Vision-language-action models are typically built on a simple premise: perception is first compressed by visual encoders, and action reasoning begins only afterwards. Yet manipulation often hinges on precisely the visual signals most vulnerable to this abstraction, e.g., local geometry, boundaries, depth, and subtle state changes. This raises a fundamental question: should action policies inherit a fixed visual endpoint, or directly access evolving visual computation? We introduce NEO-VLA, a structurally encoder-free vision-language-action framework. Images are tokenized by lightweight patch convolutional layers and evolve jointly with language throughout the backbone, allowing a flow-matching action expert to draw from instruction-conditioned visual representations at different depths. This simple change reveals a consistent pattern. Native architectures outperform encoder-based counterparts under controlled comparisons; full fine-tuning reduces but does not erase the gap, and additional scale alone cannot recover it. More strikingly, layer-wise probing shows that the action-critical signals often peak well before the final visual representation. Across diverse manipulation settings and distribution shifts, NEO-VLA consequently achieves stronger and more robust control. Together, these results suggest that embodied control benefits from access to visual representations across the computational hierarchy, rather than a fixed encoder output.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Three VLA designs : encoder-based vs. encoder-free backbones, and discrete vs. continuous actions. (a) A separate visual encoder converts pixels into image features, which are consumed by the language backbone together with text tokens; actions are generated as discrete tokens. (b) The same encoder-based visual interface is retained, while a separate action head predicts continuous actions conditioned on the backbone. (c) NEO-VLA removes the separately pretrained visual encoder: a lightweight patch embedder maps pixels directly into the backbone token space, while text tokens enter the backbone jointly. A narrow action expert then reads cached keys and values from selected backbone layers and predicts a flow-matching velocity field.
Figure 2: NEO-VLA: pixels in, continuous actions out. Previous and current multi-view observations preserve their aspect ratios within a fixed token budget and enter patch embedder shared across time and views. The visual path uses no vision transformer, autoencoder, or vector-quantised codebook. Shared MLPs embed camera intrinsics and rotations, while state MLPs embed previous and current robot states. These tokens join a structured prompt describing control frequency, embodiment, frame reference, and task instruction. A separate, narrow, randomly initialised action expert jointly attends to cached prefix keys and values from selected backbone layers and its own action-token keys and values. Its suffix embeddings combine projected noisy actions and flow time τ with additive step, frame, and identity embeddings. Both arm blocks and the body block share temporal rotary offsets 0 – 29 , with identity embeddings distinguishing the blocks. Trained by flow matching, the expert predicts a velocity field that covers both arm and body action chunks.
Table 1: Pretraining corpus. Nine public dataset families contribute 2,231,583 episodes and 9,927 hours. As held is the share of stored rows; As sampled is the share of robot-row draws during training.
Figure 3: Data quality filtering. Illustrative checks cover implausible joint readings, unreliable channels, action outliers, corrupt episodes, and camera calibration, removing only affected data. Joint and projection checks are source-specific; episode retention is determined in the final corpus pass.
Backbone
Size
Adaptation
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Average
Qwen3-VL
2B
Frozen
71.4
89.8
92.8
64.0
79.5
Full FT
92.2
96.6
95.8
78.6
90.8
Encoder unfrozen
91.8
92.0
94.0
79.0
89.2
Gemma-3
4B
Frozen
80.2
93.6
92.6
71.6
84.5
Full FT
89.0
97.6
94.8
82.8
91.0
NEO-VLA
2B
Frozen
89.2
95.8
93.2
85.4
90.9
Table 2: Backbone comparison on LIBERO. Success rates (%) at the final 30,000-step checkpoint, averaged over 2,000 episodes. Size refers to the backbone, excluding the action expert. Frozen updates only the expert; full FT updates the whole stack. Native-input rows use the linear-depth layer map. Encoder unfrozen updates the vision encoder and action expert with other layers frozen.
Adaptation
Original interface
Encoder access
Frozen backbone
79.5
64.9
Full FT
90.8
90.9
Table 3: Direct encoder access in Qwen3-VL. Average LIBERO success (%) with the same setting. Encoder access adds no parameters.
Adaptation
Layer map
Depth
LIBERO suites ↑
Average
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Frozen
first-28 [0..27]
28
94.8
98.4
97.6
88.8
94.9
skip-28 [uniform]
40
89.2
95.8
93.2
85.4
90.9
end-28 [12..39]
40
78.4
93.6
94.2
80.4
86.7
Frozen , disjoint
first-14 [0..13]
14
95.6
97.2
96.2
85.4
93.6
last-14 [26..39]
40
92.2
95.2
89.4
81.8
89.6
Table 4: Layer-map ablation on LIBERO. Success rate (%) over 2,000 rollouts per configuration at training step 30k. Depth is the number of backbone layers retained. skip-28 and end-28 both use a 40-layer backbone and a 28-layer expert. first-28 and first-14 also shorten the backbone, so the disjoint first-14 / last-14 comparison changes backbone depth as well as readout position. Higher is better.
