LIBERO-Para
VLA policies run LIBERO tasks with over 4,000 paraphrased instructions that vary object and action wording separately. Scored by success rate and the difficulty-aware PRIDE metric.
EMNLP 2026 main conference oral. 78 Hugging Face paper upvotes. Seven VLA setups lose 22 to 52 points under paraphrasing. A CALVIN-Para variant ships in the same repo.
In the authors’ words
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models achieve strong performance in robotic manipulation by leveraging pre-trained vision-language backbones. However, in downstream robotic settings, they are typically fine-tuned with limited data, leading to overfitting to specific instruction formulations and leaving robustness to paraphrased instructions underexplored. To study this gap, we introduce LIBERO-Para, a controlled benchmark that independently varies action expressions and object references for fine-grained analysis of linguistic generalization. Across seven VLA configurations (0.6B-7.5B), we observe consistent performance degradation of 22-52 pp under paraphrasing. This degradation is primarily driven by object-level lexical variation: even simple synonym substitutions cause large drops, indicating reliance on surface-level matching rather than semantic grounding. Moreover, 80-96% of failures arise from planning-level trajectory divergence rather than execution errors, showing that paraphrasing disrupts task identification. Binary success rate treats all paraphrases equally, obscuring whether models perform consistently across difficulty levels or rely on easier cases. To address this, we propose PRIDE, a metric that quantifies paraphrase difficulty using semantic and syntactic factors. Our benchmark and corresponding code are available at: https://github.com/cau-hai-lab/LIBERO-Para
- Level
- Everyday Most adults, without training
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for LIBERO-Para yet.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Robotics
- ERQA In use 400 multiple-choice visual questions from robot and egocentric footage on spatial, trajectory, action and state reasoning. Accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 78.5%
- RoboLab In use Zero-shot DROID Franka policies in Isaac Lab on 120 tabletop tasks at three instruction levels, 10 episodes each. Success rate.
GR00T N1.7 8.58%
- Human proximity (Google DeepMind robotics) In use Models judge from robot camera views whether a human is within 1 meter, a spatial awareness check for safe robot behavior. Scored by accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 93%
- Moment finding (Google DeepMind) In use Models find the moment in a robot video when an event happens. Scored by accuracy and mean absolute time distance in seconds.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 91.3%
- Progress classification (Google DeepMind) In use Models assign each frame of a robot video to one of five task-progress bands from 0 to 100 percent. Scored by accuracy.
Gemini Robotics ER 2 57.4%
- LIBERO Fading Simulated Franka tabletop tasks in four 10-task suites. Policies fine-tuned on 50 demos per task. Success rate over ~50 trials.
MolmoAct 2 97.2%