Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 3, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Reasoning vision-language-action (VLA) models pair physical control with natural-language rationales that supervisors can read to monitor embodied safety. Prior attacks on VLA reasoning corrupt the rationale itself and leave visible evidence in the text. We show that visual perturbations can instead alter the physical action while keeping the generated rationale word-for-word identical. At the shared text/action interface of Alpamayo for driving and InstructVLA for manipulation, our text-neutral action-subspace (TNAS) diagnostic shows that the locally most action-sensitive direction is nearly orthogonal to the active text-loss gradients, with 1.87% and 5.28% norm overlap. At equal hidden-state perturbation norms across both models, interventions along this text-neutral residual shift actions 4.64x to 47.8x more than text-gradient perturbations, whereas text-gradient perturbations induce 21.2x to 277x more text drift. Steering visual perturbations along this direction reaches the same decoupling from the image. Across 154 obstacle-annotated driving scenes in Alpamayo, TNAS-guided attacks induce a new collision under a word-for-word identical rationale in 52.6% of scenes under full-image perturbations and 35.1% under a localized forward-camera patch, compared with 4.55% for unguided action attacks. Relative to a text-preserving baseline, TNAS guidance raises exact rationale preservation from 83.0% to 89.5% and cuts teacher-forced text drift by 68.4% at a comparable collision rate. In InstructVLA, TNAS guidance cuts text drift by 40.5% and preserves the exact response on 85.0% of examples alongside a 1.73-unit action-chunk shift. An unchanged rationale therefore cannot certify a safe action, so monitors for reasoning VLAs must verify the predicted action channel directly.