arXiv AI By Zaruhi Navasardyan, Tatul Danielyan, Hrant Davtyan

FailBench: How Reliable are VLMs at Judging Robot Task Success?

Read the original on arXiv AI →

FailBench is a new benchmark for robot failure detection, containing 2,197 manipulation attempts from 14 public sources, with 75% of failures occurring naturally. The study evaluates 13 vision‑language model (VLM) detectors, finding the best model achieves only 0.77 mean balanced accuracy, and that fine‑tuned failure detectors often underperform general‑purpose VLMs. Performance varies with visual evidence, excelling when object motion is observable but dropping to near chance on contact‑intensive assembly tasks, and input‑level cropping of outcome‑relevant regions improves the top detector by 2.4 percentage points.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 12

VLA-FAIL: Efficient Task Failure Detection for Finetuned Vision-Language-Action Models

VLA-FAIL introduces a lightweight framework for detecting failures in vision-language-action models used in robotic manipulation. It combines two novel detectors: the first-layer Mahalanobis distance (LLMD) identifies out-of-distribution states by comparing token-wise deviations in last-layer features to training data, while the second, action chunk consistency (ACC), detects failures by spotting inconsistencies between consecutive action chunks in receding-horizon control. The authors also propose a threshold‑independent metric, “AUCPDT,” to evaluate detection accuracy and latency, and show through real‑world and simulation experiments that LLMD and ACC together provide reliable and early failure detection, outperforming more expensive baseline methods.

By Florian Seligmann, Emiliyan Gospodinov, Enes Ulas Dincer, Gerhard Neumann
arXiv AI
Jun 30

RoboGaze: Evaluating Robot World Models via Structured Vision-Language Analysis

arXiv:2606. 28385v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent advances in robot world models enable synthetic video generation for embodied prediction and planning.

By Minh-Loi Nguyen, Nghiem Tuong Diep, Hung Khang Nguyen, Minh Le, Doanh Le Thien, Hoang H. Tran, Dung D. Le, Vu N. Duong, Daniel Sonntag, An Thai Le, Duy Minh Ho Nguyen, Vien Anh Ngo, Tran Van Nhiem
arXiv AI
2d ago

Failure Prediction and Classification in Vision-Language-Action Models Via Calibrated Latent Probing

The paper introduces VLA‑Tug, a lightweight probe that monitors latent layers of Vision‑Language‑Action models to detect failures early and predict failure modes. By supervising on pre‑failure segments, it improves early detection by up to 30% at matched false‑positive rates and maintains valid missed‑detection and false‑alarm bounds in 86% of runs under unseen task shifts, outperforming existing baselines. The method also raises top‑3 accuracy on unseen tasks by up to 44% and supports real‑time, edge‑efficient monitoring for safer deployment.

By Michal P. Podolinsky, Yunhao Yang, Daniel Little, Hong Lu, Rohan Siva, Olin Goudey, Neel P. Bhatt, Matthias Scheutz, Ufuk Topcu
arXiv Computer Vision
Sep 7

FailureSpot: Label-Efficient Timestamp-Level Failure Detection for Vision-Language-Action Models

The paper introduces FailureSpot, a label‑efficient method for detecting failures at the timestamp level in vision‑language‑action (VLA) policies. It first generates weak supervision from unlabeled VLA action chunks by identifying abnormal patterns, then employs active learning to annotate only the most uncertain trajectories. Experiments on multiple VLA policies demonstrate improved performance for both timestamp‑level and trajectory‑level failure detection.

By Jie Ma, Zongxi Liu, Yi Zhu
arXiv AI
Sep 21

VLA-Scope: Shift-Aware Failure Prediction for Vision-Language-Action Models

VLA-Scope is a two‑stage framework designed to predict failures in vision‑language‑action models under distribution shifts. The first stage detects out‑of‑distribution inputs and classifies their shift categories using pooled image and language representations. For OOD inputs, the second stage updates failure risk during execution by combining shift category, action‑prefix features, and execution progress, achieving a ROC‑AUC of 0.8497 after 60 actions and outperforming baseline methods.

By Kaiwen Zhu, Dongfang Liu, Liangkai Liu