AsyncShield: A Plug-and-Play Edge Adapter for Asynchronous Cloud-based VLA Navigation
Extracted source text · arXiv 2604.24086
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
\documentclass[letterpaper, 10 pt, conference]{ieeeconf} % Comment this line out if you need a4paper
%\documentclass[a4paper, 10pt, conference]{ieeeconf} % Use this line for a4 paper
\usepackage{graphicx}
% \usepackage{censor}
% \opoiIEEEoverridecommandlockouts % This command is only needed if % you want to use the \thanks command
\IEEEoverridecommandlockouts
\overrideIEEEmargins % Needed to meet printer requirements.
%In case you encounter the following error:
%Error 1010 The PDF file may be corrupt (unable to open PDF file) OR
%Error 1000 An error occurred while parsing a contents stream. Unable to analyze the PDF file.
%This is a known problem with pdfLaTeX conversion filter. The file cannot be opened with acrobat reader
%Please use one of the alternatives below to circumvent this error by uncommenting one or the other
%\pdfobjcompresslevel=0
%\pdfminorversion=4
% See the \addtolength command later in the file to balance the column lengths
% on the last page of the document
% The following packages can be found on http:\\www.ctan.org
%\usepackage{graphics} % for pdf, bitmapped graphics files
%\usepackage{epsfig} % for postscript graphics files
%\usepackage{mathptmx} % assumes new font selection scheme installed
%\usepackage{times} % assumes new font selection scheme installed
%\usepackage{amsmath} % assumes amsmath package installed
%\usepackage{amssymb} % assumes amsmath package installed
\usepackage{cite}
\title{\LARGE \bf
AsyncShield: A Plug-and-Play Edge Adapter for Asynchronous Cloud-based VLA Navigation
}
% \author{Anonymous}
% \author{Albert Author$^{1}$ and Bernard D. Researcher$^{2}$% <-this % stops a space
% \thanks{*This work was not supported by any organization}% <-this % stops a space
% \thanks{$^{1}$Albert Author is with Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science,
% University of Twente, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
% {\tt\small albert.author@papercept.net}}%
% \thanks{$^{2}$Bernard D. Researcheris with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Wright State University,
% Dayton, OH 45435, USA
% {\tt\small b.d.researcher@ieee.org}}%
% }
% \author{Kai Yang$^{1}$, Zedong Chu$^{1†}$, Yingnan Guo$^{1}$, Zhengbo Wang$^{1}$, Shichao Xie$^{1}$, \\
% Yanfen Shen$^{1}$, Xiaolong Wu$^{1}$, Xing L\"{u}$^{2}$, and Mu Xu$^{1}$% <-this % stops a space
% \thanks{†Corresponding author.}%
% \thanks{$^{1}$Amap, Alibaba Group, Beijing, China. Emails: \{yk496472, chuzedong.czd\}@alibaba-inc.com}%
% \thanks{$^{2}$Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China.}%
% }
% \usepackage{amsmath, amssymb}
% \usepackage{booktabs} % 用来画表格的粗横线 (\toprule, \midrule)
% \usepackage{multirow} % 用来处理跨行表头
% \usepackage[font=small, labelsep=colon, justification=justified, singlelinecheck=false]{caption} % 新加的！
\author{Kai Yang$^{1}$, Zedong Chu$^{1\dagger}$, Yingnan Guo$^{1}$, Zhengbo Wang$^{1}$, Shichao Xie$^{1}$, \\
Yanfen Shen$^{1}$, Xiaolong Wu$^{1}$, Xing L\"{u}$^{2}$, and Mu Xu$^{1}$% <-this % stops a space
\thanks{$^{\dagger}$Corresponding author.}%
\thanks{$^{1}$Amap, Alibaba Group, Beijing, China. Emails: \{yk496472, chuzedong.czd\}@alibaba-inc.com}%
\thanks{$^{2}$Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China.}%
}
\usepackage{amsmath, amssymb}
\usepackage{booktabs} % 用来画表格的粗横线 (\toprule, \midrule)
\usepackage{multirow} % 用来处理跨行表头
\usepackage[font=small, labelsep=colon, justification=justified, singlelinecheck=false]{caption} % 新加的！
\begin{document}
\maketitle
% \thispagestyle{empty}
% \pagestyle{empty}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \begin{abstract}
% Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have demonstrated strong zero-shot generalization for robot control.
% However, cloud deployment introduces network jitter and inference latency, which can induce severe spatio-temporal misalignment in mobile navigation under continuous displacement---stale intents expressed in past ego frames may become spatially incorrect in the current frame and lead to collisions.
% To address this, we propose AsyncShield, an asynchronous control framework built on the key insight that ``Latency is Geometry.'' On the edge, AsyncShield maintains a temporal pose buffer and applies a purely kinematic $SE(2)$ analytical transform to map timestamped historical waypoints into the current ego frame, thereby decoupling low-frequency/intermittent cloud inference from high-frequency edge execution and bounding alignment error by local odometry drift rather than unbounded accumulation. To balance intent fidelity and physical safety, we formulate edge adaptation as a Constrained Markov Decision Process (CMDP) and employ PPO-Lagrangian to maximize geometric tracking reward while satisfying an independent, high-rate LiDAR-based obstacle-avoidance safety constraint. Combined with a universal action space and kinematic domain randomization for cross-embodiment robustness, AsyncShield serves as a plug-and-play edge module. Experiments show that, without any fine-tuning of the cloud VLA model, AsyncShield achieves zero-shot robustness to long-tail network jitter and transfers across heterogeneous mobile bases, significantly outperforming prior asynchronous execution baselines in both success rate and safety.
