Suppression Sticks, Locality Is Fragile: A Closed-Loop Target-and-Control Audit of Task-Vector Negation in VLA Policies

Task-vector arithmetic offers a closed-form way to modify a model, yet its behavioral locality remains unclear in closed-loop robot control. We present a target-and-control audit of per-skill task-vector subtraction from multitask vision-language-action (VLA) policies. Across all ten LIBERO-Goal skills, subtraction produces three qualitatively different regimes: target-control separation for five skills, resistance for three, and global collapse for two. On held-out initial states, the five suppressible targets remain at 0% success; however, mean baseline-normalized control retention is only 52%, and each target-suppressing edit materially harms at least one nominally unrelated control. Additional Goal panels show separation across tested policies with continuous-regression, discrete-token, and flow-matching action heads, whereas we observe no clean separation on Spatial and control collapse on the tested Object and Long-horizon panels. Mean task-vector cosine does not account for this variation. A matched-norm control identifies a local sign asymmetry around one Goal anchor, while multi-vector outcomes vary with anchor and scale. Retain-aware gradient baselines provide data-dependent comparators but require removal-time data and optimization; subtraction is data- and gradient-free only at edit time, assuming precomputed expert deltas. Finally, a single-skill relearning probe is consistent with behavioral masking, not certified unlearning. These results characterize task-vector subtraction as a fast but brittle intervention and underscore the need for closed-loop target-and-control evaluation when assessing locality in embodied model editing.

CrossVLA: Cross-Paradigm Post-Training and Inference Optimization for Vision-Language-Action Models

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have rapidly converged on a small set of architectural patterns: discrete-token autoregression (e.g. OpenVLA) and continuous-action flow-matching (e.g. pi-0.5). Yet preference alignment via Direct Preference Optimisation (DPO) -- the de-facto post-training step in language models -- has been studied almost exclusively on autoregressive VLAs. We present CrossVLA, an empirical study of cross-paradigm VLA post-training. Three contributions: (i) a surrogate flow-matching log-probability estimator that lets DPO operate on continuous-action backbones without probability-flow ODE integration; (ii) a head-to-head comparison of LoRA and DoRA as the parameter-efficient layer for VLA DPO, finding DoRA improves over OpenVLA SFT by a mean +10.4 pp across LIBERO 4-suite (600 trials, 3 seeds) -- per-suite +20.0 Object, +11.0 Long-horizon, +8.0 Goal, +2.7 Spatial -- with zero seed variance on Object (38/50 on each of 3 seeds); (iii) an inference-time anatomy showing the denoise loop dominates 78.6% of sample_actions latency and prefix-K/V caching a la VLA-Cache caps at a 21% acceleration ceiling -- both chunk-level and token-level cache strategies degrade success rate to 0-80% in our benchmarks. We further pretrain a multi-view + temporal projection head on 6000 LIBERO frames, achieving 99.5% k-NN recall@1 for same-task retrieval (36x over random), available as a downstream initialisation. All code, ckpts, training logs, and reproduction scripts are open at https://github.com/lz-googlefycy/vla-lab.