CARE: Certifying Acceleration for Vision-Language-Action Inference
On the map: Vision-language-action models → Failure recovery and robustness also fits: Efficient VLA inference and adaptation
Abstract (arXiv)
While vision-language-action (VLA) models have advanced rapidly, running them at every control step remains expensive. Prior work accelerates VLA inference using techniques like action chunking and visual-token pruning, typically evaluating based on latency and average task success. However, acceleration may discard information and break tasks the original policy would solve, a risk hidden by average metrics. Measuring these failures is challenging because action deviations compound over closed-loop trajectories, meaning task failure is only observable across full episodes. We therefore define an acceleration-induced failure via paired rollouts from identical initial conditions, tracking when the reference succeeds but the accelerated policy fails. To manage this, we introduce CARE, an approach for certified accelerator selection. CARE uses paired rollouts on a calibration set to provide finite-sample guarantees that acceleration-induced failure risk stays below a user-specified budget. It deploys the fastest certified candidate, falling back to the reference if none qualify. By relying only on terminal outcomes and measured compute, CARE applies unchanged across diverse acceleration mechanisms, while sequential testing and failure-triggered reference rollouts keep certification affordable. On four LIBERO suites with OpenVLA-OFT, CARE certifies 9.0--10.8× speedups while guaranteeing (at 95% confidence) that at least 85.8% of reference-solved episodes are preserved. Under tight budgets, selectors without guarantees exceed the budget in up to 75% of trials, whereas CARE stays within budget and its sequential form uses 78.9% fewer rollouts than exhaustive evaluation. CARE further generalizes to flow-step reduction for π0.5, and to Qwen3.5-9B and Llama-3.1-8B agents in Crafter.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Failure recovery and robustness, one of 13 directions in Vision-language-action models. First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2026.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Look Before You Leap: Distilling Tree Search into Action Evaluation for Frozen VLA Models
- 2025Steering Vision-Language-Action Models as Anti-Exploration: A Test-Time Scaling Approach
- 2026Are Vision-Language-Action Models Robust to One-Step Observation Perturbations?
- 2026Faster and Better? Benchmark Bugs and Design Limitations Distort the Evaluation of Vision-Language-Action Acceleration
- 2025Does Acceleration Cause Hidden Instability in Vision Language Models? Uncovering Instance-Level Divergence Through a Large-Scale Empirical Study
- 2026Learning What to Say to Your VLA: Mostly Harmless Vision Language Action Model Steering
- 2026Fewer Steps, Better Actions: Rethinking Flow-Matching Inference for VLA Policies
- 2026VLA-FAIL: Efficient Task Failure Detection for Finetuned Vision-Language-Action Models