varied or pause-injected rollout would separate the time-index reading from the semantic-progress reading; the paper's raw-observation control does not fully rule out a time feature inside the residual stream.
  • The contrastive labels (swapped prompt ⇒ τ=1.0) are proxies; generating true counterfactual rollouts for swapped instructions would let the probe be validated without that labeling assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper trains linear probes on the residual-stream activations of the π0.5 vision-language-action model to decode task progress, defined in Sec. 3.3 as the normalized time remaining in an expert trajectory (τ = 1 − t/T). It reports that this feature is weakly decodable with high R² at early layers, that the signal is present after large-scale robotic pre-training and also, to a lesser extent, in the pretrained PaliGemma backbone, and that a contrastively trained probe at layer 10 separates original from noun-swapped language prompts. The paper further shows that the probe is not steerable and that a residual between predicted and expected progress can serve as an unsupervised out-of-distribution detector competitive with supervised baselines. The paper also formalizes weak decodability, strong decodability, and steerability for generative models.

Significance. If the claims are upheld, the paper offers a lightweight, label-free runtime monitor for deployed VLAs and a useful contribution to mechanistic interpretability of robot policies. The work has several genuine strengths: the weak-decodability claim is supported by a shuffled-label control (Fig. 2, right), the OOD detector is evaluated with cross-task and cross-perturbation splits with per-task and per-mode breakdowns (Tables 5–8), and the raw-observation control in App. B.4 demonstrates that the signal is not trivially present in pixels. The formal separation of weak decodability, strong decodability, and steerability is also a valuable conceptual contribution. The main blocker is that the paper's central interpretive claim — that the decoded quantity is semantic task progress — is not yet separated from a time-step correlate, and the language-sensitivity result is partly produced by the training labels.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3.3); Sec. 5; App. B.4] The progress label is defined as normalized elapsed time (τ = 1 − t/T), so every probe is trained to decode a time-dependent quantity. The abstract and Sec. 5 conclude that VLAs encode semantic quantities like task progress, but the experiments cannot distinguish semantic completion from a low-level time or phase correlate, such as a step counter or positional feature in the residual stream. The raw-observation control in App. B.4 rules out decoding from pixels alone, not from a time-index feature inside the embedding. The OOD stagnation result in Sec. 4.5 is partial evidence against a naive wall-clock decoder, but the decisive control — advancing time while holding task-relevant state fixed, or holding time while changing state — is never run. The paper's own limitations section concedes this conflation, yet the abstract and conclusion still assert the semantic reading. This is load-bearing for the interpretability and monitoring claims, and it needs either a direct control experiment or a reframing of the claims to normalized time remaining rather than semantic task progress.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, App. A.4] The strong-decodability result under language counterfactuals is partly circular because the contrastive probe is trained on shadow forward passes under swapped prompts, with all swapped activations labeled τ = 1.0 as a proxy. The separation between original and swapped prompts is therefore imposed by the training objective rather than discovered in the representation. App. A.4 itself states that a naive counterfactual-augmented probe does not separate the prompts and that the within-pair hinge plus BCE anchor are required; this demonstrates that a language-sensitive direction can be trained into the probe, not that the representation inherently encodes semantic progress. The drop in in-distribution R² to 0.33 further weakens the interpretation of the readout as a clean progress signal. To support the claim of strong decodability, the probe should be evaluated on held-out language perturbations or swap types not used in contrastive training, or the claim should be explicitly restricted to a language-sensitive direction that can be trained into the probe.
  3. [Sec. 4.5, Tables 1–2] The OOD detector is presented as label-free, but it relies on an expected completion time E[T|ℓ] estimated from in-distribution rollouts and a threshold δ whose selection is not described. The AUROC comparisons in Tables 1 and 2 are threshold-independent, so the headline numbers are not affected by δ, but the practical claim that Vτ is a ready-to-deploy runtime monitor needs a calibration analysis, for example how δ is set per task and sensitivity of flagging quality to E[T|ℓ] estimation error. Without this, the deployment-ready framing in the abstract is stronger than what the experiments show.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] The text says probes are trained on 400 episodes (100 per task) but the dataset has 10 tasks; 100 per task would be 1000 episodes. Please clarify the number of tasks and episodes used for training these probes.
  2. [Fig. 3] The claim that the feature is observable in the pretrained PaliGemma backbone would be easier to assess if quantitative R² or MAE values were reported for each model, along with error bars, rather than only the relative bar chart.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.3)] The dataset notation Dprobe = {(z0_t, ..., zL_t, ζt)}^N_{i=0} mixes trajectory index i and timestep t; please make the indexing consistent.
  4. [App. A.4] The hyperparameters for the contrastive probe (margin schedule m(t), anchor weight λ≈1.5, sharpening temperature 0.12) are given in prose but not listed in Table 3; adding them to the table would improve reproducibility.
  5. [References] Several references (e.g., [12], [16], and the manuscript itself) carry 2026 arXiv IDs; please verify that these are correct and that all cited preprints are publicly available.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Language-sensitivity probe is trained on τ=1.0 swap labels, so the reported counterfactual variation is a training artifact; 'task progress' is defined as normalized time, leaving the semantic-progress claim unsupported.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Q2 and Appendix A.4]
    "We augment Dprobe with Tlang activations for counterfactual prompts, labeled with τ=1.0, and retrain at layer 10 with the contrastive objective of App. A.4. ... The probe now pins near τ=1.0 under Tlang while tracking progress normally under the original instruction (Fig. 4, right), recovering the language sensitivity that the naive probe lacked."

