Reasoning as a Double-Edged Sword: Architecture and Cross-Stage Robustness in Vision-Language-Action Models

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models reach high success rates on clean inputs but collapse under small adversarial perturbations: a $16/255$ PGD attack drops OpenVLA-7B's LIBERO success from $95\%$ to under $5\%$. Whether this trade-off has a theoretical floor was open. We prove that it does. For any VLA policy, capability $I(\Astar;\Api)$ and robustness $I(\Api;\Atildepi)-I(\Api;δ)$ sum to at most $H(\Astar)+I(X;\Xtilde)$, the task entropy plus adversarial channel capacity. The proof reduces to two applications of the Data Processing Inequality. The pixel-level bound is loose by $\sim 10^3$ nats and serves as a ceiling guarantee; an encoder-specific corollary tightens it by over an order of magnitude, into a regime where realized capability already consumes $5$--$9\%$ of the budget. We validate Theorem~\ref{thm:main} with zero violations across $308$ cells: $252$ closed-form Gaussian-VLA, $48$ OpenVLA-7B$+$LIBERO$+$PGD ($4$ suites $\times$ $4$ $\eps$ $\times$ $3$ seeds), $4$ Square-Attack, and $4$ multi-step ($T{=}10$). A complementary measurability inequality $\Rob_{\text{disc}} \le \Cap_{\text{disc}}$ further holds across $144$ cross-architecture cells spanning OpenVLA, OpenVLA-OFT (continuous-$L_1$), and SmolVLA (flow-matching). The same construction yields three label-free diagnostics: a pre-flight encoder ceiling, a defense-forensics probe that localizes input-side vs.\ language-model intervention, and a head-agnostic robustness ratio comparable across discrete-token, $L_1$-regression, and flow-matching policies. Together these provide the cross-setting axis defense and architecture comparisons currently lack.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models with integrated reasoning have been proposed for end-to-end autonomous driving, assuming a tight coupling between reasoning and trajectory generation. However, the robustness of such systems under realistic input perturbations remains largely unexplored. We show that these models are highly vulnerable to realistic input perturbations, achieving up to 89% attack success rate (ASR) on reasoning and up to 72% on trajectory manipulation in closed-loop simulation, leading to increased collision rates and degraded safety metrics. Using NVIDIA's recent Alpamayo models as representative industry-developed VLAs, we conduct the first systematic black-box study of reasoning-enabled VLA models under realistic textual input corruptions, evaluating their impact on reasoning and driving behavior. We introduce a reasoning-aware evaluation framework capturing both semantic and structural aspects of reasoning, along with safety-centric measures. We also introduce a benchmark for evaluating attacks and defenses on reasoning-trajectory interactions in autonomous driving. Our results highlight the need for rigorous evaluation and improved defenses to ensure the safety of reasoning-enabled VLA systems in autonomous driving.

Natural language is a powerful reasoning medium for language and vision-language models, but it is mismatched to the granularity of continuous control. Text and explicit subgoals operate at task-level granularity, whereas vision-language-action (VLA) policies must choose actions at a much finer temporal scale; a single reasoning step can therefore span many action chunks while remaining only weakly coupled to the action needed now. This suggests a different question for VLA: what should play the role of language? We argue that a useful VLA reasoning medium must be shareable across model instances, verifiable through downstream action improvement, and aligned with temporally extended control structure. Based on this view, we propose Continuous Reasoning for Vision-Language-Action. Our model first predicts continuous reasoning in the form of a structured set of continuous thoughts, then reuses them as shared context for chunk-structured action generation. Better action prediction alone does not certify good reasoning: if the same internal medium cannot be shared across model instances and independently verified through improved downstream control, the added latent may simply become a model-private shortcut that helps on seen behaviors without supporting generalizable control. We therefore instantiate continuous reasoning as a shared Gaussian latent interface and train it with a self-verification objective in which an exponential-moving-average teacher must successfully consume the student's reasoning when predicting target actions. Empirically, Continuous Reasoning improves LIBERO-PRO robustness and performs strongly on real robots, raising mean subtask success over π0.5 by 40.4% on TX-G2, an AgiBot G2-compatible variant, and 26.3% on HSR. This suggests that reasoning in VLA is less about extra tokens than about a shareable, verifiable internal language for action.