Abstract
When we say that a robot uses memory, does that memory actually play a role? Success-rate ablations alone cannot establish the use of task-relevant facts: they change information and computation together, while aggregate rates can hide offsetting gains and losses. We propose an Interventional Memory Evaluation Protocol (IMEP) for vision-language-action (VLA) systems to address four questions: (1) Does memory provide a net benefit? (2) Under what conditions does memory help? (3) Do changes to memory alter task outcomes? (4) Are these effects specific to task-relevant facts? At the retrieval interface, we compare target-fact substitutions with fact-preserving replacements, minimal numerical perturbations, and exact replicas, while assessing decision correctness separately from motor execution success. We evaluate within-episode, cross-episode, and agentic memory. In cross-episode learned-bank experiments, a one-unit-in-the-last-place (ULP) intervention, including its installation procedure, changes 11.9% of seed-paired outcomes, while changing key facts produces no clear additional effect over fact-preserving replacements. To examine when memory helps, we introduce ChainBench, where correct decisions require historical information unavailable in current observations. The full memory configuration raises task success from 39.1% to 74.3%, matching the oracle-decision condition under shared recorded executions. These results show that correct history can support robot decisions, but establishing whether a memory system realizes this benefit requires fact-specific evidence beyond aggregate success rates.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.23372