Figure 4: Interventions at the expert’s attachment points. (A) Translation error after swapping one attachment’s prefix keys and values with another observation’s (purple), adding matched-magnitude residual noise (orange), or making no change (gray). (B) Action change when masking the wrist image or instruction; filled and open markers denote separate even- and odd-attachment runs. (C) Wrist-pose masking in the robot-frame model from B and a wrist-frame model.
Model
Size
Open
Camera
Robot
Language
Light
Background
Noise
Layout
Total
π0
3B
✓
13.8
6.0
58.8
85.0
81.4
79.0
68.9
53.6
StarVLA
4B
✓
52.5
49.8
88.5
95.7
95.7
73.0
76.9
74.1
ABot-M0
4B
✓
60.4
67.9
86.4
96.2
91.6
86.4
82.6
80.5
Cosmos-Policy
2B
✓
75.8
63.3
81.7
96.5
88.9
92.7
82.2
82.2
π0.5
3B
✓
78.4
73.6
80.8
96.2
94.1
89.0
84.5
84.4
Qwen-RobotManip-scratch
4B
×
70.4
44.9
88.1
95.8
95.5
84.4
79.1
78.3
Table 5: LIBERO-plus by perturbation axis. Open indicates whether both code and weights are publicly available, other results follow Yuan et al. (2026) . The total is task-weighted rather than the mean of the seven axes; bold marks the best value in each column.
Baseline
+ Co-training
+ Action-only
MMB
82.7
81.2
–
RWQA
66.8
68.4
–
AI2D
82.9
82.3
–
TextVQA
76.6
76.4
–
ChartQA
80.8
80.4
–
RoboTwin C2R
–
69.4
10.7
Table 6: Preserving multimodal understanding enables robust VLA post-training. Understanding scores (%) and RoboTwin 2.0 clean-to-randomized (C2R) success (%) before post-training (Baseline), after co-training with diverse understanding corpus (+ Co-training), and after action-only fine-tuning (+ Action-only). The action-only model cannot produce valid text, while co-training keeps understanding capability and gives the best manipulation policy.
Model
Size
Open
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Average
OpenVLA
7B
✓
84.7
88.4
79.2
53.7
76.5
π0.5
3B
✓
98.8
98.2
98.0
92.4
96.8
MMaDA-VLA
8B
✓
98.8
99.8
98.0
95.2
98.0
EO-1
3B
✓
99.7
99.8
99.2
94.8
98.4
Qwen-RobotManip
4B
×
—
—
—
—
99.1
NEO-VLA
2B
✓
98.4
99.4
95.6
96.2
97.4
Table 7: LIBERO . NEO-VLA is evaluated over 2,000 episodes per suite at step 27,500. Size denotes parameter scale. Open indicates public weights.
Model
Size
Object
Position
Semantic
Task
Avg.
OpenVLA
7B
93.0
0.0
97.3
0.0
47.6
π0
3B
90.5
0.0
90.5
0.0
45.3
π0.5
3B
96.0
20.8
95.8
0.8
53.3
X-VLA
0.9B
79.0
0.8
96.8
6.8
45.8
NEO-VLA
2B
84.3
3.0
98.0
6.3
47.9
Table 8: LIBERO-Pro. Evaluation of VLA models under Object, Position, Semantic, and Task perturbations. Size denotes parameter scale.
Model
Size
Open
Clean
Clean2Rand
FastWAM
6B
✓
77.80
1.90
StarVLA-OFT
3B
✓
46.52
3.16
π0.5
3B
✓
70.70
46.00
OLA-Sem
8B
×
75.12
67.56
Qwen-RobotManip
4B
×
89.58
68.12
NEO-VLA
2B
✓
75.78
69.40
Table 9: RoboTwin 2.0. We report the official setting with 2.5K episodes. Size denotes parameter scale. Open indicates public weights.
Model
Size
Task1
Task2
Task3
StarVLA
3B
1/20
2/20
0/20
π0.5
3B
10/20
14/20
13/20
NEO-VLA
2B
12/20
17/20
13/20
Table 10: Real-World evluation. We report task success rate over 20 episodes per task, with 10 trials in domain and the other 10 trials out-of-domain.
Figure 5: Real-world manipulation benchmark. (a) Place a tennis ball on a can. (b) Place a tape roll in a bowl, then place a tennis ball inside the roll. (c) Reorient a horizontal can and insert it upright into a tape roll. The tasks test placement precision, multi-step execution, and object reorientation. Each model is fine-tuned on 50 episodes per scene and evaluated over 20 trials.