    The probe is trained on Tlang activations with target τ=1.0, and the reported strong-decodability evidence is that the same probe outputs ≈1.0 under Tlang. This is the training objective, not an independent generalization: the language sensitivity is inserted by the labels and then exhibited as a discovered property. A held-out test would require ground-truth progress under swapped prompts, which the paper says is 'impossible to collect'; without it, the swap-vs-original gap is a measure of fit, not representation. The paper's own limitation concedes the labels are proxies, but that does not break the circularity because the reported outcome is the fitted value.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.3, Eq. (3.3) and Section 5 Limitations]
    "ϕξ(xt)=t, τ(xt)=1−ϕξ(xt)/T ∈[0,1] ... Task progress is defined as normalized time in successful demonstrations, conflating elapsed time with semantic completion."

    Eq. (3.3) defines τ as normalized elapsed time in expert trajectories, so the probe literally fits a time index. The abstract's conclusion that VLAs encode 'semantic quantities like task progress' then renames this time-correlation as semantic completion. The App. B.4 control only shows raw pixels are not linearly decodable; it cannot exclude a linearly readable time-phase or kinematic variable inside the residual stream. Since no experiment holds task state fixed while time advances (or vice versa), the semantic-progress reading is equivalent to the definition by construction, and the paper concedes the conflation in Sec. 5.

full rationale

The weak-decodability and OOD-detection results are independent of the circularity: probes are fit to expert-trajectory time labels and evaluated on held-out episodes, and the OOD detector is benchmarked against perturbed rollouts. The strong-decodability claim, however, reduces by construction: the counterfactual labels τ=1.0 are the training targets, so the observed language sensitivity is a fitted outcome. The semantic reading of 'task progress' is definitional, since τ is normalized time and the time/semantics confound is never broken. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-import occurs. Because one of the paper's headline claims is produced by its own training labels while other contributions stand, the circularity is partial.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on the chosen definition of progress as normalized time, on the proxy labels for counterfactual prompts, on the linear representation hypothesis borrowed from prior work, and on the assumption that stalls in predicted progress indicate OOD states. No new physical entities are introduced. The OOD detector also depends on per-prompt expected completion time estimated from in-distribution rollouts.

free parameters (3)
  • E[T|ℓ] (expected completion time per prompt) = not reported (estimated from in-distribution rollouts)
    OOD detector residual Vτ(t) = τ_pred - (1 - t/E[T|ℓ]) requires this per-prompt value; it is fit from ID rollouts and not derived.
  • δ (OOD threshold) = not reported
    Flagging threshold in Eq. (3); AUROC sweeps thresholds so results are threshold-free, but a deployed detector needs this parameter and its choice is not specified.
  • Contrastive probe hyperparameters: margin schedule m(t), anchor weight λ≈1.5, sharpening temperature 0.12 = m(t): 0.5 to 2.5; λ≈1.5; temp=0.12
    Hand-chosen in App. A.4 to make the strong-decodability probe separate swapped prompts while keeping progress R².
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Task progress is defined as normalized time remaining, τ(x_t)=1-t/T (Eq. 3.3).
    This definition equates progress with elapsed time in successful demos; the paper acknowledges in Sec. 5 that it conflates time with semantic completion.
  • ad hoc to paper Counterfactual prompts are labeled with τ=1.0 as a proxy for zero progress on the swapped task.
    Sec. 4.3 and App. A.4: true progress on counterfactual tasks is undefined and unmeasurable, so the strong-decodability training and evaluation rely on this proxy.
  • domain assumption Linear representation hypothesis: semantic features are linearly encoded in activation space.
    Borrowed from prior work [10, 21] and assumed in the probing methodology.
  • domain assumption OOD perturbations cause task progress to stall, making the progress residual a valid OOD signal.
    Sec. 3.4 and 4.5: the detector assumes stalled progress indicates OOD; this is plausible but not proven for all OOD types.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoding Task Progress from VLA Representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZYICUV2H

