analiza aiqbench
This research introduces ConflictVLA-Bench, a new benchmark designed to evaluate how Vision-Language-Action models behave when faced with invalid task premises. The study reveals a recurring "Failed Persistence" pattern where models continue pursuing original goals despite logical contradictions, indicating that terminal failure metrics alone are insufficient for assessing model reliability or refusal behaviors. These findings highlight critical gaps in current evaluation frameworks for embodied AI systems operating under conflicting instructions.
ConflictVLA-Bench: Benchmarking Behavioral Responses of Vision-Language-Action Models to Premise Conflicts
arXiv:2609.31792v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models perform strongly on manipulation tasks, their responses to invalid task premises remain underexplored. Existing evaluations of premise conflicts often focus on terminal task outcomes, yet task failure alone cannot distinguish behavioral disengagement from continued pursuit followed by an execution error. We call the latter pattern Failed Persistence. To study this phenomenon, we introduce ConflictVLA-Bench, which pairs conflict rollouts with premise-consistent reference rollouts and evaluates both outcomes and execution processes. Built on LIBERO, the benchmark contains 2,826 prompt-conditioned conflict tasks spanning four conflict families, four structural configurations, and two prompt conditions. Across all eight VLAs, invalid premises reduce original goal completion by at least 17.3 percentage points, with the reduction reaching 56.2 percentage points for OpenVLA. Crucially, even when models succeed on premise-consistent tasks and fail on their matched conflict tasks, they often continue to approach the original targets, retain early trajectory structure, and show limited action magnitude suppression. Failed Persistence therefore recurs across the evaluated models. Explicit premise checking does not consistently produce selective and coordinated behavioral changes. These findings show that terminal failure alone establishes neither behavioral disengagement nor refusal and that outcomes alone are insufficient for VLA evaluation. Experimental data and additional details are available on the project page: https://github.com/EmbodiedAISurvey/ConflictVLA-Bench
Abstract:While Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models perform strongly on manipulation tasks, their responses to invalid task premises remain underexplored. Existing evaluations of premise conflicts often focus on terminal task outcomes, yet task failure alone cannot distinguish behavioral disengagement from continued pursuit followed by an execution error. We call the latter pattern Failed Persistence. To study this phenomenon, we introduce ConflictVLA-Bench, which pairs conflict rollouts with premise-consistent reference rollouts and evaluates both outcomes and execution processes. Built on LIBERO, the benchmark contains 2,826 prompt-conditioned conflict tasks spanning four conflict families, four structural configurations, and two prompt conditions. Across all eight VLAs, invalid premises reduce original goal completion by at least 17.3 percentage points, with the reduction reaching 56.2 percentage points for OpenVLA. Crucially, even when models succeed on premise-consistent tasks and fail on their matched conflict tasks, they often continue to approach the original targets, retain early trajectory structure, and show limited action magnitude suppression. Failed Persistence therefore recurs across the evaluated models. Explicit premise checking does not consistently produce selective and coordinated behavioral changes. These findings show that terminal failure alone establishes neither behavioral disengagement nor refusal and that outcomes alone are insufficient for VLA evaluation. Experimental data and additional details are available on the project page: this https URL
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Robotics (cs.RO)
arXiv:2609.31792 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.31792v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.31792 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 304 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] The Future of Latent Space
Latent Space · 25 sept. 2026

[AINews] Opus 5.5 is good at explainer videos
Latent Space · 29 sept. 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026
Amazon is investing in the Lean Focused Research Organization
Amazon Science · 26 iul. 2026