# Encoded but Not in Control: Revealing the Grounding Gap in Vision-Language Robot Policies

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.06235 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.06235/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 96 of its 107 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 96)

- [RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15818/) (2023)
- [Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.04137/) (2023)
- [π0: A Vision-Language-Action Flow Model for General Robot Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.24164/) (2024)
- [π0.5: a Vision-Language-Action Model with Open-World Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.16054/) (2025)
- [Learning Fine-Grained Bimanual Manipulation with Low-Cost Hardware](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.13705/) (2023)
- [Octo: An Open-Source Generalist Robot Policy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.12213/) (2024)
- [LIBERO: Benchmarking Knowledge Transfer for Lifelong Robot Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03310/) (2023)
- [GR00T N1: An Open Foundation Model for Generalist Humanoid Robots](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14734/) (2025)
- [Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advances](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.12452/) (2021)
- [Open X-Embodiment: Robotic Learning Datasets and RT-X Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08864/) (2023)
- [VoxPoser: Composable 3D Value Maps for Robotic Manipulation with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.05973/) (2023)
- [RDT-1B: a Diffusion Foundation Model for Bimanual Manipulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07864/) (2024)
- [Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03368/) (2019)
- [Learning Universal Policies via Text-Guided Video Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00111/) (2023)
- [RoboTwin 2.0: A Scalable Data Generator and Benchmark with Strong Domain Randomization for Robust Bimanual Robotic Manipulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.18088/) (2025)
- [World Action Models are Zero-shot Policies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15922/) (2026)
- [CoT-VLA: Visual Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Vision-Language-Action Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.22020/) (2025)
- [WorldVLA: Towards Autoregressive Action World Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.21539/) (2025)
- [Unleashing Large-Scale Video Generative Pre-training for Visual Robot Manipulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.13139/) (2023)
- [Fast-WAM: Do World Action Models Need Test-time Future Imagination?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.16666/) (2026)
- [TinyVLA: Towards Fast, Data-Efficient Vision-Language-Action Models for Robotic Manipulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12514/) (2024)
- [3D-VLA: A 3D Vision-Language-Action Generative World Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.09631/) (2024)
- [Latent Action Pretraining from Videos](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.11758/) (2024)
- [Causal World Modeling for Robot Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.21998/) (2026)
- [ReKep: Spatio-Temporal Reasoning of Relational Keypoint Constraints for Robotic Manipulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.01652/) (2024)
- [LIBERO-Plus: In-depth Robustness Analysis of Vision-Language-Action Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.13626/) (2025)
- [Cosmos Policy: Fine-Tuning Video Models for Visuomotor Control and Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.16163/) (2026)
- [GR-2: A Generative Video-Language-Action Model with Web-Scale Knowledge for Robot Manipulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06158/) (2024)
- [3D Diffuser Actor: Policy Diffusion with 3D Scene Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10885/) (2024)
- [Motus: A Unified Latent Action World Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.13030/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Instruction following is central to language-conditioned robot policies: language should determine what to do when the same scene permits multiple valid actions. Yet successful execution alone cannot establish whether a policy follows the instruction or infers the task from the scene. We study this ambiguity through scene-preserving instruction interventions, using valid target substitutions, arbitrary nouns, and unrelated sentences while holding the scene fixed. We evaluate vision-language-action (VLA) policies and world-action models (WAMs) in simulation and in real-world experiments. Our analysis addresses three questions: (a) Does task success imply instruction following? When instructions request a different visible object, all evaluated policies predominantly approach and pick up the incorrect original target associated with the scene. (b) Is this failure caused by language insensitivity? Instruction perturbations affect task performance. A layerwise action lens shows intermediate action predictions respond to these perturbations. Linear probes accurately recover instructed targets, indicating modified instructions are encoded despite rarely determining target selection. (c) Why does encoded language fail to control action? Attention analysis indicates weak instruction-token contributions to action generation. Target-token attention can remain focused on the original object, revealing a mismatch between target encoding and visual grounding. UMAP and shared non-negative matrix factorization show target information remains accessible within representations increasingly organized by scene identity. Our findings expose a grounding gap concealed by nominal success and provide a diagnostic framework. They further establish a concrete criterion for progress: policies should reliably follow valid changes in user intent, even when they conflict with scene-favored behavior.