Spike-driven Vision-Language-Action Model
Organizations: University of Electronic Science and Technology of China.
Abstract
Vision-language-action (VLA) models bridge multimodal understanding and robotic control, advancing the dominant paradigm for embodied intelligence. However, most existing models rely on large Transformers, whose latency and energy costs hinder deployment on resource-constrained platforms. Through sparse event-driven computation, spiking neural networks offer a promising paradigm for high-performance and energy-efficient computing. Here, we propose the first Spike-driven VLA framework enabling end-to-end direct training for robotic manipulation, which mainly comprises three core components. First, we develop spiking visual and instruction encoders for multimodal perception, encoding visual observations and language instructions into sparse, reliable spike representations for subsequent cross-modal fusion. Then, we introduce Multi-Winner Spike Fusion for instruction-guided scene understanding, using bidirectional top- winner-take-all spike routing to suppress background interference and yield fused memory. Finally, we propose a Spike Action Chunking Transformer that incorporates spiking cross-attention over the fused memory and the current robot state, enabling efficient end-to-end generation of continuous action chunks for robotic control. Extensive experiments on LIBERO and Meta-World demonstrate that Spike-driven VLA achieves competitive performance with fewer parameters and lower estimated inference energy than conventional VLA models. This work establishes a foundational framework for neuromorphic VLA modeling, paving the way for future advances in resource-efficient embodied intelligence.
Figures & tables
| Method | Spike- driven | Computation Efficiency | Meta-World Success Rate (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Params | FLOPs | Energy | Easy | Medium | Hard | V. Hard | Avg. | ||
| (B) | (G) | (mJ) | |||||||
| TinyVLA ( Wen and others, 2024 ) | 0.42 | 1259.1 | 2896.0 | 77.6 | 21.5 | 11.4 | 15.8 | 31.6 | |
| ( Black et al., 2025 ) | 3.2 | 3069.8 | 7060.6 | 71.8 | 48.2 | 41.7 | 30.0 | 47.9 | |
| SmolVLA (0.45B) ( Shukor et al., 2025 ) | 0.45 | 598.4 | 1376.4 | 82.5 | 41.8 | 45.0 | 60.0 | 57.3 | |
| SmolVLA (2.25B) ( Shukor et al., 2025 ) | 2.25 | 4239.5 | 9751.1 | 87.1 | 51.8 | 70.0 | 64.0 | 68.2 | |
| Method | Spike- driven | Computational Efficiency | LIBERO Success Rate (%) | ||||||
| Params | FLOPs | Energy | Spa. | Obj. | Goal | Long | Avg. | ||
| (B) | (G) | (mJ) | |||||||
| OpenVLA ( Kim et al., 2025 ) | 7.5 | 4158.3 | 9564 | 84.7 | 88.4 | 79.2 | 53.7 | 76.5 | |
| ( Black et al., 2025 ) | 3.2 | 4371.9 | 10055 | 96.8 | 98.8 | 95.8 | 85.2 | 94.2 | |
| ( Physical Intelligence et al., 2025 ) | 3.4 | 5014.2 | 11533 | 98.8 | 98.2 | 98.0 | 92.4 | 96.9 | |
| CogVLA ( Li et al., 2025 ) | 8.3 | 3299.2 | 7588 | 98.6 | 98.8 | 96.6 | 95.4 | 97.4 | |
| Method | Spike- driven | Params (B) | LIBERO-Plus Success Rate (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camera | Robot | Language | Light | Background | Noise | Layout | Avg. | |||
| OpenVLA ( Kim et al., 2025 ) | 7.5 | 1.1 | 4.1 | 26.8 | 4.4 | 25.3 | 19.3 | 31.6 | 16.1 | |
| NORA ( Hung et al., 2025 ) | 3.8 | 4.0 | 41.1 | 67.0 | 31.0 | 50.5 | 17.6 | 63.9 | 39.3 | |
| UniVLA ( Bu et al., 2025 ) | 7.0 | 4.3 | 50.3 | 71.8 | 59.1 | 80.0 | 25.3 | 34.3 | 46.4 | |
| ( Black et al., 2025 ) | 3.2 | 15.8 | 6.6 | 61.0 | 79.6 | 78.5 | 79.4 | 70.4 | 55.9 | |
| Spike-driven VLA (Ours) | 0.15 | 41.2 | 46.7 | 48.7 | 84.2 | 61.3 | 34.5 | 67.5 | 54.9 | |
| Suite | w/o WTA | w/ WTA | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spatial | 90.2 | 95.0 | |
| Object | 95.6 | 95.4 | |
| Goal | 96.2 | 96.6 | |
| Long | 78.6 | 82.4 | |
| Overall | 90.2 | 92.4 |
| Variant | VE | LE | Params (M) | Energy (mJ) | LIBERO Success Rate (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spatial | Object | Goal | Long | Avg. | |||||
| B0 | DINOv3-B | BERT | 216.1 | 179.7 | 98.6 | 99.2 | 93.2 | 94.0 | 96.3 |
| B1 | DINOv3-B | SIE | 216.1 | 173.0 | 98.0 | 98.6 | 95.4 | 92.4 | 96.1 |
| B2 | SVE | BERT | 148.6 | 28.8 | 95.8 | 98.2 | 95.6 | 80.8 | 92.6 |
| B3 | SVE | SIE | 148.6 | 20.9 | 95.0 | 95.4 | 96.6 | 82.4 | 92.4 |
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Hyperparameter | Setting |
|---|---|
| Time steps | 4 |
| Training epochs | 200 |
| Input resolution | |
| Batch size | 600 |
| Optimizer | LAMB |
| Base learning rate |
| Hyperparameter | MLM pre-training | Spike-driven VLA training |
|---|---|---|
| Objective | MLM (15% masking) | Frozen encoder |
| Tokenizer | bert-base-uncased | Same |
| Maximum sequence length | ||
| Optimizer | AdamW | – |
| Peak learning rate | – | |
| Weight decay | – |
| stage | # Tokens | Layer Specification | SIE | ||
| Emb. | Token / position / segment Emb. | Dim | |||
| Vocabulary / max position | – | / | |||
| Embedding Norm | – | LayerNorm | |||
| Shared orthogonal encoding | – | ||||
| Temporal repeat | |||||
| Encoder block | SSA | RMSNorm + LIF + | |||
| Item | Configuration |
|---|---|
| Effective batch size | GPUs samples/GPU accumulation step |
| Training budget | updates; sample exposures |
| Optimizer | AdamW, , |
| Visual backbone LR | |
| Other trainable parameters LR | |
| LR schedule | steps of linear warm-up, followed by a constant LR |
| Suite | Overall | Background Textures | Robot Initial States | Camera Viewpoints | Language Instructions | Sensor Noise | Object Layout | Light Conditions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spatial | 65.7 | 72.1 (186/258) | 57.7 (202/350) | 63.0 (237/376) | 40.0 (156/390) | 48.4 (170/351) | 87.0 (335/385) | 99.7 (291/292) |
| Object | 56.0 | 70.6 (175/248) | 42.2 (168/398) | 42.9 (170/396) | 58.2 (206/354) | 32.7 (138/422) | 65.8 (265/403) | 97.3 (289/297) |
| Goal | 54.0 | 69.4 (195/281) | 50.9 (208/409) | 46.8 (191/408) | 35.4 (145/410) | 43.5 (165/379) | 60.9 (259/425) | 84.6 (236/279) |
| Long | 37.6 | 36.0 (104/289) | 37.2 (146/393) | 14.6 (61/419) | 63.2 (242/383) | 17.6 (79/449) | 54.5 (170/312) | 52.9 (145/274) |