Figure 6: Real-world NEO-VLA demonstrations. (a) Pick up a paper cup and pour water into a glass. (b) Place a tennis ball on a can. (c) Place a tape roll in a bowl, then place the ball inside the roll. (d) Reorient a horizontal can and insert it upright into a tape roll. (e) Pick four gunkan sushi pieces, one at a time, from a table of mixed sushi and place them on a plate. Frames are arranged chronologically from left to right, with dashed circles highlighting key interaction moments and critical manipulation steps.
Stage
10 steps
2 steps
Policy
Patch embedder
3.1
2.7
Backbone prefix (40 layers)
84.8
84.7
Action expert sampling
163.4
32.4
Forward pass, eager
515.4
210.7
Forward pass, compiled
282.5
147.8
Table 11: Inference latency summary. We report milliseconds per query on one RTX 3090 in BF16, with raw 30-step chunks.
A fine-tuned Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policy can easily place the alphabet soup in the basket on command, just as it saw during fine-tuning. However, if the basket is shifted five centimeters to the left, it drops the soup off the table. We developed an interpretability pipeline to investigate what such a policy is computing. Injecting task A's activations into the action expert while the policy looks at task B's scene makes pi0.5 execute task A's motor trajectory in 99.6% of episodes (n=1,968). The injected program is bound to absolute workspace coordinates and ignores the visible scene, which provides a mechanistic account of the perturbation brittleness that concurrent benchmarks report. The binding holds on a physical UR10e: directed replay redirects the commanded task in 26/26 rollouts in one direction and 18/26 in the other, with no-injection and random-direction controls at the floor, and once the source object is moved 10--15,cm the arm grasps and releases at the recorded coordinates in 50/50 trials, picking up the wrong block when one sits there and closing on empty air when none does. Applying the same interventions to six VLAs on LIBERO, MetaWorld, SimplerEnv, and ALOHA over 420{,}000+ rollouts yields three further findings: every architecture encodes the instruction, and four of the five weight it below vision whenever the scene alone identifies the goal; under the standard replacement write-back the SAE pooling that preserves behavior is architecture-specific (pi0.5 per-token, SmolVLA indifferent), and goal selection and motor generation separate into VLM and expert pathways wherever the two are distinguishable. We release Action Atlas (https://action-atlas.com), an interactive platform covering all 520+ trained SAEs, 79 identified concepts, and the scored UR10e rollouts. Code: https://github.com/CWRU-AISM/action-atlas
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have recently emerged as a promising paradigm for robotic manipulation, in which reliable action prediction critically depends on accurately interpreting and integrating visual observations conditioned on language instructions. Although recent works have sought to enhance the visual capabilities of VLA models, most approaches treat the LLM backbone as a black box, providing limited insight into how visual information is grounded into action generation. Therefore, we perform a systematic analysis of multiple VLA models across different action-generation paradigms and observe that sensitivity to visual tokens progressively decreases in deeper layers during action generation. Motivated by this observation, we propose DeepVision-VLA, built on a Vision-Language Mixture-of-Transformers (VL-MoT) framework. This framework enables shared attention between the vision foundation model and the VLA backbone, injecting multi-level visual features from the vision expert into deeper layers of the VLA backbone to enhance visual representations for precise and complex manipulation. In addition, we introduce Action-Guided Visual Pruning (AGVP), which leverages shallow-layer attention to prune irrelevant visual tokens while preserving task-relevant ones, reinforcing critical visual cues for manipulation with minimal computational overhead. DeepVision-VLA outperforms prior state-of-the-art methods by 9.0% and 7.5% on simulated and real-world tasks, respectively, providing new insights for the design of visually enhanced VLA models.
Yulin Luo, Hao Chen, Zhuangzhe Wu +10
State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Simplexity Robotics
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models that couple pretrained Vision-Language Models (VLMs) with continuous action experts have achieved strong manipulation performance, yet generalization to out-of-distribution (OOD) language instructions remains poor. A known challenge is the structural imbalance in VLA data, where language is far less diverse than visual and action content, making policies prone to visual shortcuts. While discrete-action methods mitigate this through vision-language co-training, continuous action experts lack such protection: they start from random initialization and learn entirely from imbalanced data, producing noisy gradients that corrupt the VLM and fail to exploit its language capability. We address this from a Bayesian perspective, factorizing the policy into a language-agnostic Vision-Action (VA) prior and a language-conditioned VLA likelihood, and propose APT, a two-stage training method emphasizing Action expert PreTraining. In Stage 1, the action expert is pretrained as a VA prior on vision-action pairs from a frozen VLM, bypassing the language imbalance. In Stage 2, language tokens are injected through a gated fusion mechanism that integrates VLM features while preserving the learned visuomotor prior. APT applies to mainstream VLA architectures, including the π and GR00T-style architectures. Comprehensive experiments validate that APT achieves consistent gains on unseen instructions and compositional tasks. Project Page: https://xukechun.github.io/papers/APT/
Kechun Xu, Zhenjie Zhu, Anzhe Chen +2
Zhejiang University · Zhejiang Humanoid Robot Innovation Center