Vision-language-action policies are typically evaluated one perturbation at a time, providing a useful diagnosis of their sensitivity to individual distribution shifts. Real-world deployment, however, may involve several shifts simultaneously, and it remains unclear how these individual robustness measurements compose. We ask whether compound robustness can be inferred from single-axis evaluations. We introduce LIBERO-CTRL, a six-axis benchmark that pairs each initial state across single-axis conditions and a matched simultaneous condition. This design reveals two opposing outcome changes that aggregate success rates cannot distinguish: emergent failures, where all single-axis rollouts succeed but the simultaneous rollout fails, and compensated successes, where at least one single-axis rollout fails but the simultaneous rollout succeeds. Because one transition decreases compound success while the other increases it, they can cancel, making aggregate compound performance appear consistent with single-axis measurements even when individual outcomes differ substantially. These opposing transitions can largely cancel in aggregate: even when the difference between the two transition rates is not statistically distinguishable from zero, as many as 29.0% of matched initial states still change outcome. Across six policies and three severity levels, such outcome changes reach 34.5% in the most affected condition. The relative prevalence of the two transitions varies across policies and severities, while the transition rates remain similar under independent re-evaluation of stochastic policies. Compound robustness therefore cannot be characterized from aggregate single-axis success rates alone; matched per-instance evaluation is needed to reveal how joint perturbations alter behavior.

翻译：暂无翻译