% \end{abstract}
\begin{abstract}
While Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have been demonstrated possessing strong zero-shot generalization for robot control, their massive parameter sizes typically necessitate cloud-based deployment. However, cloud deployment introduces network jitter and inference latency, which can induce severe spatiotemporal misalignment in mobile navigation under continuous displacement, so that the stale intents expressed in past ego frames may become spatially incorrect in the current frame and lead to collisions. To address this issue, we propose AsyncShield, a plug-and-play asynchronous control framework. AsyncShield discards traditional black-box time-series prediction in favor of a deterministic physical white-box spatial mapping. By maintaining a temporal pose buffer and utilizing kinematic transformations, the system accurately converts temporal lag into spatial pose offsets to restore the VLA's original geometric intent. To balance intent restoration fidelity and physical safety, the edge adaptation is formulated as a constrained Markov decision process (CMDP). Solved via the PPO-Lagrangian algorithm, a reinforcement learning adapter dynamically trades off between tracking the VLA intent and responding to high-frequency LiDAR obstacle avoidance hard constraints. Furthermore, benefiting from a standardized universal sub-goal interface, domain randomization, and perception-level adaptation via Collision Radius Inflation, AsyncShield operates as a lightweight, plug-and-play module. Simulation and real-world experiments demonstrate that, without fine-tuning any cloud-based foundation models, the framework exhibits zero-shot and robust generalization capabilities, effectively improving the success rate and physical safety of asynchronous navigation.
\end{abstract}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \section{INTRODUCTION}
% This template provides authors with most of the formatting specifications needed for preparing electronic versions of their papers. All standard paper components have been specified for three reasons: (1) ease of use when formatting individual papers, (2) automatic compliance to electronic requirements that facilitate the concurrent or later production of electronic products, and (3) conformity of style throughout a conference proceedings. Margins, column widths, line spacing, and type styles are built-in; examples of the type styles are provided throughout this document and are identified in italic type, within parentheses, following the example. Some components, such as multi-leveled equations, graphics, and tables are not prescribed, although the various table text styles are provided. The formatter will need to create these components, incorporating the applicable criteria that follow.This is a test sentence to check my reference \cite{Bengio+chapter2007}.
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec:intro}
While Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have been demonstrated possessing impressive zero-shot generalization capabilities in robotic manipulation~\cite{zhang2024uni,brohan2023rt2visionlanguageactionmodelstransfer,octomodelteam2024octoopensourcegeneralistrobot,kim2024openvlaopensourcevisionlanguageactionmodel} and robotic navigation~\cite{chu2026abotn0technicalreportvla,hu2025astranavworldworldmodelforesight,xiang2025navr2dualrelationreasoninggeneralizable,liu2025navforeseeunifiedvisionlanguageworld,chen2025socialnavtraininghumaninspiredfoundation,xue2026omninavunifiedframeworkprospective}, their massive parameter sizes usually necessitate cloud-based deployment. This inevitably introduces systemic cloud-to-edge latency. In dynamic environments, inference suffers from significant latency while control must operate in real-time. Consequently, semantic information frequently corresponds to past states but is utilized as current, thereby triggering a systemic temporal misalignment between ``thinking'' and ``control''~\cite{huang2026ticvlathinkincontrolvisionlanguageactionmodel}. How to safely transfer the powerful capabilities of cloud-based large models to highly dynamic mobile navigation tasks remains an urgent challenge.
Existing asynchronous control frameworks (e.g., RTC~\cite{black2025realtimeexecutionactionchunking} and A2C2~\cite{sendai2025leaveobservationbehindrealtime}) predominantly focus on temporal alignment, mitigating latency via smooth action chunk splicing or local residual correction. While effective in fixed-base manipulator operations, these methods face a fundamental logic failure when transferred to mobile robots undergoing continuous, large-scale displacements: blindly and smoothly fitting an outdated path prevents the robot from adequately responding to dynamic obstacles. Furthermore, end-to-end delay-injection training methods struggle to cope with long-tail, irregular network jitter in the real world; meanwhile, traditional control frameworks based on black-box time-series prediction also prove extremely fragile under extreme communication latency, easily leading to catastrophic task failures.
To address these issues, we propose the AsyncShield, a framework that transforms traditional asynchronous control based on black-box time prediction into a deterministic physical white-box mapping and a safe execution closed loop. We maintain a historical temporal pose buffer at the edge. Upon receiving outdated VLA commands, the system employs an analytical $SE(2)$ kinematic transformation to eliminate the cloud-to-edge latency misalignment, thereby restoring the VLA's true geometric intent. To balance the restoration fidelity of the VLA intent and physical safety, we formulate the edge adaptation as a CMDP. Through the PPO-Lagrangian algorithm~\cite{achiam2017constrained}, the reinforcement learning adapter can adaptively trade off between tracking the true VLA intent and responding to the high-frequency LiDAR obstacle avoidance hard constraints.
Furthermore, AsyncShield is designed as an extremely lightweight, independent edge adaptation architecture, emphasizing ``plug-and-play'' capability. Unlike existing solutions that require deep modifications or fine-tuning of the cloud-based foundation models, we standardize the cloud VLA output via interpolation resampling into $5$ local waypoints with a $20$~cm spacing as the input to the adapter. Based on this, the policy network solely outputs a Universal Local Sub-goal. This standardized interface design, combined with various randomization training strategies, endows the system with plug-and-play generalization capabilities, seamlessly accommodating various cloud VLA models and generalizing across multiple heterogeneous robot chassis without any fine-tuning.
