Robotic Foundation Models for Industrial Control: A Comprehensive Survey and Readiness Assessment Framework
Organizations: Factory Automation, Siemens AG, Gleiwitzer Straße 555, Nuremberg, 90475, Germany. · Institute for Technologies and Management of Digital Transformation, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Gaußstraße 20, Wuppertal, 42119, Germany.
Abstract
Robotic foundation models (RFMs) are emerging as a promising route towards flexible, instruction- and demonstration-driven robot control, however, a critical investigation of their industrial applicability is still lacking. This survey gives an extensive overview over the RFM-landscape and analyses, driven by concrete implications, how industrial domains and use cases shape the requirements of RFMs, with particular focus on collaborative robot platforms, heterogeneous sensing and actuation, edge-computing constraints, and safety-critical operation. We synthesise industrial deployment perspectives into eleven interdependent implications and operationalise them into an assessment framework comprising a catalogue of 149 concrete criteria, spanning both model capabilities and ecosystem requirements. Using this framework, we evaluate 324 manipulation-capable RFMs via 48,276 criterion-level decisions obtained via a conservative LLM-assisted evaluation pipeline, validated against expert judgements. The results indicate that industrial maturity is limited and uneven: even the highest-rated models satisfy only a fraction of criteria and typically exhibit narrow implication-specific peaks rather than integrated coverage. We conclude that progress towards industry-grade RFMs depends less on isolated benchmark successes than on systematic incorporation of safety, real-time feasibility, robust perception, interaction, and cost-effective system integration into auditable deployment stacks.
Figures & tables
| Ref | Focus Area | Scope | Models | Span | Broad | Year |
| Ma et al. (2025b) | VLAs for embodied AI | Architectures, challenges, components, control, datasets, objectives, resources, simulators, tasks, task planning, taxonomy | Encoder, LLM, VLA, VLM | 14-24 | ✓ | 2025 |
| Zhong et al. (2025a) | Action tokenisation in VLAs | Action token categorisation: (affordance, code, goal state, language, latent, raw action, reasoning, trajectory), datasets, FM evolution | LFM, VFM, VLA, VLM | 17-25 | ✓ | 2025 |
| Xu et al. (2025a) | Challenges and roadmap in VLAs | Applications, challenges: (dataset and evaluation, execution, generalization, representation, safety), evolution, roadmap, milestones, modules, opportunities | VLA | 22-25 | ✓ | 2025 |
| Zhou et al. (2025b) | Language-conditioned robot manipulation | Auxiliary tasks, challenges, datasets, evaluation, environments, learning paradigms, limitations, neuro-symbolic, planning, reasoning, reward shaping, semantics extraction, task representation | FM, LLM, VLA, VLM | 18-24 | ✓ | 2025 |
| Shao et al. (2025) | Large VLM-based VLAs | Architectures (hierarchical, monolithic), benchmarks, characteristics, datasets, task planning, learning paradigms, memory mechanisms, multi-agents, operational strengths, taxonomy | VLA | 23-25 | ✓ | 2025 |
| Cui et al. (2025) | Dual-System VLAs | Architectures, definition, design-elements, empirical evaluation, training strategies | VLA | 24-25 | ✗ | 2025 |
| Ref | Focus Area | Scope | Models | Span | Broad | Year |
| Fan et al. (2025c) | VLMs in HRC for smart manufacturing | Architectures, human-robot skill transfer, limitations, manipulation, navigation, pretraining, task planning | LLM, VLM | 20-24 | ✓ | 2025 |
| Ren et al. (2024a) | Embodied intelligence in smart manufacturing | Applications, architecture, challenges, characteristics, capabilities, limitations | N/A | N/A | ✗ | 2024 |
| Type | Config | Comments |
| Delta | (PPP) Parallel | • Several symmetric kinematic chains • High speed & acceleration • Redundancy increases accuracy |
| Cartesian | (PPP) Serial | • Perpendicular prismatic joints • Smooth linear movement • Rectangular workspace |
| Cylindrical | (RPP) Serial | • Rotational base combined with two prismatic joints • Cylindrical workspace |
