MINERVA: How Small Can a Manipulation Policy Be and Still Solve LIBERO?

· Editorial Team estimated
vla model-efficiency libero benchmark-analysis robot-learning

MINERVA measures the task-specific capacity floor of the LIBERO benchmark with deliberately compact visuomotor policies: a 0.54M-parameter policy reaches 95.1% average success over 2,000 rollouts across the four standard LIBERO suites — only 2.4 points below the reported LeRobot pi0.5 result with 7,700x fewer parameters. Performance saturates near 1M parameters and collapses below 0.25M. A task-ID permutation probe shows standard LIBERO instruction conditioning primarily selects among memorized tasks, and the tiny policy replans every control step in 5-9 ms on a laptop CPU — 113x faster than SmolVLA and 1,400x faster than pi0.5.

Paper · arXiv:2609.03715

Billions of parameters have become the default currency of vision-language-action (VLA) models, and large VLAs now dominate the LIBERO manipulation benchmark. But a question that rarely gets asked is: how much of that capacity does the benchmark actually require? MINERVA inverts the usual scaling narrative — instead of asking how big a policy must be, it asks how small a policy can be and still solve the task.

Core Innovation

  • A capacity-floor measurement — the MINERVA family of deliberately compact visuomotor policies quantifies the minimum model capacity LIBERO actually demands.
  • A 0.54M-parameter policy at 95.1% — over 2,000 rollouts across the four standard LIBERO suites, only 2.4 points below the reported LeRobot pi0.5 result despite 7,700x fewer parameters; performance saturates near 1M parameters and collapses below 0.25M.
  • Diagnostic probes into what LIBERO measures — a task-ID permutation probe shows that standard instruction conditioning mostly selects among memorized tasks (remapping task IDs drops success to near chance), and flow matching offers no detectable advantage over direct L1 regression while being up to 3.8x slower on GPU.

Results

  • 95.1% average success on the four standard LIBERO suites (0.54M parameters, 2,000 rollouts) and 94.6% across 89 LIBERO-90 tasks.
  • 5-9 ms replanning per chunk on a laptop CPU without a GPU — 113x faster than SmolVLA and 1,400x faster than pi0.5.
  • Robustness limits quantified: LIBERO-Plus perturbations cut performance to 46-56%, with near-zero robustness to photometric shifts.

Limitations

LIBERO is a single simulated benchmark family, and the paper’s own probes suggest part of its signal reflects task memorization rather than generalizable instruction following — so the capacity floor is benchmark-specific, not a statement about real-world manipulation. Robustness under distribution shift remains poor even for the compact policies, and the abstract does not report physical-robot deployment.

Industry Implications

MINERVA is a useful corrective for teams spending heavily on ever-larger VLA backbones: if a benchmark is solvable by a sub-megaparameter policy that replans in milliseconds on a laptop, then for many deployment scenarios the expensive GPU inference stack is unnecessary overhead. The results motivate capacity-aware architecture search and distillation of large VLAs into tiny deployment policies, and they sharpen benchmark hygiene — a reminder that leaderboard gains on LIBERO-style suites must be validated against memorization before they are trusted as evidence of general capability.