Enhancing Visual Task-Redirection Attacks on Vision-Language-Action Models via Closed-Loop Optimization
Authors: Chunjin Ye, Guanying Chen, Jianjie Huang, Jianhao Chen, Quanlin Chen, Hanjie Zhao, Haozhe Liang, Tieyun Qian, Xiaochun Cao
Organizations: Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen 518107, China · Zhongguancun Academy, Beijing 100094, China · Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China · Shenzhen Loop Area Institute, Shenzhen 518000, China · Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China · the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Vision-language-action (VLA) models enable language-guided robot manipulation, but remain vulnerable to visual attacks that undermine user control over robot behavior. Prior studies optimize visual perturbations using fixed target supervision. However, the perturbation can change earlier actions and, in turn, the physical states reached later. As the attacked trajectory evolves, this supervision may no longer match the behavior needed at the states actually reached. Accurately matching these targets can therefore fail to advance the attacker-specified task. Even with suitable supervision, reducing average matching error does not ensure sustained task progress. The robot may still fail at a critical stage, and further updates can disrupt previously successful behavior. To address these limitations, we propose TRACO, a framework that enhances existing targeted visual attacks through closed-loop optimization. Its Execution-Driven Supervision rebuilds supervision for the states reached under attack to guide subsequent updates. Within this framework, Progress-Guided Selection focuses updates where progress stalls while maintaining supervision on the earlier behavior needed to reach that point. Experiments across VLA models and simulation environments show improved task-redirection success with TRACO, highlighting the security implications of closed-loop attack optimization.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Motivation for closed-loop attack optimization. (a) During offline optimization (top), the attacker learns a perturbation δ by matching target behavior on observations from a recorded target trajectory (yellow). At test time (bottom), the same perturbation changes the robot’s actions under the user’s original instruction and can lead to different states (purple). The fixed targets may then no longer provide the behavior needed to complete the target task. (b,c) A single-scene example illustrates this mismatch. Three perturbations learned offline achieve lower action MSE on the recorded observations than TRACO, but show larger trajectory deviations and fail during execution, whereas TRACO succeeds.
Fig. 2: Overview of TRACO. (a) Execution-Driven Supervision (EDS) records the states reached under the current perturbation. (b) Progress-Guided Selection (PGS) uses a successful target trajectory to select frontier and prefix states, helping advance the target task while preserving earlier behavior. EDS queries the frozen VLA under the target instruction to obtain supervision at these states. TRACO then updates the perturbation and repeats this cycle, using new rollouts to refresh supervision and guide subsequent updates.
Global perturbations
Adversarial patches
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Model
Method
ASR (%) ↑
H↑
ASR (%) ↑
H↑
ASR (%) ↑
H↑
ASR (%) ↑
H↑
PI
Random Noise
0.0
− 0.6030
0.0
− 0.6420
0.0
− 0.6650
0.0
− 0.6880
Action Attack
54.8
0.3489
45.6
0.2530
56.0
0.3282
54.0
0.3308
TRACO
89.2
0.6279
79.6
0.5334
69.6
0.4348
67.2
0.4458
GR00T
Random Noise
0.4
− 0.5930
0.0
− 0.8340
0.0
− 0.6430
0.0
− 0.6540
TABLE I: Task-redirection performance on LIBERO. Best results are highlighted in bold red.
Method
Seen
Unseen
ASR (%) ↑
H↑
ASR (%) ↑
H↑
Random Noise
0.0
− 0.6748
1.6
− 0.6039
Action Attack
8.8
− 0.4456
9.6
− 0.5474
+ TRACO
12.8
− 0.3809
7.2
− 0.4800
TRAPCoT-only
11.2
0.0602
10.4
− 0.0501
+ TRACO
30.4
0.0980
20.0
0.0019
TABLE II: Adversarial patch attacks on InstructVLA in SimplerEnv. Best results are highlighted in bold red.
Fig. 3: Qualitative examples of task redirection. (a) Global perturbation on LIBERO. (b,c) Adversarial patches on LIBERO and SimplerEnv, respectively. Each image sequence shows execution with TRACO under the source instruction. The 3D plots compare clean source, clean target, and attacked trajectories.
EDS
PGS
Seen
Unseen
ASR (%) ↑
H↑
ASR (%) ↑
H↑
Global
–
–
43.6
0.2723
35.2
0.1671
✓
–
58.4
0.4415
54.8
0.3445
✓
✓
89.2
0.6279
79.6
0.5334
Patch
TABLE III: Ablation of EDS and PGS on PI. Without EDS, the initial observations and target supervision remain fixed. Both variants without PGS use random sampling with the same sample counts.
Fig. 4: Effect of supervision refresh on target action error. Results cover five tasks with 10 Unseen layouts each. For each task–layout pair, we collect one rollout under each perturbation and evaluate both perturbations on all recorded observations. Normalized-action MSE is averaged within each rollout and then equally across the two rollouts. (a) Distributions of the 50 mean MSE values for Fixed and EDS. Boxes show interquartile ranges and median lines. Diamonds mark means. (b) Sorted differences in mean MSE for each task–layout pair (Fixed − EDS). Positive values indicate lower error with EDS.
