World Action Models (WAMs) can condition robot actions on generated visual futures, but this additional context is neither cost-free nor uniformly beneficial. We examine what a predicted future actually changes: the action delta $Δa$ between the future-conditioned and future-free execution paths of the same model. Under a shared WAM checkpoint, this delta barely shifts average benchmark success ($+0.8$ points on LIBERO, $-0.8$ on RoboTwin~2.0), while generating visual futures increases inference latency by 1.7--1.9$\times$. These aggregate metrics conceal a concentrated failure mode that we term \emph{future-induced negative transfer}: while predictive deltas benefit long-horizon tasks ($+2.4$ points on LIBERO-Long) and remain negligible on most routine manipulations, they induce severe degradation on precision tasks---with \emph{Press Stapler} and \emph{Place Can Basket} losing 54.0 and 34.0 points, recurring as top failure modes across independently trained WAM variants. We introduce \textbf{Utility-WAM} for in-place correction of future-conditioned control. Its primary learning component is a residual adapter that repairs future-induced velocity deltas under a frozen shared WAM by aligning them with ground-truth dynamic guidance and penalizing excess error beyond the future-free baseline. The adapter selectively eliminates the majority of severe task drops (reducing losses to 6.0 and 14.0 points) while preserving long-horizon foresight. To eliminate superfluous video computation, a lightweight pre-generation gate reuses counterfactual action outcomes to selectively bypass video generation on 75.5\% of RoboTwin queries, cutting latency by 38\% while improving average success to 93.3\% on RoboTwin~2.0 and 98.9\% on LIBERO. On physical bimanual manipulation across three real-world tasks, Utility-WAM succeeds in 53 of 60 trials, compared to 43 for FAST-WAM.
Shitong Liu, Jingwei Zhang, Sheng Lian, Xinyu Zhuang, Kaiwen Guo, Quan Liu, Chunhai Zhao, Jiaxin He 等 20 位作者
Realizing Embodied AI for Science requires robots to translate experimental goals into reliable physical procedures, reducing hazardous and repetitive human work while generating evidence for scientific discovery. Although language-based planning and learned manipulation provide complementary capabilities, their integration requires robots to adapt subsequent operations to actual execution outcomes. For example, an unsuccessful placement changes what must be done next, even when the experimental goal remains unchanged. Existing benchmarks assess planning, manipulation, and laboratory workflows through task completion and reasoning or execution metrics; however, aggregate performance leaves the connection between outcome-dependent choices and physical execution unresolved. To address this evaluation gap, we introduce Labference, a benchmark for evaluating how observed physical outcomes guide subsequent choices and how those choices translate into robotic laboratory actions. Its evaluation protocol is designed to test outcome-dependent behavioral adaptation through controlled evidence variations, while independently measuring operation selection, physical execution, and task completion. Matched Oracle-assisted continuations from shared checkpoints then assess which forms of support improve subsequent choices and task completion. Initial weighing evaluations reveal target-selection errors in the tested VLA policies despite successful object transfers, whereas GPT-driven control achieves correct selection but encounters execution failures and substantial computation costs. Together, these findings highlight the need to connect task-appropriate reasoning with reliable, timely action. By making this connection measurable and diagnosable, Labference supports targeted improvements toward autonomous experimentation for Embodied AI for Science.