In summary, the main contributions of this paper are as follows:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item We propose the AsyncShield framework, which replaces black-box time prediction with deterministic white-box spatial mapping. Concurrently, by formulating a CMDP-based safe execution closed loop, it achieves an adaptive dynamic trade-off between the restoration of the large model's geometric intent and low-level, high-frequency obstacle avoidance.
% \item We propose a lightweight, independent edge adaptation strategy with a standardized interface. Leveraging diverse randomization strategies introduced during the training phase, AsyncShield attains robust plug-and-play generalization capabilities.
% \end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Cloud-based VLA Navigation Edge Adapter:} We propose the AsyncShield framework, which replaces black-box time prediction with deterministic white-box spatial mapping. Concurrently, by formulating a CMDP-based safe execution closed loop, it achieves an adaptive dynamic trade-off between the restoration of the large model's geometric intent and low-level, high-frequency obstacle avoidance.
\item \textbf{Strong Plug-and-Play Capability:} We propose a lightweight, independent edge adaptation strategy with a standardized interface. Without requiring any fine-tuning of the cloud-based foundation models, AsyncShield can zero-shot seamlessly accommodate various cloud VLA models and reliably generalize across multiple heterogeneous mobile robot chassis.
\end{itemize}
% \section{INTRODUCTION}
% \label{sec:intro}
% While Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have demonstrated impressive zero-shot generalization capabilities, especially in robotic manipulation~\cite{zhang2024uni,brohan2023rt2visionlanguageactionmodelstransfer,octomodelteam2024octoopensourcegeneralistrobot,kim2024openvlaopensourcevisionlanguageactionmodel} and robotic navigation~\cite{chu2026abotn0technicalreportvla,hu2025astranavworldworldmodelforesight,xiang2025navr2dualrelationreasoninggeneralizable,liu2025navforeseeunifiedvisionlanguageworld,chen2025socialnavtraininghumaninspiredfoundation,xue2026omninavunifiedframeworkprospective}, their massive parameter sizes often necessitate cloud-based deployment. This inevitably introduces network jitter and inference latency. For robot control in dynamic environments, such latency breaks the closed-loop execution flow, leading to a severe spatio-temporal misalignment between the high-level semantic intent from the cloud and the low-level physical state at the edge. Safely transferring the powerful zero-shot capabilities of cloud-based models to highly dynamic mobile navigation tasks remains an urgent challenge.
% Existing asynchronous control frameworks predominantly focus on temporal alignment. For instance, RTC~\cite{black2025realtimeexecutionactionchunking} and A2C2~\cite{sendai2025leaveobservationbehindrealtime} mitigate latency via smooth action chunk splicing or local residual correction. While effective in fixed-base manipulator operations, these methods face a fundamental logic failure when transferred to mobile bases undergoing continuous, large-scale displacements: blindly and smoothly fitting outdated waypoints often steers the robot directly into newly appeared obstacles. Furthermore, end-to-end delay-injection training (e.g., TIC-VLA~\cite{huang2026ticvlathinkincontrolvisionlanguageactionmodel}) relies heavily on prior delay distributions, making it inadequate for irregular, long-tail network jitter in real-world deployments. Existing frameworks based on time-series prediction also heavily depend on fixed execution frequencies, which can lead to catastrophic task failures under extreme conditions such as thermal throttling on the edge device.
% To address these challenges, we propose \textbf{AsyncShield}, a novel asynchronous control paradigm centered on the core insight that \textit{``Latency is Geometry.''} We discard implicit fitting along the time axis and instead maintain a lightweight ring temporal pose buffer at the edge. Upon receiving a historical VLA command, the system employs an analytical $SE(2)$ kinematic transformation to accurately convert the temporal lag into a relative pose offset within the current coordinate frame. This explicit spatial re-projection bounds the alignment error by local odometry drift and endows the system with a \textit{frequency-agnostic} property, effectively decoupling the intermittent, low-frequency cloud inference from the adaptive, high-frequency edge execution.
% To balance intent fidelity and physical safety, we formulate the edge adaptation as a Constrained Markov Decision Process (CMDP) solved via the PPO-Lagrangian algorithm~\cite{achiam2017constrained}. This mechanism formulates geometric trajectory tracking as the optimization objective and treats high-rate LiDAR-based obstacle avoidance as an independent hard constraint. By utilizing dynamic Lagrangian multipliers to adaptively adjust weights, the system prioritizes autonomous obstacle avoidance when stale intents pose collision risks, and smoothly switches back to the intended path once the risk is cleared. Coupled with kinematic domain randomization during training, AsyncShield can resist severe network jitter in a zero-shot manner.
% In summary, the main contributions of this paper are:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{The AsyncShield Framework:} Centered on the concept of \textit{``Latency is Geometry,''} it utilizes analytical kinematic transformations to convert temporal lag into spatial pose offsets, eliminating spatio-temporal misalignment accumulation and achieving a complete decoupling of cloud-edge execution.
% \item \textbf{Intent-Safety Decoupled Adaptation:} We design a universal edge adaptation strategy via PPO-Lagrangian optimization. It adaptively trades off high-level geometric intent tracking and low-level physical safety, enabling autonomous safety overrides against delayed commands.
% \item \textbf{Zero-Shot Cross-Embodiment Transfer:} Requiring only lightweight deployment at the edge, AsyncShield achieves zero-shot compatibility with arbitrary cloud VLA models without fine-tuning. Experiments demonstrate that it significantly outperforms prior baselines (e.g., RTC, A2C2) in both success rate and safety under long-tail network jitter, transferring seamlessly to heterogeneous mobile bases as a \textit{plug-and-play} module.