@misc{pith2026260813474,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoding Task Progress from VLA Representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZYICUV2H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13474}
}
abstract

Vision-language-action models (VLAs) are moving rapidly towards deployment as general-purpose manipulation policies, but we currently lack basic tools for understanding what these models represent internally or for monitoring them at runtime. Leveraging ideas from mechanistic interpretability, we probe the residual stream of $\pi_{0.5}$ and find that task progress, the normalized time remaining in a trajectory, is linearly readable from the activations. We find that this signal is present in the pretrained PaliGemma backbone prior to training on any robot-specific data. A single linear probe generalizes to unseen tasks and varies under language counterfactuals when trained on multi-prompt data, but does not enable meaningful steering of the policy. These properties make the signal directly useful for instrumenting deployed VLAs. We use the probe as a simple label-free OOD detector, which detects stalled task progress, and find it competitive with state-of-the-art methods. Our results suggest that VLAs have rich, linearly readable internal representations of semantic quantities like task progress, and that learning to read these signals offers a lightweight, interpretable path toward monitoring deployed visuomotor policies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13474 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Task progress is linearly readable from π0.5’s internal activations. A linear probe φ(z 0 ) = w⊤z 0+b on residual-stream activations z 0 from the VLM backbone recovers task progress, the normalized fraction of the trajectory remaining, and supports three downstream analyses: OOD detection, a language-grounding diagnostic, and a steerability study. progress from observations, deploying these estimators as reward sign… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Weak decodability of the progress feature across layers of fine-tuned π0.5 (SigLIP, PaliGemma’s Gemma, and the action expert). Right: Probe performance vs. capacity on the first Gemma layer, true labels versus shuffled labels which measures the deviation between the predicted and actual progress. The rollout is flagged as out-of-distribution the first time Vτ (t) > δ. While simple, this procedure is able to de… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Weak decodability of the progress feature across four models, probed at successive stages of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Counterfactual training yields strong decodability at a cost. Progress traces under the original instruction (blue) and Tlang noun-swap (orange). Left: naive layer-0 probe. Right: contrastive probe at layer 10, trained with Tlang counterfactuals labeled τ = 1.0. Bands:…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Predicted progress across Gemma layers i = 0, . . . , 17 after injecting τboost = 0.2 at layer 0 via φ0 , read at each subsequent layer by φi . Right: ∥Ainj − AGT∥2 compared against the non-injected baseline ∥Apolicy − AGT∥2, with 95% confidence interval (CI) ove…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative OOD rollout under the Blur noise mode, with injections at k = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75. the strongest unseen score (0.935) but requires OOD supervision. Under per-episode aggregation, Vτ achieves the best seen-task score (0.910) and is competitive on unseen tasks (0…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The progress probe’s generalization across tasks improves with the number of training tasks. Out-of-distribution R2 of progress probes evaluated on the unseen tasks as a function of the number of training tasks k. Left: distribution of OOD R2 across all combinations of…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Language sensitivity ∆ (left) and in-distribution progress R2 (right) for the contrastive probe at each layer. Lines are the mean over 5 seeds, bands ±1 SEM. These tables decompose the pooled result of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Task progress is decodable from VLA embeddings but not from raw observations. Predicted vs. ground truth task progress τ over normalized episode time t/T for a probe trained on π0.5 embeddings (left) and a matching probe trained on raw observations (right). Both probes…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. P. Foster, G. Lam, P. Sanketi, Q. Vuong, T. Kollar, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, D. Sadigh, S. Levine, P. Liang, and C. Finn. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. InConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09246

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Intelligence, K

    P. Intelligence, K. Black, N. Brown, J. Darpinian, K. Dhabalia, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, M. Y . Galliker, D. Ghosh, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichter, S. Jakubczak, T. Jones, L. Ke, D. LeBlanc, S. Levine, A. Li-Bell, M. Mothukuri, S. Nair, K. Pertsch, A. Z. Ren, L. X. Shi, L. Smith, J. T. Springenberg, K. Stachowicz, J. Tanner, Q. V...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.16054 2025

  3. [3]

