pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.11567 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.CV

Recognition: no theorem link

Dynamic Execution Commitment of Vision-Language-Action Models

Feng Chen , Xianghui Wang , Yuxuan Chen , Boying Li , Yefei He , Zeyu Zhang , Yicheng Wu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 01:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords Vision-Language-ActionAdaptive ExecutionAction ChunkingSelf-Speculative VerificationConsensus SamplingPrefix VerificationRobotics Control
0
0 comments X

The pith

Vision-language-action models can adaptively commit to action sequences by verifying the longest consistent prefix through consensus sampling and invariance checks.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Vision-language-action models typically commit to fixed short sequences of actions to balance speed and accuracy, but this fails in changing environments. The paper proposes A3 to compute consensus across multiple sampled trajectories and verify prefixes using two rules: one checking if low-consensus actions stay consistent when conditioned on high-consensus ones, and another ensuring the sequence is continuous from the start. This allows the model to dynamically choose how far ahead to execute based on current reliability. A reader would care because it removes the need for per-task tuning and could make AI-controlled robots more dependable in real-world dynamic conditions.

Core claim

The paper claims that reframing execution commitment as self-speculative prefix verification allows A3 to select the longest verifiable prefix by using group sampling for a trajectory-wise consensus score and applying consensus-ordered conditional invariance along with prefix-closed sequential consistency, thereby satisfying both model logic and execution constraints without fixed horizons.

What carries the argument

The Adaptive Action Acceptance (A3) mechanism, which uses group sampling to compute consensus scores and enforces two verification rules to determine the verifiable action prefix.

If this is right

  • Eliminates manual tuning of execution horizons for different tasks.
  • Provides a superior balance between success rate and inference speed across benchmarks.
  • Enhances performance in dynamic and out-of-distribution environments.
  • Applies to various existing VLA models without modification.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This verification strategy could be applied to other sequential prediction tasks like language modeling or video forecasting.
  • It suggests that internal model uncertainty can be probed through self-consistency checks without external supervision.
  • In practice, it might allow for more efficient resource use in robotic systems by avoiding unnecessary recomputation.

Load-bearing premise

A trajectory-wise consensus score from group sampling plus the two verification rules will accurately flag reliable prefixes even when the environment is dynamic or unfamiliar.

What would settle it

Running A3 on a VLA model in a simulated environment with unpredictable obstacles and measuring if the accepted horizons lead to fewer failures than fixed-horizon baselines while maintaining comparable average inference times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11567 by Boying Li, Feng Chen, Xianghui Wang, Yefei He, Yicheng Wu, Yuxuan Chen, Zeyu Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Performance analysis of π-0.5 under varying execution horizons on LIBERO benchmark [8]. (a) Success rate first increases while then decreases as horizon increases, dropping below 80% when horizon is larger than 15 for most suites. (b) Completion step increases substantially with a larger horizon, as failed recoveries and compounding errors drive total steps up to 1.5× higher than at horizon=1. (c) Forward … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of A 3 . Given the current observation and instruction, the VLM backbone and action expert generate K candidate action chunks. The chunks are mapped to induced trajectory states, from which the dominant mode is identified via clustering and its medoid selected as the primary draft; per-step consensus scores reflect the model’s self-consistency at each action position. The draft then undergoes dual… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Trade-off between success rate (top row) and forward calls (bottom row) across execution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the execution horizon across different tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two representative failure cases. (a) Misalignment between the mug handle and the hook in the hang mug task. (b) Self-occlusion of the inverted mug rim by the gripper in the flip mug task. 6 Conclusion and Future Work In this work, we identify the determination of execution commitment as a principled yet under￾explored inference problem in multi-step VLA systems, and reformulate horizon selection as a stat… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Implementation of dual verification tree. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models predominantly adopt action chunking, i.e., predicting and committing to a short horizon of consecutive low-level actions in a single forward pass, to amortize the inference cost of large-scale backbones and reduce per-step latency. However, committing these multi-step predictions to real-world execution requires balancing success rate against inference efficiency, a decision typically governed by fixed execution horizons tuned per task. Such heuristics ignore the state-dependent nature of predictive reliability, leading to brittle performance in dynamic or out-of-distribution settings. In this paper, we introduce A3, an Adaptive Action Acceptance mechanism that reframes dynamic execution commitment as a self-speculative prefix verification problem. A3 first computes a trajectory-wise consensus score of actions via group sampling, then selects a representative draft and prioritizes downstream verification. Specifically, it enforces: (1) consensus-ordered conditional invariance, which validates low-consensus actions by judging whether they remain consistent when re-decoded conditioned on high-consensus actions; and (2) prefix-closed sequential consistency, which guarantees physical rollout integrity by accepting only the longest continuous sequence of verified actions starting from the beginning. Consequently, the execution horizon emerges as the longest verifiable prefix satisfying both internal model logic and sequential execution constraints. Experiments across diverse VLA models and benchmarks demonstrate that A3 eliminates the need for manual horizon tuning while achieving a superior trade-off between execution robustness and inference throughput.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces A3, an Adaptive Action Acceptance mechanism for Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models. It reframes dynamic execution commitment of action chunks as a self-speculative prefix verification problem: a trajectory-wise consensus score is computed via group sampling, a representative draft is selected, and two rules are enforced—(1) consensus-ordered conditional invariance (re-decoding low-consensus actions conditioned on high-consensus ones) and (2) prefix-closed sequential consistency (accepting only the longest continuous verified prefix). The execution horizon is defined as the longest prefix satisfying both rules, eliminating manual tuning while improving the robustness-throughput trade-off, as shown in experiments across VLA models and benchmarks.