% \end{itemize}
% In recent years, Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have demonstrated impressive generalization capabilities, especially in robotic manipulation~\cite{zhang2024uni,brohan2023rt2visionlanguageactionmodelstransfer,octomodelteam2024octoopensourcegeneralistrobot,kim2024openvlaopensourcevisionlanguageactionmodel} and robotic navigation~\cite{chu2026abotn0technicalreportvla,hu2025astranavworldworldmodelforesight,xiang2025navr2dualrelationreasoninggeneralizable,liu2025navforeseeunifiedvisionlanguageworld,chen2025socialnavtraininghumaninspiredfoundation,xue2026omninavunifiedframeworkprospective}.
% However, their massive parameter sizes often necessitate cloud-based deployment, which inevitably introduces significant network jitter and inference latency.
% For robot control in dynamic environments, such latency breaks the closed-loop execution flow, leading to a severe spatio-temporal misalignment between the high-level semantic intent from the cloud and the low-level physical state at the edge.
% How to safely transfer the powerful zero-shot generalization capabilities of cloud-based models to highly dynamic mobile navigation tasks remains an urgent and open challenge.
% Existing asynchronous control frameworks predominantly focus on temporal alignment. For instance, RTC~\cite{black2025realtimeexecutionactionchunking} and A2C2~\cite{sendai2025leaveobservationbehindrealtime} attempt to mitigate latency via smooth action chunk splicing or local residual correction. While effective in fixed-base manipulator operations, these methods face a fundamental logic failure when transferred to mobile bases undergoing continuous, large-scale displacements: blindly and smoothly fitting outdated waypoints often steers the robot directly into newly appeared obstacles. The recent TIC-VLA~\cite{huang2026ticvlathinkincontrolvisionlanguageactionmodel} attempts to force the model to implicitly compensate for errors by injecting delays during training. However, this end-to-end black-box fitting relies heavily on prior delay distributions, making it inadequate to handle irregular, long-tail network jitter in real-world cloud deployments. Furthermore, existing frameworks based on time-series prediction heavily depend on fixed execution frequencies, which can lead to catastrophic task failures under extreme conditions such as thermal throttling or resource contention on the device.
% To address these challenges, this paper proposes \textbf{AsyncShield}, a novel asynchronous control paradigm centered on the core insight that \textit{``Latency is Geometry.''} We discard implicit fitting along the time axis and instead maintain a lightweight ring temporal pose buffer at the edge. Upon receiving a historical VLA command, the system employs an analytical kinematic transformation to accurately convert the temporal lag into a relative pose offset within the current coordinate frame. This design eliminates the accumulation of spatial misalignment and endows the system with a \textit{frequency-agnostic} property, effectively decoupling the intermittent, low-frequency inference of the cloud from the adaptive, high-frequency control at the edge.
% To strike a balance between faithfully restoring the VLA intent and ensuring the physical bottom line, we design an adapter based on the PPO-Lagrangian algorithm. This mechanism formulates pure geometric trajectory tracking as the optimization objective and treats high-frequency LiDAR-based obstacle avoidance as an independent hard constraint. By utilizing dynamic Lagrangian multipliers to adaptively adjust the weights between task and safety, the system prioritizes obstacle avoidance strategies when outdated commands pose a collision risk, and smoothly switches back to the intended path once the risk is cleared. Coupled with retroactive extreme latency simulation and kinematic domain randomization during training, AsyncShield can resist severe network jitter in a zero-shot manner and seamlessly transfer to heterogeneous mobile bases.
% In summary, the main contributions of this paper are as follows:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{We propose the AsyncShield asynchronous control framework:} Centered on the concept of \textit{``Latency is Geometry,''} it utilizes analytical kinematic transformations to convert temporal lag into spatial pose offsets. This mechanism eliminates spatio-temporal misalignment accumulation under dynamic displacements, achieving a complete decoupling of low-frequency cloud execution and high-frequency edge execution.
% \item \textbf{We design a universal edge adaptation strategy supporting cross-embodiment zero-shot transfer:} By decoupling the high-level intent into ego-frame local waypoints and integrating deep kinematic domain randomization, AsyncShield is freed from specific physical parameter dependencies. It serves as a \textit{plug-and-play} module that can be seamlessly transferred to various heterogeneous mobile bases.
% \item \textbf{We achieve zero-shot compatibility with arbitrary large models and extreme latencies:} The framework requires only lightweight deployment at the edge, eliminating the need to fine-tune the cloud-based VLA models. Experiments demonstrate that under non-ideal communication conditions such as long-tail network jitter, our system significantly outperforms baselines like RTC and A2C2 in both navigation success rate and safety.
