LIBERO-VIFO: Benchmarking the Capability and Safety of Visual Cue Following in Vision-Language-Action Models
Abstract
Visual cues are increasingly adopted to guide robot learning, but whether Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models can reliably follow authorized cues while disregarding unauthorized ones remains unclear. Existing work covers only a narrow range of cue forms and focuses on final task success, providing only a coarse assessment of cue-following capability. Treating all visual cues as authorized also leaves safety risks of unauthorized following unexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce LIBERO-VIFO, a benchmark to evaluate both the capability and safety of visual cue following in VLA models. LIBERO-VIFO defines eight visual cue families spanning diverse forms. A total of four protocols in two parts are defined: Part I tests cue understanding and authorized following, while Part II evaluates unauthorized visual cue following under language-cue conflict and empty language conditions. Evaluating seven VLA models reveals that although visual cue understanding does not reliably translate into execution, current VLAs are able to execute cue-indicated tasks without language instruction, exposing an emerging risk of unauthorized visual cue following. Extended experiments on scene-instantiated cues, safety-critical settings, and real-robot deployment corroborate these findings. LIBERO-VIFO brings both the capability and safety of visual cue following into systematic evaluation, establishing visual-centric safety as a new perspective for the VLA community.
Figures & tables
| Model | Part I: Authorized | Part II: Unauthorized | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual Cue Understanding | Authorized Cue Following | Lang. - Vis. Conflict | No Lang. | ||||||||
| Det. | Sem. | Gnd. | Dec. | FCA | Orig. SR | AVF | VTR | LFR | UVF | UVI | |
| OpenVLA-OFT | 4.5 | 14.1 | 20.8 | 35.2 | 0.1 | 97.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 90.7 | 0.0 | 59.8 |
| 19.9 | 11.4 | 40.9 | 54.6 | 1.2 | 96.9 | 55.5 | 57.3 | 94.6 | 0.0 | 49.7 | |
| MolmoAct2 | 65.1 | 83.9 | 45.8 | 46.2 | 16.6 | 97.2 | 33.5 | 34.5 | 95.4 | 0.0 | 35.6 |
| Action-Sketcher | 36.1 | 28.0 | 25.5 | 68.0 | 1.9 | 96.9 | 61.2 | 63.2 | 83.6 | 0.0 | 60.1 |
| Model | Metric | F1 Text | F2 Geom. | F3 Ghost | F4 Pict. | F5 Gest. | F6 Sign | F7 Light. | F8 Code | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenVLA-OFT | VQA | 21.6 | 48.0 | 17.8 | 22.5 | 8.1 | 13.1 | 4.0 | 14.4 | 18.7 |
| AVF | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| UVF | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| UVI | 64.8 | 3.3 | 47.6 | 75.6 | 74.0 | 74.1 | 83.1 | 55.9 | 59.8 | |
| VQA | 26.2 | 20.9 | 21.1 | 34.4 | 55.5 | 25.8 | 35.2 | 34.4 | 31.7 | |
| AVF | 57.3 | 52.6 | 55.9 | 56.5 | 58.4 | 56.0 | 52.5 | 53.7 | 55.4 |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Category | Information Encoded | Representative Uses |
|---|---|---|
| Action governance | ||
| Prohibition and Restriction | Actions, objects, devices, or regions that are forbidden | Restricted objects, human-only areas, hazardous equipment, and no-entry workspaces |
| Mandatory Action | Operations that the robot is required to execute | Required placement, inspection, shutdown, sanitation, or preparation procedures |
| Permission and Safe Operation | Objects, tools, surfaces, or operations authorized for robot use | Shared environments in which permitted resources must be distinguished from restricted ones |
| Task and environment grounding | ||
| Hazard Warning | Objects, surfaces, conditions, or spatial relations requiring caution | Hot surfaces, fragile objects, electrical hazards, sharp tools, and collision or pinch zones |
Vision-Language-Action Models
Vision-language-action models turn visual observations and natural-language instructions into actions for robots and other embodied agents.
See all 1,154 papers