Significance. If the internal verification rules correlate with actual execution reliability, A3 offers a practical advance for deploying VLA models in dynamic settings by adapting horizons without external feedback or per-task tuning. The self-contained nature (no simulator or ground-truth required) is a potential strength for real-world use, but only if the internal checks prove robust.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Method (verification rules)] Abstract and Method section on verification rules: both Rule (1) (consensus-ordered conditional invariance) and Rule (2) (prefix-closed sequential consistency) operate exclusively via internal group sampling and re-decoding within the model's generative distribution, with no external grounding (ground-truth actions, simulator rollouts, or state feedback). This makes the central claim that the selected prefix satisfies 'sequential execution constraints' and 'physical rollout integrity' vulnerable to internally consistent but factually incorrect sequences under distribution shift.
  2. [Experiments] Experiments section: the reported superior trade-off between execution robustness and inference throughput is not accompanied by ablations or controls demonstrating that the adaptive horizon outperforms fixed horizons specifically in OOD or dynamic regimes; without such evidence the claim that A3 'eliminates the need for manual horizon tuning' while improving performance rests on unverified correlation between internal consensus and actual reliability.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the acronym 'A3' is introduced without expansion on first use.
  2. [Method] Method: the process for selecting the 'representative draft' after computing the trajectory-wise consensus score is described only at high level; a pseudocode listing or diagram would clarify the pipeline.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications and indicating the revisions we will make to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Method (verification rules)] Abstract and Method section on verification rules: both Rule (1) (consensus-ordered conditional invariance) and Rule (2) (prefix-closed sequential consistency) operate exclusively via internal group sampling and re-decoding within the model's generative distribution, with no external grounding (ground-truth actions, simulator rollouts, or state feedback). This makes the central claim that the selected prefix satisfies 'sequential execution constraints' and 'physical rollout integrity' vulnerable to internally consistent but factually incorrect sequences under distribution shift.

    Authors: We agree that A3's verification rules rely exclusively on internal group sampling and re-decoding without external grounding such as ground-truth actions or simulator feedback. This is an intentional design decision to support deployment in real-world settings where external signals may be unavailable or costly. The consensus score and conditional invariance checks are meant to identify prefixes where the model's own generative distribution exhibits high internal agreement and consistency, which our experiments indicate correlates with reliable execution. However, we recognize that under severe distribution shift, internally consistent sequences could still be factually incorrect. To address this concern directly, we will add a dedicated Limitations section in the revised manuscript that explicitly discusses the internal nature of the verification, its potential vulnerabilities, and avenues for future hybrid approaches that incorporate external feedback when available. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experiments] Experiments section: the reported superior trade-off between execution robustness and inference throughput is not accompanied by ablations or controls demonstrating that the adaptive horizon outperforms fixed horizons specifically in OOD or dynamic regimes; without such evidence the claim that A3 'eliminates the need for manual horizon tuning' while improving performance rests on unverified correlation between internal consensus and actual reliability.