    Driess, J

    D. Driess, J. T. Springenberg, B. Ichter, L. Yu, A. Li-Bell, K. Pertsch, A. Z. Ren, H. Walke, Q. Vuong, L. X. Shi, and S. Levine. Knowledge insulating vision-language-action models: Train fast, run fast, generalize better.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23705, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  4. [5]

    X. Zhou, Y . Xu, G. Tie, Y . Chen, G. Zhang, D. Chu, P. Zhou, and L. Sun. Libero-pro: Towards robust and fair evaluation of vision-language-action models beyond memorization, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.03827

    arXiv 2025

  5. [6]

    D. Bau, B. Zhou, A. Khosla, A. Oliva, and A. Torralba. Network dissection: Quantifying interpretability of deep visual representations. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 3319–3327, 2017. doi:10.1109/CVPR. 2017.354

    doi:10.1109/cvpr 2017

  6. [7]

    Templeton, T

    A. Templeton, T. Conerly, J. Marcus, J. Lindsey, T. Bricken, B. Chen, A. Pearce, C. Citro, E. Ameisen, A. Jones, H. Cunningham, N. L. Turner, C. McDougall, M. MacDiarmid, A. Tamkin, E. Durmus, T. Hume, F. Mosconi, C. D. Freeman, T. R. Sumers, E. Rees, J. Bat- son, A. Jermyn, S. Carter, C. Olah, and T. Henighan. Scaling monosemanticity: Extract- ing interp...

    work page 2024

  7. [8]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 8748–8763, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [9]

    Marks and M

    S. Marks and M. Tegmark. The geometry of truth: Emergent linear structure in large language model representations of true/false datasets, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310. 06824

    work page 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [10]

    K. Park, Y . J. Choe, and V . Veitch. The linear representation hypothesis and the geometry of large language models. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 235 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 39643–39666. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  2. [11]

    Beyer, A

    L. Beyer, A. Steiner, A. S. Pinto, A. Kolesnikov, X. Wang, D. Salz, M. Neumann, I. Alab- dulmohsin, M. Tschannen, E. Bugliarello, T. Unterthiner, D. Keysers, S. Koppula, F. Liu, A. Grycner, A. Gritsenko, N. Houlsby, M. Kumar, K. Rong, J. Eisenschlos, R. Kabra, M. Bauer, M. Boˇ...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Buurmeijer, C

    H. Buurmeijer, C. A. Alonso, A. Swann, and M. Pavone. Observing and controlling features in vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.05487, 2026. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2603.05487

    2026

  4. [13]

    H ¨aon, K

    B. H ¨aon, K. Stocking, I. Chuang, and C. Tomlin. Mechanistic interpretability for steering vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.00328, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [14]

    H. Lu, H. Li, P. S. Shahani, S. Herbers, and M. Scheutz. Probing a vision-language-action model for symbolic states and integration into a cognitive architecture.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04558, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.04558

    2025 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Molinari, L

    M. Molinari, L. Nevali, S. Navani, and O. G. Younis. Emergent world representations in OpenVLA.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24559, 2025

    2025

  7. [17]

    Y . J. Ma, S. Sodhani, D. Jayaraman, O. Bastani, V . Kumar, and A. Zhang. VIP: Towards universal visual reward and representation via value-implicit pre-training. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  8. [18]

    Y . J. Ma, V . Kumar, A. Zhang, O. Bastani, and D. Jayaraman. LIV: Language-image representa- tions and rewards for robotic control. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023

    2023

  9. [19]

    Y . J. Ma, J. Hejna, C. Fu, D. Shah, J. Liang, Z. Xu, S. Kirmani, P. Xu, D. Driess, T. Xiao, O. Bastani, D. Jayaraman, W. Yu, T. Zhang, D. Sadigh, and F. Xia. Vision language models are in-context value learners. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025

    2025

  10. [20]

    Q. Gu, Y . Ju, S. Sun, I. Gilitschenski, H. Nishimura, M. Itkina, and F. Shkurti. Safe: Multitask failure detection for vision-language-action models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2506.09937

    2025

  11. [21]

    Mikolov, W.-t

    T. Mikolov, W.-t. Yih, and G. Zweig. Linguistic regularities in continuous space word represen- tations. InProceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 746–751, 2013

    2013

  12. [22]

    K. Li, A. K. Hopkins, D. Bau, F. B. Vi´egas, H. Pfister, and M. Wattenberg. Emergent world representations: Exploring a sequence model trained on a synthetic task. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  13. [23]

    Nanda, A

    N. Nanda, A. Lee, and M. Wattenberg. Emergent linear representations in world models of self-supervised sequence models. InProceedings of the 6th BlackboxNLP Workshop: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, 2023. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.blackboxnlp-1.2