% \end{itemize}
\section{RELATED WORKS}
\subsection{Vision-Language-Action Models and Hierarchical Adaptation}
In recent years, VLA models (e.g., RT-2~\cite{brohan2023rt2visionlanguageactionmodelstransfer}, OmniVLA~\cite{hirose2025omnivlaomnimodalvisionlanguageactionmodel}, Green-VLA~\cite{apanasevich2026greenvlastagedvisionlanguageactionmodel}) have demonstrated formidable zero-shot generalization capabilities, gradually expanding into highly dynamic scenarios such as unmanned aerial vehicles (AutoFly~\cite{sun2026autoflyvisionlanguageactionmodeluav}), autonomous driving (Impromptu VLA~\cite{chi2025impromptu}), and dynamic object interaction (DynamicVLA~\cite{xie2026dynamicvla}). However, their massive parameter sizes lead to extremely high inference latency and network jitter. To alleviate the deployment bottleneck at the edge, existing research has primarily evolved along multiple trajectories. One approach lowers the computational threshold through model lightweighting, context compression, or post-training reinforcement learning fine-tuning (e.g., SmolVLA~\cite{shukor2025smolvla}, ContextVLA~\cite{jang2025contextvla}, SimpleVLA-RL~\cite{li2025simplevla}). Another constructs a ``fast-slow dual-system'' hierarchical architecture (e.g., Mobility VLA~\cite{chiang2024mobilityvlamultimodalinstruction}, IROS Dual-Process~\cite{lee2026irosdualprocessarchitecturerealtime}), or introduces world models with latent state spaces to enhance generalization (e.g., X-MOBILITY~\cite{liu2025x}). Particularly in the domain of cross-embodiment navigation, works such as X-Nav~\cite{wang2025x} explore the end-to-end distillation of massive expert policies, while CE-Nav~\cite{yang2025nav} goes a step further by successfully decoupling high-level geometric reasoning from low-level dynamic execution via a two-stage architecture. Similarly, ABot-Explorer~\cite{chen2026explorelikehumansautonomous} enhances high-level guidance through online scene graph memory construction. Nevertheless, the aforementioned works often implicitly rely on synchronous control assumptions. When faced with the irregular communication delays inherent in real-world cloud deployment, the closed-loop execution between high-level, low-frequency semantics and low-level, high-frequency physical execution is highly susceptible to fracture. As a fully plug-and-play module, our AsyncShield circumvents communication and computational bottlenecks without necessitating any intervention in the internal weights of the cloud-based foundation model.
\subsection{Asynchronous Control and Latency-Aware Local Navigation}
Action Chunking techniques (e.g., ACT~\cite{zhao2023learningfinegrainedbimanualmanipulation}, Diffusion Policy~\cite{chi2024diffusionpolicyvisuomotorpolicy}) have been widely validated in fixed-base manipulator operations, and recent works like Mixture of Horizons~\cite{jing2025mixture} further explore adaptive fusion strategies for multi-horizon chunks. To address the asynchronous latency of mobile-based large models, existing strategies predominantly focus on ``temporal fitting and prediction.'' For instance, VLASH~\cite{tang2025vlashrealtimevlasfuturestateaware} relies on forward-state prediction to estimate the robot's future pose; DuoCore-FS~\cite{zou2025asynchronous} attempts to construct a latent representation buffer to bridge the dual-track system, whereas AsyncVLA~\cite{hirose2026asyncvla} concentrates on edge-side asynchronous adaptation manipulation via cloud-edge collaboration. Simultaneously, within low-level local perception modules, traditional frameworks (e.g., NavFormer~\cite{wang2024navformer}, V-STRONG~\cite{jung2024v}) and various reinforcement learning schemes (e.g., Hierarchical RL Nav~\cite{gao2025hierarchical}, Enhanced PPO~\cite{taheri2024deep}, Decentralized RL~\cite{lin2024decentralized}, APD for SRL~\cite{chen2024adaptive}) exhibit excellent environmental adaptability. However, when receiving expired commands from cloud-based large models, blind action chunk splicing along the temporal axis still leads to catastrophic spatial misalignment for mobile bases. This paper breaks the traditional paradigm of temporal sequence fitting by proposing ``Latency is Geometry.'' Our system directly utilizes analytical kinematic transformations within the $SE(2)$ space to precisely map temporal lag into spatial relative offsets within the ego-centric coordinate frame. Combined with off-the-shelf local reinforcement learning obstacle avoidance algorithms acting as low-level cost constraints, this physical white-box mapping eliminates the uncertainty brought by black-box predictions, achieving high-frequency, robust control free from manual parameter tuning.
% \section{METHODOLOGY}
% This section details the AsyncShield framework. To address the inherent inference latency and frequency mismatch of cloud-based Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models, we propose an asynchronous adaptation paradigm that does not rely on time-step prediction. The core insight of our method is encapsulated as ``Latency is Geometry'': by maintaining a temporal pose buffer on the edge side, we transform the ``instruction lag on the time axis'' into a relative pose misalignment between reference frames in the $SE(2)$ space. Through analytical geometric realignment, the edge-side Adapter can accurately reconstruct the authentic intent of the VLA model.
% Specifically, existing asynchronous adaptation methods designed for robotic manipulation typically focus on the smooth temporal concatenation of action chunks (\textit{Action Chunking}). However, unlike manipulators with fixed bases, mobile platforms continuously undergo displacement in physical space; blindly concatenating stale waypoint chunks along the time sequence easily leads to severe spatial misalignment. Furthermore, methods based on time prediction strongly rely on a fixed edge-side execution frequency, which is highly susceptible to trajectory oscillation and performance degradation in real-world systems due to thermal throttling or resource contention. Because AsyncShield relies solely on spatial retrieval, it is inherently \textit{Frequency-Agnostic}. This fundamentally eliminates the accumulation of such temporal errors and elegantly achieves complete decoupling between extremely low-frequency/intermittent cloud inference and dynamically adaptive high-frequency edge control ($10\text{-Hz}$ to hundreds of Hz).