    Authors: Our current experiments evaluate A3 on multiple VLA models and benchmarks that include dynamic and challenging scenarios, demonstrating improved robustness-throughput trade-offs relative to fixed-horizon baselines. These results support the practical benefit of adaptive horizons. That said, we concur that more explicit ablations isolating performance in out-of-distribution (OOD) regimes would provide stronger evidence for the claim that A3 eliminates manual tuning while improving reliability. In the revised manuscript, we will incorporate additional ablation studies and controls that directly compare A3 against a range of fixed horizons under OOD and dynamic test conditions to better substantiate the correlation between internal consensus and execution reliability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper defines A3 as a self-contained heuristic that computes a consensus score via internal group sampling and applies two new verification rules (consensus-ordered conditional invariance and prefix-closed sequential consistency) to select the longest prefix. The execution horizon is presented as the direct outcome of these rules by construction, with no equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations shown in the abstract or described method. The derivation does not reduce any claimed result to prior inputs; it introduces novel internal checks without external grounding or tautological loops.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unstated premise that group sampling yields a meaningful consensus score and that the two verification rules capture physical rollout integrity; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly quantified in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Group sampling produces a trajectory-wise consensus score that reflects predictive reliability
    Invoked in the description of how A3 computes the score before verification
  • domain assumption Conditional invariance and prefix-closed consistency together guarantee safe execution commitment
    Core of the two enforcement rules stated in the abstract
invented entities (1)
  • A3 Adaptive Action Acceptance mechanism no independent evidence
    purpose: To reframe dynamic execution commitment as self-speculative prefix verification
    Newly introduced construct that defines the adaptive horizon selection process

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5567 in / 1219 out tokens · 33089 ms · 2026-05-13T01:41:53.869503+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    $\pi_{0.5}$: a Vision-Language-Action Model with Open-World Generalization

    Physical Intelligence, Kevin Black, Noah Brown, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, et al. pi-0.5: a vision- language-action model with open-world generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16054, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    OpenVLA: An Open-Source Vision-Language-Action Model

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Gr-3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.15493,

    Chilam Cheang, Sijin Chen, Zhongren Cui, Yingdong Hu, Liqun Huang, Tao Kong, Hang Li, Yifeng Li, Yuxiao Liu, Xiao Ma, et al. Gr-3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.15493, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.24795 (2025)

    Zhaoshu Yu, Bo Wang, Pengpeng Zeng, Haonan Zhang, Ji Zhang, Lianli Gao, Jingkuan Song, Nicu Sebe, and Heng Tao Shen. A survey on efficient vision-language-action models, 2025. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.24795. 12

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    A Survey on Vision-Language-Action Models for Embodied AI

    Yecheng Jason Ma, Zhen Song, Yu Zhuang, Jianye Hao, and Irwin King. A survey on vision- language-action models for embodied ai, 2024. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14093

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13073 (2025)

    Runze Shao, Wenxuan Li, Lei Zhang, Rui Zhang, Zhicheng Liu, Ruocheng Chen, and Liqiang Nie. Large vlm-based vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation: A survey, 2025. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13073

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    GR00T N1: An Open Foundation Model for Generalist Humanoid Robots

    Johan Bjorck, Fernando Castañeda, Nikita Cherniadev, Xingye Da, Runyu Ding, Linxi Fan, Yu Fang, Dieter Fox, Fengyuan Hu, Spencer Huang, et al. Gr00t n1: An open foundation model for generalist humanoid robots.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14734, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44776–44791, 2023

    Bo Liu, Yifeng Zhu, Chongkai Gao, Yihao Feng, Qiang Liu, Yuke Zhu, and Peter Stone. Libero: Benchmarking knowledge transfer for lifelong robot learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:44776–44791, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    $\pi_0$: A Vision-Language-Action Flow Model for General Robot Control

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, et al. pi-0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Mixture of horizons in action chunking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.19433, 2025

    Dong Jing, Gang Wang, Jiaqi Liu, Weiliang Tang, Zelong Sun, Yunchao Yao, Zhenyu Wei, Yunhui Liu, Zhiwu Lu, and Mingyu Ding. Mixture of horizons in action chunking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.19433, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Everydayvla: A vision-language-action model for affordable robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05397, 2025