| SCARA | (RRP) Serial | • Both revolute joints along the same axis • High accuracy & repeatability • Planar positioning |
| Spherical Arm | (RRP/RRR) Serial | • Revolute axes intersect at a common center point • Simplifies collision & reachability analysis • Spherical workspace |
| Articulated | (RRR) Serial | • Revolute joints’ axes typically offset • Similar to human arm • Flexible 3D workspace |
| DoF | Payload | Reach | Accuracy | |
| (kg) | (mm) | (mm) | ||
| Min | 4 | 0.3 | 280 | 0.01 |
| Max | 7 | 170 | 2790 | 1 |
| Mean | 6.09 | 8.56 | 970.12 | 0.09 |
| Median | 6 | 5.5 | 910 | 0.05 |
| Payload | TCP Velocity | Power Consumption | |
| (kg) | (m/s) | (kW) | |
| Min | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.06 |
| Max | 20 | 6 | 0.9 |
| Mean | 6.69 | 1.68 | 0.31 |
| Median | 5 | 1.1 | 0.25 |
| Jetson Device | Price (\downarrow$ | TOPS (INT8) | Memory (GB) | Power (W) | GOPS /\uparrow$ | TOPS /W | Memory (MB)/\uparrow$ | \downarrow$ | TOPS /y\uparrow$ |
| Orin Nano 4GB | 229 | 34 | 4 | 25 | 148.47 | 1.36 | 17.47 | 54.75 | 0.62 |
| Orin Nano 8GB | 249 | 67 | 8 | 25 | 269.08 | 2.68 | 32.13 | 54.75 | 1.22 |
| Orin Nano SuDK | 249 | 67 | 8 | 25 | 269.08 | 2.68 | 32.13 | 54.75 | 1.22 |
| Orin NX 8GB | 479 | 117 | 8 | 40 | 244.26 | 2.93 | 16.7 | 87.6 | 1.34 |
| Orin NX 16GB | 699 | 157 | 16 | 40 | 224.61 | 3.93 | 22.89 | 87.6 | 1.79 |
| Orin AGX 32GB | 999 | 200 | 32 | 40 | 200.2 | 5 | 32.03 | 87.6 | 2.28 |
| (1) Hardware | (13) Security | (25) Actions/ Outputs | (37) Precision & Accuracy |
| (2) Tasks | (14) Detection, Recognition & Understanding | (26) Skills | (38) Trust |
| (3) Environment | (15) Multimodal Inputs/ Outputs | (27) Observation/ Input | (39) Goal Specification & Interpretation |
| (4) Objects/ Materials | (16) Integration | (28) External Influences/ Disturbances | (40) Solution Strategy |
| (5) Instructability/ Commanding | (17) Safety | (29) Reaction | (41) Offline Adaptation (Finetuning/ Retraining) |
| (6) Distractors/ Distractions | (18) Compliance | (30) Validation/ Benchmark/ Evaluation | (42) Energy |
| (7) Adaptability/ Generalisation/ Flexibility | (19) Supervision | (31) Realtime Performance & Inference Frequency | (43) Data |
| Gemini Robotics 1.5 Team et al. (2025a) | OpenVLA Kim et al. (2024a) | Black et al. (2024) | ||||
| Implication | Expert | LLM | Expert | LLM | Expert | LLM |
| I1 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| I2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| I3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| I4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| I5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Setting | Acy | F1 | FPR/FNR | ||
| All | 447 | 0.966 | 0.762 | 0.744 | 1.9%/22.6% |
| InfoFound | 304 | 0.951 | 0.762 | 0.734 | 2.9%/22.6% |
| Paper | Pos% | Acy | F1 | ||
| Gemini 1.5 Team et al. (2025a) | 0.121 | 0.960 | 0.833 | 0.810 | 0.714 |
| OpenVLA Kim et al. (2024a) | 0.060 | 0.973 | 0.800 | 0.786 | 0.667 |
| Black et al. (2024) | 0.027 | 0.966 | 0.286 | 0.269 | 0.167 |
| Ref | Model | Total | I1 | I2 | I3 | I4 | I5 | I6 | I7 | I8 | I9 | I10 | I11 |
| Team et al. (2025a) | Gemini Robotics 1.5 | 0.12 | 0.44 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.09 |
| Sun et al. (2025c) | Collab VLA | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.21 | 0.08 | 0.09 |
| Li et al. (2025m) | GF-VLA | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.27 |
| Lin et al. (2025a) | OneTwo VLA | 0.11 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
| Li et al. (2025b) | SC-VLA | 0.11 | 0.33 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.15 | 0.09 |
| Ref | Model | Total | I1 | I2 | I3 | I4 | I5 | I6 | I7 | I8 | I9 | I10 | I11 |
| Sun et al. (2025c) | Collab VLA | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.21 | 0.08 | 0.09 |
| Jones et al. (2025b) | FuSe | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 0.27 |
| Team et al. (2025a) | Gemini Robotics 1.5 | 0.12 | 0.44 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.09 |
| Huang et al. (2025c) | GraphCoT VLA | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
| Li et al. (2025p) | HAMSTER | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.36 |
