CheckVLA: Execution-Time Verification with Action-Conditioned World Model for Long-Horizon Mobile Manipulation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26789v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 11:31:33 GMT
• Title: CheckVLA: Execution-Time Verification with Action-Conditioned World Model for Long-Horizon Mobile Manipulation
• Abstract summary: Vision-language-action (VLA) policies execute long-horizon mobile manipulation through open-loop action chunks.<n>We propose CheckVLA, which verifies execution with a separately trained, frozen action-conditioned world model.<n>On RoboCasa365, under a common training recipe and a matched invocation budget, CheckVLA attains a 36.1% average success rate against 27.6% for periodic replanning.
• Score: 15.532709298240215
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Vision-language-action (VLA) policies commonly execute long-horizon mobile manipulation through open-loop action chunks, issuing multiple actions without receiving new high-level visual input. A committed chunk therefore implies how observations should evolve, but accidental deviations can violate this expectation while the remaining actions continue to propagate the error: commit-time policy confidence cannot react to a deviation that occurs after dispatch, and observation-only anomaly scores lack an action-conditioned reference for separating expected effects from unexplained changes. We propose CheckVLA, which verifies execution with a separately trained, frozen action-conditioned world model. A conformally calibrated risk threshold bounds the episode-level probability of an unnecessary first intervention and determines when to intervene, its exceedance controls how strongly the rewritten suffix retains the superseded chunk, latency-aware hard prefixing restricts replacement to actions that remain deployable, and an event-driven keyframe bank preserves evidence of prior progress across repairs. On RoboCasa365, under a common training recipe and a matched invocation budget, CheckVLA attains a 36.1% average success rate against 27.6% for periodic replanning (+8.5 points). At a matched 5% episode-level false-alarm target, action conditioning raises timely recall to 77.9%, against 48.6% for an observation-only control and 37.9% for an action-shuffled control. These simulation results support action-conditioned verification as a way to restore feedback during chunked execution while keeping the repair consistent with inference latency.

Related papers

• Guardrailed Meta-Agent Loops: Stress-Testing Policy Pinning, Budget Bounds, and Crash Recovery [7.414694666903067]
  GuardrailLoop is a simulation-based testbed that makes three operational contracts jointly testable.<n>A hash-pinned policy fixes goals, scope, evaluation identity, budget, and release conditions.<n>It separates useful adaptation, state recovery, and repeated execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T21:22:08Z)
• VLA-Corrector: Stage-Aware Observable State Understanding for Prompt-Based Closed-Loop Recovery of Vision-Language-Action Policies [12.698552476812855]
  Long-horizon robot manipulation with Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies remains vulnerable to execution-time deviations.<n>We introduce a stage-aware failure verification and Prompt Recovery framework that enables closed-loop correction of a fixed VLA policy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-06T09:50:30Z)
• EmbodiedSkills: A Unified Framework for Orchestrating, Training, and Deploying VLA Agents [56.25120535601186]
  Vision-language-action (VLA) models map visual observations and language instructions directly to robot actions.<n>We propose EmbodiedSkills, a framework that treats each skill decision as an execution proposal.<n>A shared executable-skill interface connects high-level skill selection, bounded low-level VLA execution, and post-action verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T14:14:47Z)
• Why Does Action Chunking Improve Behavioral Cloning Performance in Robotic Control? [78.81308700607651]
  Action chunking predicts and executes multiple actions instead of a single action.<n>We show that action chunking benefits from greater non-Markovian expressivity and reduced compounding error compared to Markovian policies.<n>We propose a policy class that amplifies the benefits of action chunking by explicitly instantiating an ensemble.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T17:32:45Z)
• ActFovea: Runtime Safeguarding for VLA Policies via Spatiotemporal Visual-Action Consistency [23.6841289206823]
  Vision-language-action (VLA) policies achieve strong performance in robotic manipulation.<n>They are vulnerable to runtime disturbances that break the temporal alignment among visual observations, robot states, and executed actions.<n>We introduce ActFovea, a plug-and-play safeguarding framework that detects and mitigates such failures without retraining or modifying the underlying VLA policy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-31T08:47:57Z)
• FutureRTC: Real-Time Robot Execution with Anticipatory-Conditioned Action Chunking [51.97839311685636]
  FutureRTC is a plug-and-play adaptation framework that predicts execution-time observations and states for asynchronous VLA control without modifying the underlying policy.<n>We show that FutureRTC achieves robustness to inference delays, resulting in smoother trajectories, faster execution, and consistently higher task success rates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T05:10:16Z)
• TrustVLA: Mechanism-Guided Inference-Time Defense Against Vision-Language-Action Backdoors [54.12833308568015]
  Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are deployed through pipelines that end users cannot audit.<n>A small visual trigger redirects a long-horizon robot policy before any failure becomes observable.<n>We study this gap through two independently proposed VLA attacks from groups with distinct injection strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-14T09:43:52Z)
• Calibration Is Not Control: Why LLM-Agent Oversight Needs Intervention [14.376426170653707]
  Two trajectory prefixes can have the same risk estimate while requiring different actions, because one remains recoverable and the other does not.<n>We formalize this mismatch as target error and identify intervention advantage, the expected utility gain from intervening rather than continuing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T13:08:17Z)
• Pre-VLA: Preemptive Runtime Verification for Reliable Vision-Language-Action and World-Model Rollouts [18.44683570310399]
  Low-quality actions may cause physical failures during execution or lead to misleading world-model rollouts with redundant rendering costs.<n>We propose Pre-VLA, a unified runtime verification architecture that performs preemptive action assessment validity before physical execution or world-model imagination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T13:13:31Z)
• DEFLECT: Delay-Robust Execution via Flow-matching Likelihood-Estimated Counterfactual Tuning for VLA Policies [12.248643831532663]
  DEFLECT substantially extends the usable delay envelope of async VLA control, with +6.4 success-rate gain in the high-latency regime (5-7 control steps), +4.6 when transferred to a real-scale VLA at the longest delay.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T03:14:11Z)
• ClawForge: Generating Executable Interactive Benchmarks for Command-Line Agents [59.626170560327274]
  We present textbfClawForge, a generator-backed benchmark framework for executable command-line categories under state conflict.<n>We instantiate this framework as the ClawForge-Bench (17 scenarios, 6 ability categories)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T21:34:08Z)
• Dynamic Execution Commitment of Vision-Language-Action Models [21.647844049489535]
  We introduce A3, an Adaptive Action Acceptance mechanism that reframes dynamic execution commitment as a self-speculative prefix verification problem.<n>A3 first computes a trajectory-wise consensus score of actions via group sampling, then selects a representative draft and prioritizes downstream verification.<n> 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 and inference throughput.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T05:52:58Z)
• Code-as-Monitor: Constraint-aware Visual Programming for Reactive and Proactive Robotic Failure Detection [56.66677293607114]
  We propose Code-as-Monitor (CaM) for both open-set reactive and proactive failure detection.<n>To enhance the accuracy and efficiency of monitoring, we introduce constraint elements that abstract constraint-related entities.<n>Experiments show that CaM achieves a 28.7% higher success rate and reduces execution time by 31.8% under severe disturbances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-05T18:58:27Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.