% \subsection{Problem Formulation: Asynchronous Control under Frequency Decoupling}
% We model the cloud-edge collaborative navigation task as a purely asynchronous, dual-frequency control process. The cloud VLA (Teacher) receives sensor observations at an anchor time $t_a$ and outputs a set of local waypoints $\mathcal{P}_a = \{p_a^i\}_{i=1}^N$ (i.e., a trajectory action chunk), where $p_a^i$ is defined in the Anchor Ego Frame at $t_a$. Due to computational and transmission delays, this intent arrives at the edge side at a random time $t > t_a$, forming a stale intent.
% The edge Adapter (Student) needs to construct actions at the current time $t$ based on high-frequency real-time sensory data. To eliminate displacement misalignment, the observation state of the edge policy is defined as:
% \begin{equation}
% s_t = [o_t^{\text{geo}}, o_t^{\text{lidar}}],
% \end{equation}
% where $o_t^{\text{geo}}$ is the lightweight path feature extracted after geometric realignment (detailed in Sec.~III-D), and $o_t^{\text{lidar}}$ represents the real-time 2D LiDAR observation.
% \subsection{Temporal Pose Buffer and State Retrieval}
% The edge device maintains a circular temporal buffer $\mathcal{B} = \{(t_k, T_{\text{odom}}(t_k))\}_{k=1}^{N_{\text{buf}}}$ at its maximum dynamically supported frequency, where $T_{\text{odom}}(t)$ denotes the pose transformation from the ego frame to the Odometry Frame. Upon receiving a VLA message carrying timestamp $t_a$, the system retrieves and interpolates the anchor pose $T_{\text{odom}}(t_a)$ from the buffer.
% Considering the properties of the $SE(2)$ space, we apply linear interpolation to the position and minimum difference interpolation to the heading angle (introducing a wrap function to handle the $-\pi$ to $\pi$ jump).
% \textbf{Drift-boundedness:} Our alignment mechanism solely depends on relative transformations within a short time window; thus, the realignment error is entirely determined by local odometry drift. This avoids the unbounded accumulation of global localization errors over time and provides strong immunity to frequency fluctuations of low-level sensors.
% \subsection{Core Mechanism: SE(2) Geometric Realignment}
% We represent the pose as a homogeneous transformation matrix $T$, and the waypoints using homogeneous coordinates $\bar{p} = [x,y,1]^\top$. For a waypoint $\bar{p}_a^i$ defined in the anchor ego frame, its true projection $\bar{p}_c^i(t)$ in the Current Ego Frame is:
% \begin{equation}
% \bar{p}_c^i(t) = T_{\text{odom}}(t)^{-1} T_{\text{odom}}(t_a) \bar{p}_a^i.
% \end{equation}
% This pure kinematic analytical transformation perfectly absorbs the ``time lag caused by latency'' into the relative pose transformation. It requires neither the estimation of the latency duration nor any time-step prediction, granting it natural robustness against long-tail or highly irregular latency distributions.
% \subsection{Observation Construction: Local Path Look-ahead Sampling}
% The realigned path forms a dynamic polyline. To extract standardized features $o_t^{\text{geo}}$, we calculate the nearest projection point from the current ego position to the path to determine the tracking progress. To handle cloud re-planning or complex paths, we introduce a parameter-free progress continuity constraint, ensuring no index jumps occur as the robot advances along the path's flow.
% Subsequently, we sample 10 look-ahead points at fixed intervals along the path starting from the current progress. Combined with a terminal padding strategy, this forms an extremely lightweight 20-dimensional observation vector. This low-dimensional feature representation is the key that enables the edge side to achieve extremely high control frequencies without being constrained by computational resources.
% \subsection{Edge RL Adapter: Universal Action Space and Domain Randomization}
% To prevent the policy from overfitting to specific chassis dynamics, the edge Actor-Critic policy does not directly output low-level velocity commands. Instead, it outputs Universal Local Waypoints $g_t = (g_x, g_y)$ defined in the current ego frame. Subsequently, any standard low-level tracking controller (e.g., PID) can convert this waypoint into corresponding physical commands for the chassis.
% Compared to traditional rule-based controllers (such as Pure Pursuit), which are highly prone to failure and oscillation when facing non-ideal kinematic constraints of complex chassis, the edge RL policy exhibits significant advantages.
% \textbf{Kinematic Domain Randomization:} During the training phase, we heavily randomize the kinematic parameters of the low-level actuators (including maximum linear/angular velocities, acceleration limits, etc.). This design enables the policy to learn the faithful execution of the original intent of the VLA under extremely diverse low-level execution capabilities, endowing AsyncShield with outstanding \textit{Cross-Embodiment} transferability.
% % ================= 表格 1：主实验 =================
% % 注意这里加了星号 table*，代表横跨两栏
% \begin{table*}[t]
% \centering
% \small
% \caption{Quantitative comparison under two network conditions. SR, CTE, and RER are computed over all 600 episodes (CTE is episode-weighted). RER is the percentage of time steps with $d_{\min} < d_{\text{risk}}$. TTG is computed on the shared-success set (intersection of success episodes across all compared methods; 120/600 for Ideal and 100/600 for Delayed).}
% \label{tab:main_results}
% \begin{tabular}{l cccc cccc}
% \toprule
% \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Ideal (Fast Update)}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Non-ideal (Mixed Degradation)}} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){2-5} \cmidrule(lr){6-9}
% & SR (\%) $\uparrow$ & CTE (m) $\downarrow$ & RER (\%) $\downarrow$ & TTG (s) $\downarrow$ & SR (\%) $\uparrow$ & CTE (m) $\downarrow$ & RER (\%) $\downarrow$ & TTG (s) $\downarrow$ \\
% \midrule
% \textbf{Ours} & \textbf{80.00} & 0.717 & \textbf{1.2} & 8.870 & \textbf{76.67} & \textbf{0.725} & \textbf{1.3} & \textbf{9.290} \\
% A2C2 & 56.70 & 0.937 & 1.5 & 8.410 & 43.30 & 1.146 & 1.7 & 9.640 \\
% RTC & 40.00 & 0.673 & 3.0 & 8.180 & 30.00 & 1.178 & 4.0 & 9.810 \\
% Naive & 20.00 & 1.175 & 5.2 & 7.920 & 16.70 & 1.272 & 5.5 & 10.250 \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table*}
% \subsection{Intent-Safety Decoupled Constrained Optimization}
% In real-world asynchronous cloud collaboration, due to the lag of the VLA intent, the realigned path is highly likely to intersect with newly emerged dynamic obstacles. To strike a balance between ``faithfully executing the teacher's intent'' and ``guaranteeing low-level physical safety,'' we discard the traditional reward-penalty mixing mechanism and instead employ constrained reinforcement learning (PPO-Lagrangian) to decouple intent and safety at the optimization level.