| Wu et al. (2025a) | HiBer NAC | 0.10 | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.15 | 0.09 |
| Metric | Corpus | I1 | I2 | I3 | I4 | I5 | I6 | I7 | I8 | I9 | I10 | I11 |
| 1+ | Full | 0.756 | 0.034 | 0.052 | 0.172 | 0.167 | 0.049 | 0.071 | 0.219 | 0.213 | 0.753 | 0.707 |
| Top 50 | 1.0 | 0.22 | 0.34 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.32 | 0.46 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| ACC | Full | 0.089 | 0.003 | 0.007 | 0.016 | 0.014 | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.017 | 0.019 | 0.099 | 0.097 |
| Top 50 | 0.238 | 0.019 | 0.043 | 0.096 | 0.086 | 0.036 | 0.05 | 0.081 | 0.097 | 0.232 | 0.227 |
| Criterion | Impl | Fulfilled | Rate | Expl(fulf) | Evid | ConfFul |
| Multi-Task Generalisation | I1 | 160 | 0.4938 | 0.2812 | 0.9938 | 0.8605 |
| Flexible Data Type Acceptance | I11 | 158 | 0.4877 | 0.3671 | 0.9907 | 0.8693 |
| Repeatability & Reproducibility | I10 | 145 | 0.4475 | 0.2483 | 0.9815 | 0.8474 |
| Low-Data Adaptation & Few-Shot Requirements | I11 | 136 | 0.4198 | 0.8088 | 0.9907 | 0.9102 |
| Module & Skill-Specific Benchmarking | I10 | 129 | 0.3981 | 0.0698 | 0.9938 | 0.8517 |
| Generalisation to Environmental Variation | I1 | 101 | 0.3117 | 0.5446 | 0.9815 | 0.8739 |
| Impl | Criterion | EvidRate | FulfillRate | |
| I1 | Multi-Task Generalisation | 0.5000 | 0.9938 | 0.4938 |
| I2 | Reactive, Real-Time Safety | 0.8086 | 0.8117 | 0.0031 |
| I3 | Collaborative Adaptation | 0.8735 | 0.8981 | 0.0247 |
| I4 | Environmental Robustness & Adaptation | 0.9475 | 0.9907 | 0.0432 |
| I5 | Consistency Over Time & Contexts | 0.8796 | 0.9969 | 0.1173 |
| I6 | Goal-Responsive Solution Strategies | 0.9352 | 0.9722 | 0.0370 |
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Ref | Title | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Sun et al. (2025a) | A Review of Embodied Grasping | 2025 |
| Yuan et al. (2025a) | A Survey of Behavior Foundation Model: Next-Generation Whole-Body Control System of Humanoid Robots | 2025 |
| Ma et al. (2025b) | A Survey on Vision-Language-Action Models for Embodied AI | 2025 |
| Zhong et al. (2025a) | A Survey on Vision-Language-Action Models: An Action Tokenization Perspective | 2025 |
| Gao et al. (2025b) | A Taxonomy for Evaluating Generalist Robot Policies | 2025 |
| Liu et al. (2025i) | Aligning Cyber Space with Physical World: A Comprehensive Survey on Embodied AI | 2025 |
| Implication | Category/ Criterion |
|---|---|
| I1: | A. Multi-Hardware and Configuration Adaptability |
| Adaptability & Flexibility | 1. Multi-Hardware Support: Operates with different kinematics, sensors, and end-effectors without retraining. |
| 2. Hot-Swappable & Dimensionality Adaptation: Sensors/actuators can be replaced, added, or removed during operation. Automatically detects and configures input/output channels at runtime according to connected hardware and environmental context: Flexibly adapts the dimensionality, type and interpretation without manual intervention or system restart. | |
| B. Task Adaptability and Strategy Flexibility | |
| 3. Multi-Task Generalisation: Handles multiple task types/categories, including unseen variations thereof, without retraining. Adapts strategies dynamically for task variations and can switch between tasks online. | |
| 4. Restricted Autonomous Task Switching: Only switches between distinct tasks upon explicit user instruction: autonomy remains bounded, so adherence to the operator’s goal stays primary (may autonomously adapt solution approaches/ strategies). |
| Ref | Model | Total | I1 | I2 | I3 | I4 | I5 | I6 | I7 | I8 | I9 | I10 | I11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team et al. (2025a) | Gemini Robotics 1.5 | 0.12 | 0.44 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.09 |
| Sun et al. (2025c) | Collab VLA | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.21 | 0.08 | 0.09 |
| Li et al. (2025m) | GF-VLA | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.27 |
| Lin et al. (2025a) | OneTwo VLA | 0.11 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
| Li et al. (2025b) | SC-VLA | 0.11 | 0.33 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.15 | 0.09 |