    Samarth Chopra, Alex McMoil, Ben Carnovale, Evan Sokolson, Rajkumar Kubendran, and Samuel Dickerson. Everydayvla: A vision-language-action model for affordable robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05397, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Vla knows its limits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.21445, 2026

    Haoxuan Wang, Gengyu Zhang, Yan Yan, Ramana Rao Kompella, and Gaowen Liu. Vla knows its limits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.21445, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    When attention sink emerges in language models: An empirical view.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10781,

    Xiangming Gu, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Qian Liu, Fengzhuo Zhang, Cunxiao Du, Ye Wang, and Min Lin. When attention sink emerges in language models: An empirical view.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10781, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    See what you are told: Visual attention sink in large multimodal models

    Seil Kang, Jinyeong Kim, Junhyeok Kim, and Seong Jae Hwang. See what you are told: Visual attention sink in large multimodal models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Self speculative decoding for diffusion large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04147,

    Yifeng Gao, Ziang Ji, Yuxuan Wang, Biqing Qi, Hanlin Xu, and Linfeng Zhang. Self speculative decoding for diffusion large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04147, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding

    Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 19274–19286. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Spatialvla: Exploring spatial representations for visual-language-action models

    Delin Qu, Haoming Song, Qizhi Chen, Yuanqi Yao, Xinyi Ye, Jiayuan Gu, Zhigang Wang, Yan Ding, Bin Zhao, Dong Wang, and Xuelong Li. Spatialvla: Exploring spatial representations for visual-language-action models. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA, June 2025

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Learning to act anywhere with task-centric latent actions

    Qingwen Bu, Yanting Yang, Jisong Cai, Shenyuan Gao, Guanghui Ren, Maoqing Yao, Ping Luo, and Hongyang Li. Learning to act anywhere with task-centric latent actions. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA, June 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Qwen3-VL Technical Report

    Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, Zesen Cheng, Lianghao Deng, Wei Ding, Chang Gao, Chunjiang Ge, et al. Qwen3-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Emerging Properties in Unified Multimodal Pretraining

    Chaorui Deng, Deyao Zhu, Kunchang Li, Chenhui Gou, Feng Li, Zeyu Wang, Shu Zhong, Weihao Yu, Xiaonan Nie, Ziang Song, et al. Emerging properties in unified multimodal pretraining.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14683, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Open X-Embodiment: Robotic Learning Datasets and RT-X Models

    Open X-Embodiment Collaboration, Abby O’Neill, et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models, 2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08864. 13

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    PaliGemma: A versatile 3B VLM for transfer

    Lucas Beyer, Andreas Steiner, André Susano Pinto, Alexander Kolesnikov, Xiao Wang, Daniel Salz, Maxim Neumann, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Michael Tschannen, Emanuele Bugliarello, et al. Paligemma: A versatile 3b vlm for transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07726, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion

    Cheng Chi, Zhenjia Xu, Siyuan Feng, Eric Cousineau, Yilun Du, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, and Shuran Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04137

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Accelerating vision-language-action model integrated with action chunking via parallel decoding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02310, 2025

    Wei Song, Jie Chen, Peng Ding, Hao Zhao, Wei Zhao, Zhi Zhong, Zhen Ge, Jun Ma, and Hong Li. PD-VLA: Accelerating vision-language-action model integrated with action chunking via parallel decoding, 2025. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02310

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Freqpolicy: Efficient flow-based visuomotor policy via frequency consistency, 2025

    Yu Su, Ning Liu, Dong Chen, Zhen Zhao, Kun Wu, Meng Li, Zhi Xu, Zhe Che, and Jie Tang. Freqpolicy: Efficient flow-based visuomotor policy via frequency consistency, 2025. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08822

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Zhao et al

    Tony Z. Zhao et al. Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware. In Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    CALVIN: A benchmark for language-conditioned policy learning for long-horizon robot manipulation tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3):7327–7334, 2022

    Oier Mees, Lukas Hermann, Erick Rosete-Beas, and Wolfram Burgard. CALVIN: A benchmark for language-conditioned policy learning for long-horizon robot manipulation tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3):7327–7334, 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Stephen James, Zicong Ma, David Rovick Arrojo, and Andrew J. Davison. RLBench: The robot learning benchmark & learning environment.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2):3019–3026, 2020

