RoboSeed: Multidimensional Evaluation of Vision-Language-Action and World-Action Models: Capability, Resource Affordability, and Research Evidence

Robot action planning in the real world is challenging as it requires not only understanding the current state of the environment but also predicting how it will evolve in response to actions. Vision-language-action (VLA), which repurpose large-scale vision-language models for robot action generation using action experts, have achieved notable success across a variety of robotic tasks. Nevertheless, their performance remains constrained by the scope of their training data, exhibiting limited generalization to unseen scenarios and vulnerability to diverse contextual perturbations. More recently, world models have been revisited as an alternative to VLAs. These models, referred to as world action models (WAMs), are built upon world models that are trained on large corpora of video data to predict future states. With minor adaptations, their latent representation can be decoded into robot actions. It has been suggested that their explicit dynamic prediction capacity, combined with spatiotemporal priors acquired from web-scale video pretraining, enables WAMs to generalize more effectively than VLAs. In this paper, we conduct a comparative study of prominent state-of-the-art VLA policies and recently released WAMs. We evaluate their performance on the LIBERO-Plus and RoboTwin 2.0-Plus benchmarks under various visual and language perturbations. Our results show that WAMs achieve strong robustness, with LingBot-VA reaching 74.2% success rate on RoboTwin 2.0-Plus and Cosmos-Policy achieving 82.2% on LIBERO-Plus. While VLAs such as $π_{0.5}$ can achieve comparable robustness on certain tasks, they typically require extensive training with diverse robotic datasets and varied learning objectives. The evaluation code for the RoboTwin2.0-Plus benchmark is available at: https://robot-robustness.github.io/RoboTwin2.0-Plus/.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have recently emerged as a promising paradigm for building general-purpose robotic agents. However, the VLA landscape remains highly fragmented and complex: as existing approaches vary substantially in architectures, training data, embodiment configurations, and benchmark-specific engineering. In this work, we introduce StarVLA-$α$, a simple yet strong baseline designed to study VLA design choices under controlled conditions. StarVLA-$α$ deliberately minimizes architectural and pipeline complexity to reduce experimental confounders and enable systematic analysis. Specifically, we re-evaluate several key design axes, including action modeling strategies, robot-specific pretraining, and interface engineering. Across unified multi-benchmark training on LIBERO, SimplerEnv, RoboTwin, and RoboCasa, the same simple baseline remains highly competitive, indicating that a strong VLM backbone combined with minimal design is already sufficient to achieve strong performance without relying on additional architectural complexity or engineering tricks. Notably, our single generalist model outperforms $π_{0.5}$ by 20% on the public real-world RoboChallenge benchmark. We expect StarVLA-$α$ to serve as a solid starting point for future research in the VLA regime. Code will be released at https://github.com/starVLA/starVLA.

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.