When we say that a robot uses memory, does that memory actually play a role? Success-rate ablations alone cannot establish the use of task-relevant facts: they change information and computation together, while aggregate rates can hide offsetting gains and losses. We propose an Interventional Memory Evaluation Protocol (IMEP) for vision-language-action (VLA) systems to address four questions: (1) Does memory provide a net benefit? (2) Under what conditions does memory help? (3) Do changes to memory alter task outcomes? (4) Are these effects specific to task-relevant facts? At the retrieval interface, we compare target-fact substitutions with fact-preserving replacements, minimal numerical perturbations, and exact replicas, while assessing decision correctness separately from motor execution success. We evaluate within-episode, cross-episode, and agentic memory. In cross-episode learned-bank experiments, a one-unit-in-the-last-place (ULP) intervention, including its installation procedure, changes 11.9% of seed-paired outcomes, while changing key facts produces no clear additional effect over fact-preserving replacements. To examine when memory helps, we introduce ChainBench, where correct decisions require historical information unavailable in current observations. The full memory configuration raises task success from 39.1% to 74.3%, matching the oracle-decision condition under shared recorded executions. These results show that correct history can support robot decisions, but establishing whether a memory system realizes this benefit requires fact-specific evidence beyond aggregate success rates.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Success rate alone cannot show that memory content mattered. (a) Higher task success alone does not establish use of stored content. (b) IMEP separates four questions. (c) Shell Game ( 200 pairs per contrast), Remember Color ( 388 pairs), and ChainBench ( 202 chains). Shell Game’s memory-read gain has an upper bound below the registered 10-pp criterion; Remember Color operates near chance. ChainBench uses no decision-time LLM; shared recorded executions yield equal success when full memory and the oracle choose correctly. The initial-fact baseline ignores updates. Equal U/T rates and initial-fact/no-memory equivalence are not established (Sections 4.2 – 4.4 ).
Figure 2: Overview of IMEP. (a) Paired evaluation follows the memory–decision–execution workflow, with separate decision (where observable) and task-success readouts. (b) Access and oracle comparisons ( A,N,O ), interventions and controls ( C,U,S,T ). (c) Information, delivery, and record-validity checks guide interpretation. The drawer task is illustrative. Implementation limits, including installation effects and unverified semantic edits, are detailed in Section 3.2 .
Table 1: Net effects of memory access on task success. A : memory on; X : listed intervention; n : paired outcomes. D=SRA−SRX (percentage points, pp) favors memory when positive. Superscripts/subscripts give distances to upper/lower confidence limits: 90% CIs for unmarked rows, 95% for † . The conservative CP–Bonferroni 90% CIs are post hoc additions except for Bridge grid. The 95% CIs retain study-specific methods (Appendices A, D, and F). Verdicts retain the original decision rules.
Figure 3: Outcome sensitivity and fact specificity across layers. (a) Shell Game blackout: released (filled) and structured-PCMB (hollow) markers, with 400 pairs per condition. (b) Remember Color: 388 pairs with swaps evaluated as delivered (coverage 0.70 – 0.83 ). The policy is near the single-choice chance benchmark. Outcome-change intervals in (a,b) are exact 95% Clopper–Pearson CIs. The black interval is a task-stratified paired-bootstrap 90% CI for the task-averaged different-fact minus same-fact sensitivity θˉ . Shading denotes the preregistered ±7.5 -pp equivalence band. (c) Scripted ChainBench reader on curated records ( 401 chains): only T changes decisions. This single experiment provides both Q4 evidence for that reader and the decision-readout control, not independent evidence.
Table 2: ChainBench results. 202 chains, K=2 (chance accuracy 50.0% ). Superscripts/subscripts give distances to upper/lower exact 95% Clopper–Pearson confidence limits. Full memory uses Section 3.5 ’s configuration. The initial-fact baseline ignores updates. Conditions share two recorded physical executions per chain. Full memory and the oracle choose correctly on every chain, making their task success rates equal by construction.