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    DROID: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset

    Alexander Khazatsky, Karl Pertsch, Suraj Nair, et al. DROID: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Delft, Netherlands, July 2024

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Zipar: Accelerating autoregressive image generation through spatial locality.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04062, 2(3):4, 2024

    Yefei He, Feng Chen, Yuanyu He, Shaoxuan He, Hong Zhou, Kaipeng Zhang, and Bohan Zhuang. Zipar: Accelerating autoregressive image generation through spatial locality.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04062, 2(3):4, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Swift: On-the-fly self- speculative decoding for llm inference acceleration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06916, 2024

    Heming Xia, Yongqi Li, Jun Zhang, Cunxiao Du, and Wenjie Li. Swift: On-the-fly self- speculative decoding for llm inference acceleration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06916, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Large Language Diffusion Models

    Shen Nie, Fengqi Zhu, Zebin You, Xiaolu Zhang, Jingyang Ou, Jun Hu, Jun Zhou, Yankai Lin, Ji-Rong Wen, and Chongxuan Li. Large language diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09992, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Explain before you answer: A survey on compositional visual reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.17298, 2025

    Fucai Ke, Joy Hsu, Zhixi Cai, Zixian Ma, Xin Zheng, Xindi Wu, Sukai Huang, Weiqing Wang, Pari Delir Haghighi, Gholamreza Haffari, et al. Explain before you answer: A survey on compositional visual reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.17298, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Shuo Wang, Ruize Yu, Zhiyuan Yuan, Chao Yu, Feng Gao, Yilin Wang, and Derek F. Wong. Spec-vla: Speculative decoding for vision-language-action models with relaxed acceptance,

    work page

  35. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22424

    work page arXiv

  36. [36]

    An overview of model predictive control.Interna- tional Journal of control and automation, 3(4):47–63, 2010

    Kailas S Holkar and Laxman M Waghmare. An overview of model predictive control.Interna- tional Journal of control and automation, 3(4):47–63, 2010

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Model predictive control.Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 38(13-56):7, 2016

    Basil Kouvaritakis and Mark Cannon. Model predictive control.Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 38(13-56):7, 2016

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25122 (2025)

    Jiahong Chen, Jing Wang, Long Chen, Chuwei Cai, and Jinghui Lu. Nanovla: Routing decoupled vision-language understanding for nano-sized generalist robotic policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25122, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    The kinematics of contact and grasp.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 7(3):17–32, 1988

    David J Montana. The kinematics of contact and grasp.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 7(3):17–32, 1988. 14 VLM Observation Prompt Action Expert Consensus Estimation 0.8 0.70.6 0.40.1 Score ordered input Sequential ordered input Action Expert Progressive verification match✅ match✅ mismatch❌ . . . ✅ ❌ ❌ ❌ ❌ parallel inference Joint decision sc...

    work page 1988

  40. [40]

    Rlinf-user: A unified and extensible system for real-world online policy learning in embodied ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07837, 2026

    Hongzhi Zang, Shu’ang Yu, Hao Lin, Tianxing Zhou, Zefang Huang, Zhen Guo, Xin Xu, Jiakai Zhou, Yuze Sheng, Shizhe Zhang, Feng Gao, Wenhao Tang, Yufeng Yue, Quanlu Zhang, Xinlei Chen, Chao Yu, and Yu Wang. Rlinf-user: A unified and extensible system for real-world online policy learning in embodied ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07837, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Maniskill: Generalizable manipulation skill bench- mark with large-scale demonstrations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14483, 2021

    Tongzhou Mu, Zhan Ling, Fanbo Xiang, Derek Yang, Xuanlin Li, Stone Tao, Zhiao Huang, Zhiwei Jia, and Hao Su. Maniskill: Generalizable manipulation skill benchmark with large-scale demonstrations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14483, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning

    Tianhe Yu, Deirdre Quillen, Zhanpeng He, Ryan Julian, Karol Hausman, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning. InConference on robot learning, pages 1094–1100. PMLR, 2020. A Implementation Details Implementation of the verification tree.As shown in Figure 6, following the self-s...

    work page 2020