VLATest: Testing and Evaluating Vision-Language-Action Models for Robotic Manipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement of generative Al and multi-modal foundation models has shown significant potential in advancing robotic manipulation. Vision-language-action (VLA) models, in particular, have emerged as a promising approach for visuomotor control by leveraging large-scale vision-language data and robot demonstrations. However, current VLA models are typically evaluated using a limited set of hand-crafted scenes, leaving their general performance and robustness in diverse scenarios largely unexplored. To address this gap, we present VLATest, a fuzzing framework designed to generate robotic manipulation scenes for testing VLA models. Based on VLATest, we conducted an empirical study to assess the performance of seven representative VLA models. Our study results revealed that current VLA models lack the robustness necessary for practical deployment. Additionally, we investigated the impact of various factors, including the number of confounding objects, lighting conditions, camera poses, unseen objects, and task instruction mutations, on the VLA model’s performance. Our findings highlight the limitations of existing VLA models, emphasizing the need for further research to develop reliable and trustworthy VLA applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".