Figure 4: ChainBench chain construction. A write episode reveals the target drawer, and same-scene distractors then write other records. At query time, closed drawers give identical observations across target locations, requiring recall of the earlier object–drawer relation. Simulator frames illustrate the construction, not a rollout from the 202-chain study.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Study
Status
App.
Detectability: what effect can each readout detect?
Post-cue view removal (Shell Game, released banks)
Table 3: Evidence ledger, ordered by question (detectability, then Q2 (only in memory), Q2 (delivery/validity), Q3/Q4 and Q1; criteria in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 ). The status column uses the verdict words of Appendix A.2 . Withdrawn and excluded rows support no claim. “App.” is the section that reports the row. a The scripted reader is both the detectability control for the decision readout and the Q4 evidence for curated records, so these rows are not independent evidence. b These analyses are post hoc. No survival gate was registered for these campaigns. c Threshold gate against the default token merge, 250 seed-paired units, attempt 1: b=3 , c=1 (exact McNemar p=0.625 ). Remember Color 5 is near chance (Appendix C.2 ). Whether the rule acts within or across attempts was not verified. The study has no closeout record, although its sealed root holds the frozen design note and the launch record.
Legacy name
Frozen requirement
Question under which it is now reported
wiring gate
C matches A bitwise; two adjudicators agree; cross-machine recompute
Detectability: exact replicate C (App. B.5 )
path gate
probe: A reads memory; N ’s forced-empty reads equal its reads
Q2 (delivery): forced reads over reads (App. D.2 )
competence gate
Wilson 95% interval of SR(A) inside (floor+0.05,1−0.05)
Q2 (only in memory) floor and ceiling (App. C.2 )
survival gate ( Gsurv ; blackout ladders only)
substituted content present at the decision step in every substituting-condition trial
Q2 delivery (App. D.1 ); elsewhere post hoc coverage
utility readout
D against a criterion registered before launch
Q1 (Section 3.3 )
sensitivity readout
ρ vs. frozen 5% activity threshold; U as reference
Q3 numerical control ρU (Section 3.3 )
Appendix
Table 4: Legacy gates and readouts. Each gate or readout named in the frozen protocols, the requirement it froze, and the question under which the paper now reports it.
Benchmark family
checkpoint
embodiment; action interface
implementation / lines
SimplerEnv–Fractal
MemoryVLA Fractal checkpoints for visual matching and variant aggregation
Google Robot (static); 7-D EEF delta
Fractal overlay / 3251 ∗
SimplerEnv–Bridge
MemoryVLA Bridge checkpoint
WidowX, sink camera; 7-D EEF delta
grid: sealed release / 903; carry: carry overlay / not established †
Table 5: Per-family checkpoint lineage. Checkpoint files, action interfaces and implementation versions. SHA-256 checksums of all weights, implementations and asset snapshots are listed in the archived manifests. ∗†‡ See the text.
Setting (Section 4.1 )
method
evaluator / implementation
Within-episode learned banks
Shell Game view removal
released MemoryVLA
e1 / MIKASA build
Shell Game read, Q2-XA
released MemoryVLA
not recorded
SG-blackout ladder, released
released MemoryVLA
ladder runner / MIKASA build ∗
SG-blackout ladder, structured
episode-local PCMB
ladder runner / MIKASA build ∗
Fractal (completion and eight-cell runs)
perceptual bank ablated
Fractal overlay, dated after the run
Appendix
Table 6: Campaign binding. Method, evaluator revision and MemoryVLA implementation version carried by each campaign’s archived records. e1 – e4 label distinct evaluator checksums without implying order, and implementation names follow Table 5 . “Not recorded” means the archived evidence unit carries no such checksum. Full checksums are in the archived manifests.
Contrast (attempt 1)
SR base
SR int.
b/c
D (pp)
bound
McNemar p
view removed, reads on
0.940
0.735
45/4
+20.5
LB +13.21
8.2×10−10
reads blocked, view visible
0.940
0.935
3/2
+0.5
UB 3.65
1.0
reads blocked, under blackout
0.735
0.695
9/1
+4.0
UB 7.70
0.0215
interaction (row 3 − row 2)
+3.5
below MDE 5.78
—
Appendix
Table 7: Shell Game view removal and read contrasts, attempt 1. n=200 seed-paired scopes per condition. SR base and SR int. are success without and with the intervention, and D=(b−c)/n is positive when the intervention lowers success. LB and UB are exact bounds on D , and p values are exact McNemar tests. The interaction lies below the minimum detectable effect (MDE) and supports no claim.
