Integration view
Paradigm comparison
VLA vs world action model vs task-specific diffusion policy vs RL policy vs classical pipeline. In real systems these are layers of one stack, not rivals: a classical safety and control layer at the bottom, RL-trained controllers for physics-dominated skills, a VLA or WAM for visuomotor behaviour, and a reasoner on top.
Where world action models sit
Taxonomy after the 2026 WAM surveys: cascaded models predict a future and then extract actions; joint models predict both together. Futures can be pixels (video) or latents (features). Inference cost falls from top-left to bottom-right.
Sources: WAM survey (Sep 2026), awesome-wam-2026 taxonomy. Detail in the frontier entry.
How the paradigms stack in one robot
| Layer | Typical paradigm (2026) | Rate | Why this paradigm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning / planning | VLM / embodied-reasoning model (ER 2, Cosmos Reason 2), sometimes cloud | 0.1–2 Hz | Semantics, long horizon, language; latency tolerant |
| Visuomotor policy | VLA today; WAM or WAM-distilled policy emerging | 5–15 Hz chunks | Generalist manipulation from pixels and language |
| Skill residuals | RL residual or small diffusion policy | 20–50 Hz | Precision and speed on contact phases |
| Whole-body / balance (humanoids) | RL motion-tracking controller | 50 Hz (→1 kHz PD) | Physics-dominated; trained in sim |
| Control & limits | Classical impedance, IK, safety filters | 0.5–1 kHz | Guarantees and certification |
| Safety functions | Classical, safety-rated hardware | ms cycle | Required by standards; independent of learning |