LangGap: Diagnosing and Closing the Language Gap in Vision-Language-Action Models

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have shown strong performance in language-conditioned robotic manipulation, yet their robustness to linguistic variation remains poorly understood. In this work, we present the first systematic multilingual evaluation of VLA models by translating the LIBERO benchmark into ten languages, revealing severe performance degradation under non-English instructions, with success rates dropping by 30-50%. Through fine-grained analysis of task executions, we find that language influence is highly non-uniform across steps: certain steps exhibit strong language dependence and dominate overall task failure, while others are largely language-agnostic. Based on this insight, we propose a step-wise inference-time intervention that aligns representations according to step language sensitivity, substantially improving performance under linguistic variation. Our results indicate that language robustness in VLA models is fundamentally a step-wise control problem, highlighting the importance of temporally structured analysis for reliable embodied agents.

Vision-Language-Action models have recently demonstrated promising capabilities in learning generalist robot policies from large-scale multimodal data. However, most existing VLA systems are trained and evaluated primarily with English instructions, leaving their ability to understand and execute instructions in other languages largely unexplored. While the underlying large language models often possess multilingual capabilities, it remains unclear whether these multilingual capabilities transfer to VLAs during training. In this work, we present the first systematic study of multilingual instruction following in VLA models. We first construct multilingual instructions by extending existing benchmarks with translations of their instructions. Using these instructions, we evaluate several representative VLA models across a range of tasks in simulation settings. Our experiments reveal a significant multilingual gap: models trained primarily on English instructions exhibit substantial performance degradation when evaluated on other languages, even when the underlying language backbone is multilingual. We provide several findings and analyses to understand the multilingual gap. Cross-lingual transfer behavior analysis shows that performance drops correlate with both instruction understanding and action execution. Representation analyses suggest that multilingual instruction-caused representation shifts may contribute to the multilingual gap. Motivated by these findings, we further explore strategies to improve multilingual performance in VLAs. We propose a simple yet effective multilingual fine-tuning approach, Multilingual Principal Component Alignment, which leverages Principal Component Analysis to get the principal component subspace and align projected multilingual representations, effectively reducing the multilingual performance gap.

Vision-Language-Action models are designed to generalise across environments and task descriptions, raising the question of whether their action generation actually depends on the language instruction, or whether they largely rely on visual cues and superficial correlations. Robustness to variance in the visual and linguistic observation space is critical for real-world deployment, yet VLAs lack explicit grounding modules and instead rely on the intrinsic language grounding capabilities of their Vision-Language model backbones. For this reason, we conduct a controlled mechanistic interpretability study on the language grounding capabilities of two state-of-the-art Vision-Language-Action models, $π_{0.5}$ and GR00T N1.7, by applying activation and attribution patching to the residual stream of the action generation modules. We systematically corrupt the task instruction of input samples of the LIBERO benchmark following five strategies: synonym replacement, semantic scaling, directional corruption, random object substitution, and empty string. Our experiments find that both models are comparatively insensitive to abstract rephrasing and to referencing non-existent objects, but react strongly to empty task descriptions and, especially, to directional language. During action generation, this sensitivity is concentrated in different loci for each model: mainly in the early, periodic cross-attention layers for GR00T N1.7, versus distributed across the earliest and selected later layers for $π_{0.5}$. For GR00T N1.7, directional perturbations drive some of the largest causal effects while leaving the internal representational geometry comparatively unchanged, a dissociation we do not observe clearly for $π_{0.5}$. Finally, the reliability of attribution patching is model-dependent: it closely tracks activation patching for GR00T N1.7 but not for $π_{0.5}$.