δ ( L2 /step)
θ=ρT−ρS
One-sided 95% LB
Verdict
10−4
−2.6pp
−5.9pp
not detected
10−3
+2.3pp
−0.8pp
not detected
10−2
+2.1pp
−1.6pp
not detected
2×10−2
+7.2pp
+3.4pp
detected ( δ∗ )
5×10−2
+8.8pp
+4.9pp
detected
Appendix
Table 8: Graded detectability ladder. R-1 wrapper on the common njoint=388 cohort at each injected amplitude δ . LB is the one-sided 95% lower bound on θ (chain-level paired bootstrap). δ∗ is the smallest detected amplitude.
True θˉ
TOST ±7.5 accept
95% LB >0
positive
inconclusive
0pp
0.913
0.023
0.011
0.075
2.5pp
0.703
0.191
0.139
0.159
5.0pp
0.292
0.568
0.504
0.203
7.5pp
0.052
0.866
0.839
0.110
Appendix
Table 9: Retrospective operating characteristics of the realized-floor decision grid. Settings: ρS=0.13 , n=193+195 , ϕ=0.3 . Each entry is the fraction of simulations reaching the column’s decision at the given true increment θˉ . This is a post-outcome diagnostic.
Condition (baseline C )
Task success
b
c
ρ
C sealed reference
0.7723
—
—
—
U one-byte edit
0.8267
20
31
0.2525
R identical-instruction replay floor
0.7426
30
24
0.2673
T wrong fact
0.0000
156
0
0.7723
Appendix
Table 10: Instruction-level manipulation check on the public executor (first of two full n=202 runs). The identical-instruction replay floor is 26.7 – 28.2% across the two runs, and the one-byte increment ( −1.49pp , one-sided 95% lower bound −7.92pp , chain-level paired bootstrap) is not detected above it. Because T scores exactly 0.0000 , ρT is identically SRC : the wrong-instruction contrast only restates that an incorrect instruction fails deterministically, is not a measurement of content sensitivity, and is not the latent-matched S / T contrast of Section 3.2 .
Campaign
Condition
Passing / total
Rate
Cross-episode substitution, installed once at attempt-2 start (post hoc audit)
Remember Color 3, fixed-path substitution
S
135/193
0.70
T
150/193
0.78
Remember Color 5, fixed-path substitution
S
161/195
0.83
T
154/195
0.79
Shell Game full-vision ladder, band A b
S
134/198
0.68
Appendix
Table 11: Decision-time survival by campaign. Top: post hoc audit of the cross-episode campaigns, which registered no survival gate. A retry counts when every attempt-2 decision query selects at least one unmodified substituted record, so the rate is a lower bound on delivery. The audit covered the donor-swap conditions S and T . Bottom: the registered survival gate of the Shell Game blackout ladders, which checks that each decision step of a substituting trial carries substituted content, over 800 trials per condition. a Not reported by the audit. b Withdrawn as Q3/Q4 evidence (Appendix G.1 ).
released
structured PCMB
Condition
Operation
b/c
ρ
D (pp)
b/c
ρ
D (pp)
Cdet
anchor replayed, no substitution
0/0
0.00%
0.00
0/0
0.00%
0.00
U
one ULP on every stored float
3/1
1.00%
+0.50
6/4
2.50%
+0.50
Sπ
permuted within each latent
23/4
6.75%
+4.75
18/6
6.00%
+3.00
Tμ
resampled from own mean and s.d.