    2023 doi

  14. [24]

    A. Zou, L. Phan, S. L. Chen, J. Campbell, P. Guo, R. Ren, A. Pan, X. Yin, M. Mazeika, A.-K. Dombrowski, S. Goel, N. Li, M. J. Byun, Z. Wang, A. Mallen, S. Basart, S. Koyejo, D. Song, M. Fredrikson, J. Z. Kolter, and D. Hendrycks. Representation engineering: A top-down approach...

    arXiv

  15. [25]

    Hubinger, C

    E. Hubinger, C. Denison, J. Mu, M. Lambert, M. Tong, M. MacDiarmid, T. Lanham, D. M. Ziegler, T. Maxwell, N. Cheng, A. Jermyn, A. Askell, A. Radhakrishnan, C. Anil, D. Duvenaud, D. Ganguli, F. Barez, J. Clark, K. Ndousse, K. Sachan, M. Sellitto, M. Sharma, N. DasSarma, R. Gros...

    2024 arXiv

  16. [26]

    MacDiarmid, T

    M. MacDiarmid, T. Maxwell, N. Schiefer, J. Mu, J. Kaplan, D. Duvenaud, S. Bow- man, A. Tamkin, E. Perez, M. Sharma, C. Denison, and E. Hubinger. Simple probes can catch sleeper agents, 2024. URL https://www.anthropic.com/news/ probes-catch-sleeper-agents

    2024

  17. [27]

    K. Lee, K. Lee, H. Lee, and J. Shin. A simple unified framework for detecting out-of-distribution samples and adversarial attacks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2018

    2018

  18. [28]

    W. Liu, X. Wang, J. D. Owens, and Y . Li. Energy-based out-of-distribution detection. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020

    2020

  19. [29]

    Farid, D

    A. Farid, D. Snyder, A. Z. Ren, and A. Majumdar. Failure prediction with statistical guarantees for vision-based robot control. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), New York City, NY , USA, 2022. doi:10.15607/RSS.2022.XVIII.042

    2022 doi

  20. [30]

    Sinha, A

    R. Sinha, A. Elhafsi, C. Agia, M. Foutter, E. Schmerling, and M. Pavone. Real-time anomaly detection and reactive planning with large language models. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), Delft, Netherlands, 2024. doi:10.15607/RSS.2024.XX.114

    2024 doi

  21. [31]

    Hewitt and P

    J. Hewitt and P. Liang. Designing and interpreting probes with control tasks. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), 2019. doi:10.18653/v...

    2019 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Zhang, Z

    S. Zhang, Z. Xu, P. Liu, X. Yu, Y . Li, Q. Gao, Z. Fei, Z. Yin, Z. Wu, Y .-G. Jiang, and X. Qiu. Vlabench: A large-scale benchmark for language-conditioned robotics manipulation with long- horizon reasoning tasks. InIEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV),

  23. [35]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18194

    doi:10.1109/ICCV51701.2025.01037. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18194. 11 Appendix A Experimental Design A.1 Models and Dataset A.1.1 Dataset We run all experiments on VLABench [32]. The simulator provides a primitive dataset of 10 primary tasks:

    2025

  24. [36]

    Add Condiment: Pick up the target condiment and pour it over the dish

  25. [37]

    Select Fruit: Pick up the target fruit and place it on the plate

  26. [38]

    Select Drink: Pick up the target drink from the fridge

  27. [39]

    Insert Flower: Pick up the target flower and place it in the vase

  28. [40]

    Select Poker: Pick up the target playing card from the table

  29. [41]

    Select Mahjong: Pick up the target mahjong piece from the table

  30. [42]

    Select Book: Pull the target book from the shelf

  31. [43]

    Select Chemistry Tube: Touch the target tube in the chemical holder

  32. [44]

    Select Toy: Pick up the target toy and place it in the box

  33. [45]

    The dataset contains 5000 trajectories, 500 per task, with prompts and objects that vary across scenes to keep it diverse

    Select Painting: Press the button for the target painting. The dataset contains 5000 trajectories, 500 per task, with prompts and objects that vary across scenes to keep it diverse. A.1.2 Models We evaluate all our work on the following three models:

  34. [46]

    Put the pear

    PaliGemma: a 400M SigLIP vision encoder followed by a 2B Gemma (18 transformer layers, d= 2048 ). It processes three camera images (base, left wrist, right wrist), which we remap to (wrist, front, side) for the agent and robot views. 2.π 0 and π0.5: each pairs a PaliGemma VLM ...

  35. [2025]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.25616

  36. [2026]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19183

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.