CARE: Certifying Acceleration for Vision-Language-Action Inference
Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
The paper introduces CARE, a method for certifying accelerated inference in vision‑language‑action models. CARE uses paired rollouts on a calibration set to guarantee that the risk of acceleration‑induced failure stays below a user‑specified budget, selecting the fastest certified accelerator or falling back to the reference policy. Experiments on LIBERO suites show that CARE achieves 9.0–10.8× speedups while preserving at least 85.8% of reference‑solved episodes with 95% confidence, and it outperforms non‑guaranteed selectors in both budget adherence and rollout efficiency.
The paper investigates a specific failure mode in vision‑language‑action models, termed instruction‑action binding, where models respond to language and vision separately but fail to combine them to select the correct action under counterfactual changes. Through behavioral analyses of fine‑tuned policies, the authors show that failed rollouts often preserve source behavior or switch to other demonstrated tasks, indicating that language is not ignored but mis‑bound. They propose Equivariant Counterfactual Training (ECT), which supplies counterfactual demonstrations and a paired loss to enforce correct action selection, achieving significant performance gains across simulated and real‑world benchmarks.
VLCP (Vision Language Control Policy) is a training‑free robot manipulation approach that keeps a vision‑language model (VLM) frozen and uses it to generate short Python control functions. Unlike traditional methods that retry a fixed policy, VLCP rewrites the control code every K steps based on multi‑view RGB, proprioceptive state, and state delta, allowing failures to be corrected within the same episode. In a 57‑task MuJoCo/RoboVerse benchmark, VLCP achieves 35.1% pooled success versus 3.5% for a single‑query baseline, with a 27.3% within‑episode recovery rate on failed grasps and efficient token usage.
arXiv:2610.10526v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language-action models (VLAs) are strikingly sensitive to instruction phrasing and do not inherit the language robustness of the vision-langua...
arXiv:2606. 29654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review.
arXiv:2606. 29699v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision Language Action models combine perception, language grounding, and control in a single policy, but their failures are hard to diagnose once visual conditions shift.