24/5
7.25%
+4.75
23/5
7.00%
+4.50
Nblk
both reads blocked
21/4
6.25%
+4.25
18/4
5.50%
+3.50
Appendix
Table 12: Shell Game blackout ladders. Seeds 610000 – 610399 , n=400 per condition, paired on (seed, attempt 1). b counts pairs in which the anchor A succeeds and the condition fails and c the reverse, so ρ=(b+c)/n and D=(b−c)/n , positive when the condition lowers success. Cdet and Nblk are scored against the wave-2 anchor, the other conditions against the wave-1 anchor. b′ and c′ count pairs in which only Tμ or only Sπ changes the outcome. The conditional exact bound (each endpoint one-sided 95%) holds given the observed b′+c′ and is not an unconditional interval for θ .
Task
n
n11
n10
n01
n00
ρT
ρS
θt
RC3
193
9
22
19
143
16.06%
14.51%
+1.55pp
RC5
195
11
13
12
159
12.31%
11.79%
+0.51pp
Appendix
Table 13: Seed-level joint tables. Flip indicators are IT and IS . Here, n10 denotes true-only discordance and n01 sham-only discordance. Donor availability removes 7 RC3 and 5 RC5 scopes, below the frozen 5% failure budget. All rates hold for the swap as delivered (Appendix D.1 ).
Study
Condition
n
Task success
Decision accuracy
Wrong-open rate
E1
curated records (full memory)
143
0.9510
0.9580
0.0000
E1
no memory
143
0.3287
0.3287
0.1888
E1
oracle decision
143
0.9930
1.0000
0.0000
E1
wrong decision
143
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
E1
shuffled memory
143
0.4895
0.4965
0.1329
E1
initial-fact baseline
143
0.4895
0.4965
0.1119
Appendix
Table 14: Complete E1/E1B baseline morphology. “Curated records” denotes the full-memory condition, whose sealed decisions are replayed through the motor bridge. The initial-fact baseline selects the answer specified by the initial fact and ignores later updates. The distinct stale-system condition is defined only on rewritten chains, with study-specific denominators (E1B: all 97 of 202; E1: 72 of 143). The stale-system condition answers incorrectly on every rewritten E1B chain ( 0/97 correct), providing the ChainBench validity control of Section 3.4 .
Condition vs. fresh
Fresh SR
Condition SR
Δ
b
c
exact McNemar p
Holm p
Token-merge carry
31.5%
29.0%
−2.5pp
33
28
0.609
1.000
Structured/versioned carry
31.5%
31.0%
−0.5pp
22
21
1.000
1.000
Hybrid carry
31.5%
32.5%
+1.0pp
14
16
0.856
1.000
Appendix
Table 15: Frozen deep-chain endpoint. Attempts 4–5 give 200 paired outcomes per comparison. The baseline is fresh reset, Δ is condition minus fresh, and b counts pairs where fresh succeeds and the condition fails.
Task
released SR
structured SR
Δ
ρ
exact McNemar p
Intercept Memory (IM)
20.5%
25.5%
+5.0pp
18.0%
0.133
Remember Color 3 (RC3)
34.0%
32.5%
−1.5pp
17.5%
0.736
Remember Color 5 (RC5)
23.5%
23.0%
−0.5pp
18.5%
1.000
Remember Color 9 (RC9)
13.0%
12.5%
−0.5pp
12.5%
1.000
Shell Game (SG)
89.5%
89.5%
0.0pp
3.0%
1.000
Pooled, 5 tasks ( n=1,000 )
36.1%
36.6%
+0.5pp
13.9%
0.735
Appendix
Table 16: MIKASA released versus structured-PCMB configuration contrast. Each condition and task has 200 episodes (attempts 1–2 pooled). Δ is structured minus released. No task shows a detected net effect, although four non-ceiling tasks have double-digit paired discordance. The pooled row is descriptive (one backbone and checkpoint, not independent replicates).
Held-out diffusion loss
true memory
empty
mismatched
MemoryVLA MIKASA checkpoint
0.658
0.655
0.656
trained components
0.123
0.228
0.148
Appendix
Table 17: Offline mutation gate (held-out diffusion loss). The trained components separate true, empty and mismatched memory offline, but this did not predict closed-loop success (Table 18 ).
