GUARD: Grounding Uncertainty and Ablation-Based Risk Detection for Diffusion-Based VLAs

Vision-language-action models (VLAs) achieve state-of-the-art performance on many robotic manipulation tasks, yet they can still behave unpredictably in out-of-distribution scenarios. Runtime failure detection is therefore essential for the safe real-world deployment of VLAs. However, existing task failure detectors require computationally expensive action sampling, are based on architectural assumptions that limit their applicability to VLAs, or need access to failure rollouts. We propose VLA-FAIL, a lightweight and broadly applicable failure detection framework for VLAs that combines two novel failure detectors with minimal overhead, without requiring failure data. The first, last-layer Mahalanobis distance (LLMD), detects out-of-distribution states by measuring token-wise deviations in last-layer features relative to the training data. The second, action chunk consistency (ACC), exploits the temporal overlap induced by receding-horizon control and detects failures when consecutive action chunks become inconsistent. To capture the trade-off between detection accuracy and detection latency, we introduce AUCPDT, a threshold-independent metric that jointly evaluates precision, recall, and detection time. Through extensive real-world and simulation experiments, we demonstrate that LLMD and ACC capture complementary failure modes whose combination enables reliable and early failure detection across diverse tasks, frequently outperforming significantly more expensive baseline methods.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are increasingly used as generalist robot policies, yet their evaluation still relies largely on static benchmarks that randomly sample task scenes. In high-dimensional embodied spaces, failures are sparse and clustered, so static benchmarking can underestimate robustness risks. We reframe VLA evaluation as an active failure-discovery problem and propose a failure-aware test-generation approach that combines diversity-driven exploration with surrogate models learned from observed executions. The method steers testing toward high-risk yet diverse scene regions. Across four state-of-the-art VLA models, it uncovers substantially more failures (up to +29.7 % over selected baselines) while revealing more diverse failure modes. This mean that, for instance, in the case of GR00T-N1.6, success rate dropped from 64.4% to 34.7%. More broadly, our findings call for a shift in VLA evaluation: from passive measurement on fixed task suites to adaptive, failure-seeking test generation that exposes the structure of model weaknesses before deployment.

Vision Language Action models combine perception, language grounding, and control in a single policy, but their failures are hard to diagnose once visual conditions shift. We test whether OpenVLA feedforward activations contain linearly decodable information about near term task failure in LIBERO manipulation rollouts. The policy is fixed throughout. We log internal activations during execution and fit lightweight monitors after the rollouts are collected. Occlusion is the main controlled stress test. It reduces OpenVLA success from $57\%$ to $17\%$ over $100$ episodes per condition. Under this shift, a logistic probe at layer 16 reaches AUROC $0.972$ and AUPRC $0.352$ for predicting failure within a $15$ step horizon. It outperforms both a mean difference direction and an action disagreement baseline. A sparse layer sweep finds uneven decodability across depth: layer 16 is strongest among the tested layers, layer 8 remains informative, and layer 10 is weaker. To check whether the monitor is just an occlusion detector, we also evaluate color shift and camera jitter without refitting. Color shift produces no failures in this setting, so it is a benign control rather than a failure benchmark. Camera jitter does induce failures, and the occlusion trained monitor remains above random. The result is deliberately limited: OpenVLA internal states contain failure relevant structure under controlled perceptual shift, but these experiments do not establish a causal mechanism, task held out generalization, or a deployable recovery system.