RADAR: Benchmarking Vision-Language-Action Generalization via Real-World Dynamics, Spatial-Physical Intelligence, and Autonomous Evaluation
Open accessAbstract
VLA models have achieved remarkable progress in embodied intelligence; however, their evaluation remains largely confined to simulations or highly constrained real-world settings. This mismatch creates a substantial reality gap, where strong benchmark performance often masks poor generalization in diverse physical environments. We identify three systemic shortcomings in current benchmarking practices that hinder fair and reliable model comparison. (1) Existing benchmarks fail to model real-world dynamics, overlooking critical factors such as dynamic object configurations, robot initial states, lighting changes, and sensor noise. (2) Current protocols neglect spatial--physical intelligence, reducing evaluation to rote manipulation tasks that do not probe geometric reasoning. (3) The field lacks scalable fully autonomous evaluation, instead relying on simplistic 2D metrics that miss 3D spatial structure or on human-in-the-loop systems that are costly, biased, and unscalable. To address these limitations, we introduce RADAR (Real-world Autonomous Dynamics And Reasoning), a benchmark designed to systematically evaluate VLA generalization under realistic conditions. RADAR integrates three core components: (1) a principled suite of physical dynamics; (2) dedicated tasks that explicitly test spatial reasoning and physical understanding; and (3) a fully autonomous evaluation pipeline based on 3D metrics, eliminating the need for human supervision. We apply RADAR to audit multiple state-of-the-art VLA models and uncover severe fragility beneath their apparent competence. Performance drops precipitously under modest physical dynamics, with the expectation of 3D IoU declining from 0.261 to 0.068 under sensor noise. Moreover, models exhibit limited spatial reasoning capability. These findings position RADAR as a necessary bench toward reliable and generalizable real-world evaluation of VLA models.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
LIBERO-Plus: In-depth Robustness Analysis of Vision-Language-Action Models
Fei, S., Wang, S., Shi, J., Dai, Z., Cai, J., Qian, P., Ji, L., He, X., Zhang, S., Fei, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13626 · cited 1×
“Existing benchmarks tend to fall into two extremes: scalable yet oversimplified simulations that lack physical dynamics [5, 6, 11, 13, 17, 22, 23] (see Fig.”
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Chen, Y., Zhan, Z., Lin, X., Song, Z., Liu, H., Lyu, Q., Zu, Y., Chen, X., Liu, Z., Pu, T., Chen, T., Wang, K., Lin, L., & Wang, G.
- Affiliations
- Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
- Guangdong University of Technology (CN)
- ORCID
- Chen, Tianshui
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2602.10980
- OpenAlex
- W7128682635
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- vision-language-action models, benchmarking, generalization, embodied AI, robotic manipulation, physical dynamics, spatial reasoning, reality gap, sensor noise
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review