Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.19233

Not All Features Are Created Equal: A Mechanistic Study of Vision-Language-Action Models

Bryce Grant·Xijia Zhao·Peng Wang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models combine perception, language, and motor control in a single architecture, yet how they translate multimodal inputs into actions remains poorly understood. We apply activation injection, sparse autoencoders (SAEs), and linear probes to six models spanning 80M--7B parameters across 394,000+ rollout episodes on four benchmarks. The visual pathway dominates action generation across all architectures: injecting baseline activations into null-prompt episodes recovers near-identical behavior, while cross-task injection steers robots toward source-task positions (99.8\% of X-VLA episodes align with the source trajectory), exposing spatially bound motor programs tied to scene coordinates rather than abstract task representations. Language sensitivity depends on task structure, not model design: when visual context uniquely specifies the task, language is ignored; when multiple goals share a scene, language becomes essential (X-VLA \texttt{libero\_goal}: 94\%$\to$10\% under wrong prompts vs.\ \texttt{libero\_object}: 60--100\% regardless). In all three multi-pathway architectures (\pizhalf{}, SmolVLA, GR00T), expert pathways encode motor programs while VLM pathways encode goal semantics ($2\times$ greater behavioral displacement from expert injection), and subspace injection confirms these occupy separable activation subspaces. Per-token SAE processing is essential for action fidelity on most architectures, though mean-pooling improves fidelity on X-VLA. Contrastive identification recovers 82+ manipulation concepts, and causal ablation reveals sensitivity spanning 28--92\% zero-effect rates independent of representation width. We release \textbf{Action Atlas} (https://action-atlas.com) for interactive exploration of VLA representations across all six models.

Explore related subjects

cs.RO

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Bryce Grant, Xijia Zhao, Peng Wang. 2026-03-19. Not All Features Are Created Equal: A Mechanistic Study of Vision-Language-Action Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19233

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