Task
trained SR †
community SR †
exact Δ (pp)
paired test
Shell Game
10%
90%
−79.0pp
p<10−6
Remember Color 5
8%
24%
−15.5pp
p=0.0003
Remember Color 3
24%
34%
−10.5pp
p=0.051
Intercept Memory
24%
20%
+3.5pp
n.s.
Remember Color 9
14%
13%
+1.0pp
n.s.
Pooled
16.0%
36.1%
−20.1pp
p<10−6
Appendix
Table 18: Closed-loop result for the trained memory plugin. 200 paired episodes per task (zero execution failures). Community is the released MemoryVLA condition of Table 16 , a cross-launch archived condition. Δ is trained minus community. The paired-test method is not recorded. † Rates are rounded as exported. Δ uses unrounded counts.
Study
Why excluded
Consequence
Payload-swap v1/v2
path or admissibility gates invalid
excluded before v3
Payload-swap v3 (incl. stage B)
no matched control; outcome-exposed seeds; third-task assignment failed closed under the donor rule
replaced by the formal five-condition RC3/RC5 campaign; not pooled
Five-task configuration contrast, first run
aborted: the structured persistent clock was rewound by the episode-local timestep, so newly written slots could be evicted before action attachment
partial runs preserved, none used; the reported run is the second run, launched after the clock fix passed a full-horizon smoke; no claim from v1
Same-function adapter toggle (1,000 episodes)
zero-initialized path absent from checkpoint; agreement by construction
determinism control only; not evidence on whether bank content is used
Version-conflict precursor (1,200 rollouts)
stale condition vs. unmodified +1.7pp , vs. no-conflict control +4.0pp ; could not resolve a few-point effect
superseded by the frozen 690-pair test; no claim
Earlier E1B export
provenance gaps; verdict retired
not pooled with the E1B rerun; no claim
Appendix
Table 19: Excluded and superseded studies. None supports a claim in this paper.
Item
What was done; effect on reported numbers
App.
Post hoc analyses
Four-question framework and criteria
The detectability precondition, Q1–Q4, their criteria and the first-failing-condition rule were written after every campaign had closed; a criterion that no campaign registered is post hoc.
3.1
Decision-time survival audit
Coverage per cross-episode content-substitution campaign; none registered a survival gate (the blackout ladders did), so coverage is a lower bound on delivery.
D.1
All- K=2 floor (E1B)
The closeout used a mixed- K floor; all 202 chains have K=2 , so the floor is exactly 0.500 and the gain +0.470 is reported against it.
C.1
Stratified re-scoring (RC fixed path)
θˉ re-scored by one-ULP fragility and by step-0 perturbation magnitude; task-stratified paired bootstrap.
E.2
First-step L2 (RC fixed path)
First-step L2 distances of U , S and T (means; medians for S and T ); not preregistered endpoints.
E.2
Appendix
Table 20: Post hoc analyses and amendments. Post hoc analyses ran on frozen records after the campaign’s closeout. None adds rollouts or feeds a registered gate. “After data” means that outcome or gate data of the amended campaign existed when the amendment was written. Unless a row says otherwise, no number reported in this paper moved.
Contrast
Cohort
n
Difference (pp)
95% CI (pp)
Run A
Retrieval − no memory
all
403
+5.71
[−0.74,+12.16]
Retrieval − shuffled records
all
403
+5.21
[−1.49,+12.16]
Oracle memory − retrieval
all
403
+43.67
[+38.71,+48.64]
Latest write − read-time gate
rewritten
204
+11.27
[+7.35,+15.69]
Superseded write − no memory
rewritten
204
−47.06
[−53.92,−40.20]
Appendix
Table 21: Memory-state and retrieval contrasts (non-confirmatory). Each contrast is the first condition minus the second. Differences and interval endpoints are absolute percentage-point changes in decision accuracy. Intervals are reported 95% chain-bootstrap percentile intervals with 10,000 draws and seed 20260723. “Rewritten” restricts the cohort to chains with a superseded fact. Run A includes the E1B executed subset; Run B is a distinct cohort.