% \textbf{``Flow and Constraint'' Intent Tracking Reward:} At the task objective (Reward) level, we focus exclusively on the geometric tracking of the VLA intent, defining a pure tracking reward function free of obstacle avoidance terms:
% \begin{equation}
% r_t = w_{\text{flow}} (a_t \cdot \hat{\tau}_{\text{path}}) - w_{\text{cte}} \tanh(d_{\text{cte}}) - w_{\text{smooth}} \|a_t - a_{t-1}\|_2,
% \end{equation}
% where $\hat{\tau}_{\text{path}}$ is the robust path tangent vector; $d_{\text{cte}}$ is the true perpendicular error from the robot to the realigned path, computed using the Area Method. The flow reward encourages the agent to move with the path's stream, while the projection error constraint effectively eliminates the sawtooth effect commonly seen in point-to-point tracking.
% \textbf{LiDAR-based Independent Safety Cost:} At the safety constraint (Cost) level, we construct a physical safety barrier using high-frequency fused real-time 2D LiDAR observations. When the detected minimum obstacle distance $d_{\text{min}}$ is less than the safety radius $R_{\text{safe}}$, an instantaneous cost is triggered:
% \begin{equation}
% c_t = \mathbb{I}(d_{\text{min}} < R_{\text{safe}}) + \beta \max(0, R_{\text{safe}} - d_{\text{min}}).
% \end{equation}
% \textbf{Lagrangian Optimization and Safety Override:} We model the training of the edge Adapter as a Constrained Markov Decision Process (CMDP), utilizing a dynamic Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ to regularize the target policy. This architecture endows AsyncShield with an intelligent \textit{Safety Override} capability: when a stale intent poses a collision risk, the multiplier $\lambda$ surges, and the low-level safety policy forcibly overrides control to execute autonomous obstacle avoidance, smoothly switching back to the VLA intent once the danger clears. This mechanism theoretically permits a controlled cross-track error deviation, shattering the pseudo-proposition in traditional control that ``perfect tracking equals safety,'' and trades a minor sacrifice in fidelity for a substantial enhancement in the system's physical survival rate.
% \subsection{Training Strategy: Fully Asynchronous Latency Simulation}
% To bridge the Sim-to-Real domain gap, we design a \textit{Retroactive Generation} paradigm utilizing the edge buffer during the training phase. Instead of planning paths at the current moment, the system randomly samples extreme long-tail latencies from the interval $[0.3\text{~s}, 1.0\text{~s}]$, extracts the historical anchor pose $T_{\text{odom}}(t_{\text{past}})$, and uses it as a starting point to generate a world-frame trajectory locking toward a randomly generated virtual goal.
% As the robot moves, this static trajectory in the world frame is analytically transformed, manifesting a unique ``Ghost Effect'' in the local observation. Experiments demonstrate that this system-level simulation of extremely harsh latency distributions during training is the key to enabling the edge Adapter to perform zero-shot resistance against real-world communication jitter.
% % ##################
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{./fig/overview.jpg}
\caption{\textbf{Overview of the AsyncShield framework.} \textbf{Top:} Behavioral comparison under network degradation. \textit{Naive Execution} blindly follows stale intents, leading to collisions, whereas AsyncShield safely bypasses obstacles. \textbf{Bottom:} The edge adaptation pipeline. The system first utilizes a temporal pose buffer to perform spatio-temporal intent realignment on delayed cloud waypoints. Subsequently, a policy optimized via \textit{PPO-Lagrangian} adaptively trades off between intent fidelity and hard safety constraints to output universal local sub-goals. Finally, by incorporating actuator domain randomization during training, the framework achieves plug-and-play generalization across embodiments.}
\end{figure*}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{METHODOLOGY}
The AsyncShield framework is designed to bridge the spatio-temporal gap between low-frequency, high-latency cloud VLA models and high-frequency, safety-critical edge execution. We formulate this asynchronous control problem as a constrained Markov decision process, where the edge adapter rectifies stale semantic intents through explicit geometric realignment and ensures physical safety via constrained policy optimization.
\subsection{Spatio-Temporal Intent Realignment}
To address displacement-induced misalignment during continuous motion, we discard implicit temporal fitting and instead employ an analytical $SE(2)$ transformation to map ``instruction lag'' into a deterministic ``spatial offset.''
