跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.28166 · v2

Reasoning as a Distribution: Generative Plan Latents for Vision-Language-Action Models

首次提交 2026-10-20 21:08
版本更新 2026-10-26 17:47
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:36
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies increasingly reason before acting, but existing reasoning models compress this intermediate decision into a single representation. When several plans are valid, this commitment hides alternatives that could otherwise be selected or revised. We introduce the Generative Plan Latent (GPL), which represents the reasoning state as a low-dimensional conditional distribution over plans, such as which object, grasp, or route to use. This makes the reasoning state addressable: without retraining the VLA, plans can be sampled (coverage), selected on request (steering), and reweighted by deployment outcomes (outcome adaptation). We test all three on SimplerEnv manipulation with $π_0$, and extend the analysis to RoboCasa, LIBERO, and a maze domain. Steering the plan raises the fraction of executions that follow the request from 0.48 to 0.94, while the same guidance on the native action distribution shows no reliable gain. Finally, we show that an explicit plan is most useful when it carries decision information not already determined by the observation.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-10-26 17:47 · 最新观测版本

Reasoning as a Distribution: Generative Plan Latents for Vision-Language-Action Models

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies increasingly reason before acting, but existing reasoning models compress this intermediate decision into a single representation. When several plans are valid, this commitment hides alternatives that could otherwise be selected or revised. We introduce the Generative Plan Latent (GPL), which represents the reasoning state as a low-dimensional conditional distribution over plans, such as which object, grasp, or route to use. This makes the reasoning state addressable: without retraining the VLA, plans can be sampled (coverage), selected on request (steering), and reweighted by deployment outcomes (outcome adaptation). We test all three on SimplerEnv manipulation with $π_0$, and extend the analysis to RoboCasa, LIBERO, and a maze domain. Steering the plan raises the fraction of executions that follow the request from 0.48 to 0.94, while the same guidance on the native action distribution shows no reliable gain. Finally, we show that an explicit plan is most useful when it carries decision information not already determined by the observation.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