Fig. 5: End-effector position error with and without PGS. Each curve shows end-effector distances to the successful target reference for one optimization round. Panels (a) and (b) compare w/o PGS and TRACO on PI in the global setting. Open circles mark the first sampled position error above the 4 cm tolerance. Attack success denotes target-task completion.
Fig. 6: Progress gains and regressions with and without PGS. Bars show the mean percentages of progress increases, no changes, and decreases between consecutive optimization rounds. Progress is measured using the passing prefix under the position tolerance (4 cm), with target-task completion assigned full progress. Results are averaged across five tasks on PI in the global setting.
Supervision source
Seen
Unseen
ASR (%) ↑
H↑
ASR (%) ↑
H↑
Historical sampling
36.4
0.2094
30.0
0.1100
Current round only
58.4
0.4415
54.8
0.3445
TABLE IV: Current-round and historical supervision on PI. Both variants disable PGS and use the same number of samples per update.
Fig. 7: Parameter sensitivity of TRACO on PI. (a) PGS position tolerance. (b) Global perturbation budget. (c) Patch area. All three studies use flow-time probes at 0.50 and 0.75, as detailed in Appendix -B .
Fig. 8: Physical setup and real-world task redirection with a printed TRACO patch. Both executions use the same source instruction.
Adversarial attacks on vision-language-action (VLA) models study how crafted inputs, poisoned data, or physical cues can disrupt robot decisions and safety.
Vision-language-action (VLA) policies bring natural language into closed-loop robot control, enabling robots to execute manipulation tasks directly from text instructions. The same interface gives text a recurring role in control because the prompt is reused at every replanning step, and each prompt-conditioned action changes the future observations on which the policy acts. Existing VLA attacks study adversarial prompts that elicit targeted low-level actions or make such actions persist across changing images. We identify a stronger trajectory-level failure mode: a prompt that still appears to specify the intended task but redirects the final physical outcome. We mathematically formalize this setting as command-preserving trajectory redirection, a prompt-only threat model in which the attacker chooses one prompt before the episode, all policy and environment components remain fixed, and the prompt must stay close to the benign instruction while omitting target words and correction language. To find such prompts, we introduce an on-policy prompt search method that uses rollouts to discover perturbations whose closed-loop behavior tracks a target task while satisfying the command-preserving constraints. Experiments in simulation and on hardware show that near-benign prompt perturbations can redirect VLA rollouts to attacker-specified targets. These results expose a trajectory-level vulnerability in VLA instruction grounding: text that appears to preserve the intended command can still give an adversary control over the robot's final physical outcome. Project website: https://vla-redirection-attack.github.io/
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have shown strong capabilities in controlling robots across diverse manipulation tasks. However, their adversarial robustness remains largely underexplored, and exploiting this weakness can lead to physical-world harm. Existing attacks on VLA models often rely on pixel-space perturbations or white-box access, resulting in noticeable artifacts and limited deployability in real-world robotic systems. In this work, we propose DURA, a diffusion-based unrestricted robotic attack that generates visually natural adversarial patches for VLA models. DURA supports both white-box and black-box attack settings, where the black-box setting requires only the predicted actions of the victim model. By optimizing along the latent trajectory of a pretrained diffusion model, DURA generates visually natural patches while steering the robot toward attacker-specified target actions. Extensive experiments in both simulation and the real physical world show that DURA consistently outperforms existing methods. Our findings expose a safety risk for physically deployed VLA models and call for stronger defenses.
Jiahui Han, Yuhui Yao, Xin Wang +6
1Xi’an Jiaotong University · 2Shanghai AI Laboratory · University of Science and Technology of China
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models map multimodal perception and language instructions to executable robot actions, making them particularly vulnerable to behavioral backdoor manipulation: a hidden trigger introduced during training can induce unintended physical actions while nominal task performance remains intact. Prior work on VLA backdoors primarily studies untargeted attacks or task-level hijacking, leaving fine-grained control over individual actions largely unexplored. In this work, we present DropVLA, an action-level backdoor attack that forces a reusable action primitive (e.g., open_gripper) to execute at attacker-chosen decision points under a realistic pipeline-black-box setting with limited data-poisoning access, using a window-consistent relabeling scheme for chunked fine-tuning. On OpenVLA-7B evaluated with LIBERO, vision-only poisoning achieves 98.67%-99.83% attack success rate (ASR) with only 0.31% poisoned episodes while preserving 98.50%-99.17% clean-task retention, and successfully triggers the targeted action within 25 control steps at 500 Hz (0.05 s). Text-only triggers are unstable at low poisoning budgets, and combining text with vision provides no consistent ASR improvement over vision-only attacks. The backdoor remains robust to moderate trigger variations and transfers across evaluation suites (96.27%, 99.09%), whereas text-only largely fails (0.72%). We further validate physical-world feasibility on a 7-DoF Franka arm with pi0-fast, demonstrating non-trivial attack efficacy under camera-relative motion that induces image-plane trigger drift. These results reveal that VLA models can be covertly steered at the granularity of safety-critical actions with minimal poisoning and without observable degradation of nominal performance.
Zonghuan Xu, Jiayu Li, Yunhan Zhao +3
Institute of Trustworthy Embodied AI, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. · Shanghai Key Laboratory of Multimodal Embodied AI, Shanghai, China. · City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.