Writing study: AT-VLA: Adaptive Tactile Injection for Enhanced Feedback Reaction in Vision-Language-Action Models

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Xiaoqi Li, Muhe Cai, Jiadong Xu, Juan Zhu, Hongwei Fan, Yan Shen, Guangrui Ren, Hao Dong · Official CVPR 2026 oral record

Observed writing choices, not acceptance rules. This study examines the inspected manuscript version. It does not establish why the paper was accepted or that its presentation choices should be copied unchanged.

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Architecture & representation (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF

11 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.09 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

4 / 3

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

No boundary detected; not assumed zero

Before references / appendix: ≈ 73.55%References / intervening material: ≈ 26.45%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level heading	Starts on PDF page	Estimated span	Share of entire PDF
1. Introduction	1	≈ 0.98 pp.	8.91%
2. Related Work	2	≈ 0.91 pp.	8.27%
3. Method	3	≈ 1.86 pp.	16.91%
4. Experiment	5	≈ 3.15 pp.	28.64%
5. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.27 pp.	2.45%
References	9	≈ 2.91 pp.	26.45%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 3
• Figure 3 · p. 4
• Table 1 · p. 6
• Table 2 · p. 6
• Figure 4 · p. 7
• Table 3 · p. 8

Attached appendix

No recognized caption labels.

Argument and organization

1. Interference diagnosis

   Motivate selective tactile input using a comparison between vanilla and direct tactile incorporation.

2. When to inject versus how fast to react

   Separate adaptive tactile injection from dual-stream reaction and then test contact-rich, missing-modality and ablated settings.

Problem, claim and contribution

The argument distinguishes two obstacles—disrupting pretrained perception and slow feedback reaction—so the two proposed components have different jobs.

Introduction and Sections 3.2–3.3 · Main paper

Argument and section order

An intuition experiment precedes the injection mechanism; separate subsections define training/inference and evaluation rather than blending them into the architecture description.

Sections 3.2–3.4 · Main paper

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 3 places paired attention maps over identical manipulation scenes, while Figure 4 uses aligned initial/grasp/contact-rich columns to make task progress inspectable.

Figure 3, PDF p. 4; Figure 4, PDF p. 7 · Main paper

Tables, comparisons and evidence

The modality-agnostic comparison states that with/without-tactile variants share weights, distinguishing an input-removal test from retraining a different system.

Table 2 and Section 4.3, PDF pp. 6–7 · Main paper

Appendix and reproducibility

Reproducibility information available in this scan is in main Sections 3.4 and 4.1; no separate PDF supplement was supplied by the recorded source metadata.

Main PDF pp. 5–8 and source metadata · Main paper

Clarity and writing conventions

Ablation variants Ex0–Ex4 are explained in prose by the intervention they add, making the table interpretable without decoding anonymous configurations.

Section 4.4.1 and Table 3, PDF pp. 7–8 · Main paper

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: When a multimodal system solves both representation interference and reaction latency, separate their mechanisms and tests; use temporal task panels to expose where feedback matters.

Boundary: Attention maps are diagnostic illustrations, not independent proof of causal interference. Distinguish shared-weight missing-input robustness from universal modality invariance.

Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

Inspection record and sources

Checked

2026-09-26

Reading status

Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected

Main text

Manuscript-wide writing scan of main PDF pp. 1–8: framing, section structure, method exposition, figure/table captions, evaluation organization and conclusions; not an exhaustive technical proof audit or reproduction.

Appendix / supplement

No separate supplementary PDF is recorded in the downloaded source metadata; scanned the 11-page proceedings PDF and its explicit main-text setup/ablation details. No claim of inspecting an unavailable supplement.

Visually inspected PDF pages

4, 7

This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.

• Official CVPR 2026 CVF proceedings PDF; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 11 pages