Vision-language-action policies often see only one or a few recent frames, which makes it difficult to evaluate how they use information that disappears during a task. We introduce MIKASA-Robo-VLA, a benchmark of 90 language-conditioned manipulation tasks. All but 10 hide the cue an action depends on. Those 10 are reactive controls. MIKASA-Robo, the suite it rebuilds, has 32 tasks and uses language only in a representative VLA subset. Here every task provides an instruction, while memory-dependent tasks hide a task-relevant cue and reactive controls keep it available. For 70 tasks, environment phase timings specify an information gap, and for 28 of them the gap exceeds the 16-frame window of the widest fixed-context VLA we survey. The gap counts only the interval the cue is provably absent, not the full duration a policy must retain it, so every memory-dependent task still requires memory by construction, including the ones whose measured gap is short. We release 22,500 oracle trajectories across 10 memory types in RLDS and LeRobotDataset v3. A reference π0.5 baseline with current images and proprioception, but no observation history or explicit memory module, is fine-tuned on 14 tasks and achieves 0.211 ± 0.044 mean task success. Its lower success on the evaluated Long-split tasks is confounded by open-loop chunking and the memory types represented in that subset. Project page: https://mikasarobo.github.io/
Egor Cherepanov, Nikita Kachaev, Aleksandr I. Panov +1
AXXX, Moscow, Russia · MIRIAI, Moscow, Russia · HSE University, Moscow, Russia
Robotic manipulation often requires acting on information that is no longer visible, yet Vision-Language-Action policies are usually evaluated when the current observation largely determines the next action. Existing robotic memory benchmarks expose this gap, but they still rely mainly on final task success and therefore conflate forgetting with manipulation failure. We present MEMOBench, a benchmark for process level memory evaluation in robotic manipulation. MEMOBench includes 30 history dependent tasks, 1{,}500 expert demonstrations, and 4{,}200 executable checkpoint instances from 84 templates. Each checkpoint pairs coarse to fine language with a simulator predicate and labels one memory operation: Storage, Update, or Compression. These annotations define Memory Storage Rate, Memory Update Rate, and Memory Compression Rate, which measure memory fidelity alongside task success. Across standard and memory augmented VLA policies, the strongest memory module baseline reaches only 31.9% average success rate, and high storage often coexists with weak update and compression. Checkpoint language also supervises semantic, contrastive, and framewise memory alignment objectives, yielding modest gains across different memory operations. MEMOBench provides a diagnostic evaluation suite and training supervision for memory grounded robotic policies. The project page is available at https://github.com/Collab-Gen/MEMOBench.
Vision-language-action (VLA) models have driven rapid progress in robotic manipulation, demonstrating strong fine-grained control and promising performance on long-horizon tasks. However, many existing VLAs lack explicit access to interaction history, making them vulnerable to perceptual aliasing: similar current observations and robot states at different task stages may induce action ambiguity and lower success rate. Existing methods incorporate temporal or progress cues through feature conditioning, action-prior modification, or sampling guidance. However, methods that jointly fine-tune memory modules and the base VLA incur additional policy-training costs, motivating the separation of trainable history-conditioned steering from frozen base-policy refinement. We propose ActMem-VLA, a dual-expert handover architecture that augments a frozen, fine-tuned VLA with a memory plugin comprising a Mamba-based memory module and a lightweight PreAction Expert (PAE). Specifically, Mamba encodes executed-action history into memory that conditions PAE alongside current context. With these inputs, PAE steers task progression during early, high-noise denoising, then passes the partially denoised action to the frozen Action Expert (AE) to refine action details during the remaining low-noise steps. The fine-tuned base VLA remains frozen throughout training, while only the Mamba module and PAE are jointly optimized. On LIBERO-Mem, ActMem-VLA achieves 80.8% average success across all ten tasks, compared with 65.2% for π0.5 and 49.5% for MemoryVLA, while introducing only 3.45% additional parameters. Across four real-world tasks, it improves the average success rate over π0.5 by 28.8%.
Yaxin Zhao, Dianye Huang, Chenwei Wang +2
Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China. · Medical Intelligence and Robotic Cognition (MIRoC) Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong (HKU), Hong Kong SAR, China. · Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China