Open robot policies increasingly follow two paradigms: vision-language-action models (VLAs) directly map observations and instructions to actions, whereas world-action models (WAMs) incorporate learned video or world dynamics into policy learning or action generation. Although both target the same manipulation tasks and represent alternative design choices, they are commonly reported under different evaluation protocols, leaving their capability, robustness, language sensitivity, and deployment-cost trade-offs unclear. We present IndustrialVLA-Bench, an evidence-aware evaluation of six released VLA and WAM systems under a unified reporting schema. It separately evaluates clean capability on LIBERO, non-language robustness on LIBERO-Plus, instruction sensitivity on LIBERO-Para, and observed execution cost. Reported task scores aggregate three complete evaluations with distinct random seeds under a fixed checkpoint and inference configuration. Across all six systems, clean LIBERO averages differ by only 1.58 points, whereas robustness and paraphrase summaries span 14.62 and 31.08 points. Restricting every comparison to the three protocol-faithful systems preserves the effect (1.36, 14.62 and 23.10 points), so the diagnostic separation reported here does not depend on the weaker evidence tiers. We additionally report observed inference latency, peak memory, runtime mode, and an evidence status for every system. Protocol-faithful, near-reproduction, and pending-verification entries remain visibly separated; only protocol-faithful entries support strict comparisons. Rather than claiming universal superiority of either paradigm, IndustrialVLA-Bench provides traceable evidence for comparing released robot policies on shared practical criteria. Code and evaluation records are available at https://github.com/xiaoqi-7/IndustrialVLA-Bench.
Vision-language-action models (VLAs) have been extensively used in robotics applications, achieving great success in various manipulation problems. More recently, VLAs have been used in long-horizon tasks and evaluated on benchmarks, such as BEHAVIOR1K (B1K), for solving complex household chores. The common metric for measuring progress in such benchmarks is success rate or partial score based on satisfaction of progress-agnostic criteria, meaning only the final states of the objects are considered, regardless of the events that lead to such states. In this paper, we argue that using such evaluation protocols say little about safety aspects of operation and can potentially exaggerate reported performance, undermining core challenges for future real-world deployment. To this end, we conduct a thorough analysis of state-of-the-art models on the B1K Challenge and evaluate policies in terms of robustness via reproducibility and consistency of performance, safety aspects of policies operations, task awareness, and key elements leading to the incompletion of tasks. We then propose evaluation protocols to capture safety violations to better measure the true performance of the policies in more complex and interactive scenarios. At the end, we discuss the limitations of the existing VLAs and motivate future research.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have shown strong promise for general-purpose robotic manipulation, but their real-world evaluation remains limited by a lack of accessible, reproducible, and consistent benchmarks. Simulation benchmarks fail to capture real-world complexity, while existing real-world benchmarks often require expensive hardware, centralized evaluation, or are limited in task diversity. We introduce VLA-REPLICA, a low-cost, easily reproducible real-world benchmark for evaluating VLA models. Built from off-the-shelf components, our system can be quickly assembled and replicated across laboratories, providing a consistent environment for policy evaluation anywhere in the world. VLA-REPLICA includes a diverse suite of manipulation tasks and a small-scale demonstration dataset for target-domain adaptation, with real-world evaluation protocols for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings. Experiments with imitation learning and state-of-the-art VLA models reveal model strengths and limitations, while consistent results across independently constructed setups demonstrate the reproducibility of our benchmark.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) systems, built on pretrained vision-language models (VLMs), have shown rapidly improving performance on robot manipulation benchmarks. These gains are commonly interpreted as evidence that semantic representations learned from internet-scale data transfer to physical execution generalization. This position paper argues that the assumption underlying this interpretation -- that semantic generalization is sufficient to support physical action decisions -- has not been independently verified and cannot be tested under current evaluation protocols. We support this claim by decomposing VLA policies into semantic mapping and physical action decision, and showing that task success rate -- the dominant evaluation metric -- cannot distinguish between these two sources of capability. As a result, improvements in benchmark performance are consistent with multiple competing explanations, including semantic matching, distributional overlap, and genuine physical generalization. We further argue that this identifiability gap has been reinforced through narrative drift, whereby successive systems inherit and strengthen prior interpretations of performance gains without isolating the underlying causal mechanism. To address this limitation, we propose a research direction based on evaluation designs that introduce controlled variation to separately measure semantic and physical generalization. Such designs make it possible to causally attribute performance without requiring access to model internals, and to empirically assess the role of VLM backbones as semantic interfaces rather than implicit sources of physical competence. Our goal is not to refute the role of VLMs in robotics, but to clarify the conditions under which claims of physical generalization can be meaningfully evaluated.