arXiv:2604.01618v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language-action (VLA) models have shown strong performance in robotic manipulation, yet their robustness to physically realizable adversarial attacks remains underexplored. Existing studies reveal vulnerabilities through language perturbations and 2D visual attacks, but these attack surfaces are either less representative of real deployment or limited in physical realism. In contrast, adversarial 3D textures pose a more physically plausible and damaging threat, as they are naturally attached to manipulated objects and are easier to deploy in physical environments. Bringing adversarial 3D textures to VLA systems is nevertheless nontrivial. A central obstacle is that standard 3D simulators do not provide a differentiable optimization path from the VLA objective function back to object appearance, making it difficult to optimize through an end-to-end manner. To address this, we introduce Foreground-Background Decoupling (FBD), which enables differentiable texture optimization through dual-renderer alignment while preserving the original simulation environment. To further ensure that the attack remains effective across long-horizon and diverse viewpoints in the physical world, we propose Trajectory-Aware Adversarial Optimization (TAAO), which prioritizes behaviorally critical frames and stabilizes optimization with a vertex-based parameterization. Built on these designs, we present Tex3D, the first framework for end-to-end optimization of 3D adversarial textures directly within the VLA simulation environment. Experiments in both simulation and real-robot settings show that Tex3D significantly degrades VLA performance across multiple manipulation tasks, achieving task failure rates of up to 96.7\%. Our empirical results expose critical vulnerabilities of VLA systems to physically grounded 3D adversarial attacks and highlight the need for robustness-aware training.

arXiv:2511.10788v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have made reasoning a central benchmark for evaluating intelligence. While prior surveys focus on efficiency by examining how to shorten reasoning chains or reduce computation, this view overlooks a fundamental challenge: current LLMs apply uniform reasoning strategies regardless of task complexity, generating long traces for trivial problems while failing to extend reasoning for difficult tasks. This survey reframes reasoning through the lens of {adaptivity}: the capability to allocate reasoning effort based on input characteristics such as difficulty and uncertainty. We make three contributions. First, we formalize deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning within the LLM context, connecting these classical cognitive paradigms with their algorithmic realizations. Second, we formalize adaptive reasoning as a control-augmented policy optimization problem balancing task performance with computational cost, distinguishing learned policies from inference-time control mechanisms. Third, we propose a systematic taxonomy organizing existing methods into training-based approaches that internalize adaptivity through reinforcement learning, supervised fine-tuning, and learned controllers, and training-free approaches that achieve adaptivity through prompt conditioning, feedback-driven halting, and modular composition. This framework clarifies how different mechanisms realize adaptive reasoning in practice and enables systematic comparison across diverse strategies. We conclude by identifying open challenges in self-evaluation, meta-reasoning, and human-aligned reasoning control.

arXiv:2603.22767v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Observational studies can yield clinically actionable evidence at scale, but executing them on real-world databases is open-ended and requires coherent decisions across cohort construction, analysis, and reporting. Prior evaluations of LLM agents emphasize isolated steps or single answers, missing the integrity and internal structure of the resulting evidence bundle. To address this gap, we introduce RWE-bench, a benchmark grounded in MIMIC-IV and derived from peer-reviewed observational studies. Each task provides the corresponding study protocol as the reference standard, requiring agents to execute experiments in a real database and iteratively generate tree-structured evidence bundles. We evaluate six LLMs (three open-source, three closed-source) under three agent scaffolds using both question-level correctness and end-to-end task metrics. Across 162 tasks, task success is low: the best agent reaches 39.9%, and the best open-source model reaches 30.4%. Agent scaffolds also matter substantially, causing over 30% variation in performance metrics. Furthermore, we implement an automated cohort evaluation method to rapidly localize errors and identify agent failure modes. Overall, the results highlight persistent limitations in agents' ability to produce end-to-end evidence bundles, and efficient validation remains an important direction for future work. Code and data are available at https://github.com/somewordstoolate/RWE-bench.

arXiv:2505.13180v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Integrating Large Language Models with symbolic planners is a promising direction for obtaining verifiable and grounded plans, with recent work extending this idea to visual domains using Vision-Language Models (VLMs). However, a rigorous comparison with methods that plan directly with VLMs is missing, due to a lack of visual benchmarks that support symbolic planning. We present ViPlan, the first open-source benchmark for comparing VLM-grounded symbolic approaches (VLM-as-grounder) with direct VLM planning methods (VLM-as-planner). ViPlan introduces a series of increasingly challenging tasks in two visual domains: a visual variant of the classic Blocksworld planning problem and a simulated household robotics environment. We find VLM-as-grounder methods to outperform direct VLM planning in Blocksworld (solving 46% of the tasks against 9%), where image grounding is both crucial and accurate. However, in the household robotics tasks, where linguistic knowledge helps, VLM-as-planner methods are greatly superior to VLM-as-grounder approaches (solving 34% of the tasks against 5%), which are hindered by partial observability. Thus, ViPlan domains capture fundamental shortcomings of both planning approaches, which we further diagnose with a qualitative failure analysis. Finally, across methods, we observe no consistent benefit from Chain-of-Thought prompting, suggesting persistent limitations in current VLMs' visual reasoning abilities.