Krishnam Gupta

Krishnam Gupta

We discover that VLA architectures fail in fundamentally different, predictable ways at the motor-command level. Running VQ-BeT, Diffusion Policy, and ACT on identical evaluation protocols (n=450 episodes across PushT and ALOHA 14-DOF bimanual manipulation), we find: (1) direction reversal rate is a universal failure predictor across all three architectures (AUROC=0.93, 0.79, 0.91; p<0.001); (2) jerk monitoring is predictive only for discrete-token architectures, following a discrete-to-continuous gradient (0.88, 0.69, 0.41); (3) velocity violations alone are non-predictive everywhere (AUROC 0.41-0.69), yet velocity checking is the most common safety mechanism in VLA deployment code; and (4) for continuous-family VLAs, velocity monitoring provides effectively zero predictive signal (AUROC=0.52 on ACT, 0.41 on Diffusion), proving that architecture-matched monitor selection is essential. These results quantify a monitoring consequence of the well-known discrete/continuous VLA distinction: the two families produce qualitatively different failure signatures that require different monitors. No single monitor works universally; architecture-matched selection is required. This finding was enabled by SafeContract, a training-free, black-box action monitoring toolkit with conformal calibration. Code: https://github.com/krishnam94/vla-edge

Krishnam Gupta, Syed Ashar Javed, Vineet Gandhi et al.

We present here, a novel network architecture called MergeNet for discovering small obstacles for on-road scenes in the context of autonomous driving. The basis of the architecture rests on the central consideration of training with less amount of data since the physical setup and the annotation process for small obstacles is hard to scale. For making effective use of the limited data, we propose a multi-stage training procedure involving weight-sharing, separate learning of low and high level features from the RGBD input and a refining stage which learns to fuse the obtained complementary features. The model is trained and evaluated on the Lost and Found dataset and is able to achieve state-of-art results with just 135 images in comparison to the 1000 images used by the previous benchmark. Additionally, we also compare our results with recent methods trained on 6000 images and show that our method achieves comparable performance with only 1000 training samples.