Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models achieve over 95% success on standard benchmarks. However, through systematic experiments, we find that current state-of-the-art VLA models largely ignore language instructions. Prior work lacks: (1) systematic semantic perturbation diagnostics, (2) a benchmark that forces language understanding by design, and (3) linguistically diverse training data. This paper constructs the LangGap benchmark, based on a four-dimensional semantic perturbation method -- varying instruction semantics while keeping the tabletop layout fixed -- revealing language understanding deficits in π0.5. Existing benchmarks like LIBERO assign only one task per layout, underutilizing available objects and target locations; LangGap fully diversifies pick-and-place tasks under identical layouts, forcing models to truly understand language. Experiments show that targeted data augmentation can partially close the language gap -- success rate improves from 0% to 90% with single-task training, and 0% to 28% with multi-task training. However, as semantic diversity of extended tasks increases, model learning capacity proves severely insufficient; even trained tasks perform poorly. This reveals a fundamental challenge for VLA models in understanding diverse language instructions -- precisely the long-term value of LangGap.
Figures & tables
LIBERO-Plus
LIBERO-PRO
Arch. †
Ours
Perturbation type
Surface
General
–
Semantic
Failure taxonomy
×
×
×
✓
Same-scene design
×
×
×
✓
Training data
Env.
None
None
Lang.
Training validation
×
×
–
✓
Approach
Bench.
Bench.
Arch.
Data+Bench.
TABLE I: Comparison with related work on VLA language understanding
Fig. 1: Four semantic perturbation types with example changes and observed success rates.
Suite
Ch. Obj.
Ch. Tgt.
Sp. Desc.
Drawer
libero_spatial
✓
✓
✓
✓
libero_object
✓
×
×
×
libero_goal
✓
✓
×
×
TABLE II: Perturbation dimensions tested in each LIBERO suite
Fig. 2: VLA performance under semantic perturbations. Original tasks achieve over 95% success on several suites. Semantic changes cause severe failures: Change Object 29.3%, Spatial Description 11.0%, Drawer Action 31.7%, and Change Target 0% across all 13 tasks.
Category
Tasks
Episodes
Success
Rate
By data source
Original (LIBERO)
40
800
750
93.8%
Extended (Ours)
59
1180
253
21.4%
Total
99
1980
1003
50.7%
By perturbation dimension
Change Object
38
760
223
29.3%
TABLE III: Diagnostic evaluation results on π 0.5
Fig. 3: Evaluation scenes from LIBERO suites that support multiple semantic variations.
LIBERO
LIBERO-Plus
LangGap
Total tasks
130
10,030
99
Extended (semantic)
0
–
59
Same-scene tasks
10
–
59
Ext. w/ training data
0
–
16
Training trajectories
3,000
20,000+
∼ 4,100
Perturbation dims.
–
7 †
4
TABLE IV: LangGap benchmark statistics
Tasks
Demos
r
Steps
Eval Tasks
Ep
Exp 1
1 ext
56
32
20K
1
10
Exp 2
1+5 ext
300
64
200K
5 ext
10
Exp 3
40+5 ext
∼ 2,000
64
200K
5 ext
10
Exp 4
16 ext
∼ 2,400
64
200K
16 ext
5
Exp 5
40+16 ext
4,093
64
200K
16 ext
5
TABLE V: Experimental setup across five configurations
Experiment
Training Config
Eval Tasks
Baseline
Ours
Single-task
1 ext
1
3.75
90.0
Spatial focused (5 extended tasks from libero_spatial)
6-task
1 orig + 5 ext
5 ext
0.0
28.0
45-task
40 orig + 5 ext
5 ext
0.0
4.0
Multi-suite (16 extended tasks across 3 suites)
16-task
16 ext only
16 ext
26.2
6.2
TABLE VI: Progressive validation across scales. Baseline refers to pretrained π 0.5 evaluated on corresponding tasks.
Spatial
Goal
Object
Libero-10
Total
Method
Orig
Ext
Orig
Ext
Orig
Ext
Orig
Orig
Ext
π 0.5
97.0
5.9
97.0
30.0
100.0
37.7
81.0
93.8
21.4
π 0
47.0
3.6
63.0
0.0
43.0
18.6
40.0
48.3
8.6
π 0-FAST
65.0
1.5
37.8
1.2
61.0
5.0
26.0
47.5
2.7
SmolVLA
17.0
3.2
44.0
0.0
50.0
13.2
41.0
38.0
6.4
π 0.5-Ours (45-task)
95.0
10.2
85.0
27.2
100.0
37.0
78.0
89.5
22.8
TABLE VII: Full benchmark evaluation across suites (20 ep/task). Orig = original LIBERO tasks; Ext = our extended tasks.
Method
Ch. Obj. (38)
Ch. Tgt. (13)
Sp. Desc. (5)
Drawer (3)
Total (59)
π 0.5
29.3
0.0
11.0
31.7
21.4
π 0
10.8
0.0
20.0
0.0
8.6
π 0-FAST
3.1
2.3
2.5
0.0
2.7
SmolVLA
7.6
0.0
8.0
16.7
6.4
π 0.5-Ours (45-task)
28.4
6.2
25.0
20.0
22.8
π 0.5-Ours (56-task)
27.5
5.0
17.0
3.3
20.4
TABLE VIII: Extended task evaluation by perturbation dimension (20 ep/task).