| Wu et al. (2025a) | HiBer NAC | 0.10 | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.15 | 0.09 |
| Criterion | % fulfilled | |
| Multi-Task Generalisation | 160 | 49.38% |
| Generalisation to Environmental Variation | 101 | 31.17% |
| Autonomous Handling of Distractors/Obstacles | 87 | 26.85% |
| Online/Mid-Execution Adaptation | 49 | 15.12% |
| Autonomous Incorporation of Skills | 22 | 6.79% |
| Online Environment Adaptation and Response | 21 | 6.48% |
| Criterion | % fulfilled | |
| Redundant, Independent Safety Mechanisms | 5 | 1.54% |
| Command Compliance with Online-Safety | 4 | 1.23% |
| Proactive, Plan-Level Safety | 3 | 0.93% |
| Learning from Safety Events | 2 | 0.62% |
| Decoupled, Real-Time Safety Control | 1 | 0.31% |
| Reactive, Real-Time Safety | 1 | 0.31% |
| Criterion | % fulfilled | |
| Intuitive Feedback Acceptance | 13 | 4.01% |
| Collaborative Adaptation | 8 | 2.47% |
| Transparent Reasoning Explanation | 5 | 1.54% |
| Real-time Interruptibility | 4 | 1.23% |
| Continuous Responsiveness | 2 | 0.62% |
| Active Operator Exclusivity | 0 | 0.00% |
| Criterion | % fulfilled | |
| Disturbance Resilience & Continuous Operation | 44 | 13.58% |
| Environmental Robustness & Adaptation | 14 | 4.32% |
| Graceful Degradation & Strategy Adaptation | 6 | 1.85% |
| Reproducible & Benchmarked Fault Diagnosis | 5 | 1.54% |
| Adaptive Error Learning & Memorisation | 3 | 0.93% |
| Logging, Explanation & Operator Guidance | 1 | 0.31% |
| Criterion | % fulfilled | |
| Consistency Over Time & Contexts | 38 | 11.73% |
| Skill Integration with Known v/P&A | 9 | 2.78% |
| v/P&A Learning from Experience & Feedback | 6 | 1.85% |
| HRI/HRC Integration | 3 | 0.93% |
| User-Defined Trade-offs | 2 | 0.62% |
| Disturbance & Uncertainty Management | 1 | 0.31% |
| Criterion | % fulfilled | |
| Goal-Responsive Solution Strategies | 12 | 3.70% |
| Historical Data Utilisation | 2 | 0.62% |
| System-wide Real-time Compliance | 1 | 0.31% |
| Task, Input & Environment Independence | 1 | 0.31% |
| Autonomous Adaptation & Safety Response | 0 | 0.00% |
| Dynamic Resource Management & Determinism | 0 | 0.00% |
| Criterion | % fulfilled | |
| Dynamic Resource Allocation | 16 | 4.94% |
| Low-Cost Hardware Readiness | 8 | 2.47% |
| Comprehensive Integration Documentation | 1 | 0.31% |
| Autonomous Fault Handling & Feedback | 0 | 0.00% |
| Cost-Reduction Memory & Adaptive Optimisation | 0 | 0.00% |
| Flexible Input/Output Adaptation | 0 | 0.00% |
| Criterion | % fulfilled | |
| Performance Benchmarking & OOD Feedback | 63 | 19.44% |
| Explains Influences & Disturbances | 4 | 1.23% |
| Reason Logging & Accessible Justification | 3 | 0.93% |
| Task Feasibility & Capability Explanation | 3 | 0.93% |
| Error, Anomaly & Safeguard Explanations | 2 | 0.62% |
| User Feedback & Adaptive Improvement | 2 | 0.62% |
| Criterion | % fulfilled | |
| Perceptual Feature Exposure & Modularity | 32 | 9.88% |
| Comprehensive Scene Understanding via Fusion | 29 | 8.95% |
| Multimodal Sensor Acceptance & Fusion | 11 | 3.40% |
| Flexible Input Combination & Goal Specification | 10 | 3.09% |
| Dynamic Sensor Prioritisation | 2 | 0.62% |
| Peer-to-Peer Perception Knowledge Exchange | 1 | 0.31% |
| Criterion | % fulfilled | |
| Repeatability & Reproducibility | 145 | 44.75% |
| Module & Skill-Specific Benchmarking | 129 | 39.81% |
| Generalisation & Adaptation Assessment | 90 | 27.78% |
| Benchmark Diversity & Scope | 47 | 14.51% |
| Instruction, Command, & Modality Coverage | 3 | 0.93% |
| Explainability, Reasoning, & Feedback Benchmarks | 1 | 0.31% |
| Criterion | % fulfilled | |
| Flexible Data Type Acceptance | 158 | 48.77% |
| Low-Data Adaptation & Few-Shot Requirements | 136 | 41.98% |
| Documented Data Composition & Simulation-Real Transfer | 33 | 10.19% |
| Efficient Task, Environment, & Modality Adaptation | 14 | 4.32% |
| Resilience Through Redundancy & Fault Tolerance | 2 | 0.62% |
| Self-Assessment to Reduce Input & Modalities | 1 | 0.31% |
Robot Foundation Models
Robot Foundation Models are pretrained systems that combine perception, reasoning, and action to support diverse tasks and robot embodiments.
See all 135 papers