% \textbf{1) Temporal Pose Buffer:} The edge device maintains a circular buffer $\mathcal{B} = \{(t_k, \mathbf{T}_{W}^{O}(t_k))\}$, recording the robot's odometry at $f_{edge}$ Hz. When a VLA packet arrives with an anchor timestamp $t_a$, the system retrieves the corresponding historical pose $\mathbf{T}_{W}^{O}(t_a)$ via linear interpolation for translation and shortest-path angular interpolation for the heading in the $SE(2)$ space.
% \textbf{1) Temporal Pose Buffer:} The edge device maintains a circular buffer $\mathcal{B} = \{(t_k, \mathbf{T}_{W}^{O}(t_k))\}$. Since the VLA anchor time $t_a$ is inherently asynchronous with the buffer, we retrieve $\mathbf{T}_{W}^{O}(t_a)$ via linear interpolation for translation and \textbf{shortest-path angular interpolation} for the heading to ensure continuity across the $\pm\pi$ boundary.
% \textbf{1) Temporal Pose Buffer and Interpolation:} The edge device maintains a circular buffer $\mathcal{B} = \{(t_k, \mathbf{T}_{W}^{O}(t_k))\}$. Since the VLA anchor time $t_a$ rarely coincides with discrete buffer timestamps, we compute $\mathbf{T}_{W}^{O}(t_a)$ via synchronized interpolation. For the translation vector $\mathbf{t} = [x, y]^\top$, we apply standard linear interpolation. For the heading $\theta$, we utilize \textbf{minimum-difference interpolation} (slerp-like for 1D) to handle the $\pm\pi$ phase wrap-around:
% \begin{equation}
% \theta(t_a) = \theta_k + \text{wrap}(\theta_{k+1} - \theta_k) \cdot \frac{t_a - t_k}{t_{k+1} - t_k}
% \end{equation}
% where $\text{wrap}(\cdot)$ maps the angular difference to $[-\pi, \pi]$. This ensures a smooth coordinate transition even during high-speed rotations.
% \textbf{2) Geometric Re-projection:} Let $\mathcal{P}^{A}=\{p_{i}^{A}\}_{i=1}^{N}$ be the set of local waypoints generated by the VLA model in the Anchor Ego Frame at $t_a$. The realigned waypoints $p_{i}^{E}(t)$ in the Current Ego Frame at time $t>t_{a}$ are computed analytically:
\textbf{1) Temporal Pose Buffer:} The edge device maintains a circular buffer $\mathcal{B} = \{(t_k, \mathbf{T}_{W}^{O}(t_k))\}$, recording the robot's odometry (from world $W$ to ego frame $O$) at $f_{edge}$ Hz. When a VLA packet arrives with an anchor timestamp $t_a$, the system retrieves the corresponding historical pose $\mathbf{T}_{W}^{O}(t_a)$ via linear interpolation for translation and shortest-path angular interpolation for the heading in the $SE(2)$ space.
\textbf{2) Geometric Re-projection:} Let $\mathcal{P}^{A}=\{\bar{p}_{i}^{A}\}_{i=1}^{N}$ be the set of $N$ local waypoints generated by the VLA model in the Anchor Ego Frame at $t_a$. The realigned waypoints $\bar{p}_{i}^{E}(t)$ in the Current Ego Frame at time $t>t_{a}$ are computed analytically:
\begin{equation}
\overline{p}_{i}^{E}(t)=(T_{W}^{O}(t))^{-1}T_{W}^{O}(t_{a})\overline{p}_{i}^{A}
\end{equation}
where $\overline{p}$ denotes homogeneous coordinates.
% The fundamental reason this mechanism avoids global error accumulation is that every time the edge device receives a new VLA packet, it establishes a new temporal anchor $t_a$. Consequently, the spatial re-projection formula only computes the relative pose change within the ultra-short delay window from $t_a$ to the current time $t$. This implies that even if odometry errors occur due to complex terrain (e.g., wheel slip), such errors are strictly confined to this minimal delay interval $\Delta t$. Once the subsequent VLA waypoint arrives, the temporal anchor $t_a$ is refreshed, instantly resetting the previous spatial alignment error to zero. By strictly bounding the alignment error within a single communication delay cycle, this mechanism effectively prevents global divergence over time.
The spatial re-projection formula exclusively computes relative pose changes within the minimal delay window $\Delta t$. By establishing a new temporal anchor $t_a$ for each incoming VLA packet, this mechanism strictly confines odometry drift (e.g., from wheel slip) to a single communication cycle. Consequently, previous spatial alignment errors are instantly reset to zero upon receiving new waypoints, effectively preventing global divergence over time.
% \textbf{2) Geometric Re-projection:} Let $\mathcal{P}^A = \{\mathbf{p}_i^A\}_{i=1}^N$ be the set of local waypoints generated by the VLA model in the \textbf{Anchor Ego Frame} at $t_a$. The realigned waypoints $\mathbf{p}_i^E(t)$ in the \textbf{Current Ego Frame} at time $t > t_a$ are computed analytically:
% \begin{equation}
% \bar{\mathbf{p}}_i^E(t) = \left( \mathbf{T}_{W}^{O}(t) \right)^{-1} \mathbf{T}_{W}^{O}(t_a) \bar{\mathbf{p}}_i^A
% \end{equation}
% where $\bar{\mathbf{p}}$ denotes homogeneous coordinates. This mapping ensures that the alignment error is bounded by the local odometry drift rather than an unbounded accumulation over time.
% \subsection{CMDP Formulation for Intent-Safety Decoupled Optimization}
% We define the edge adaptation as a CMDP tuple $(\mathcal{S, A, P, R, C}, \gamma, d)$, aiming to maximize the intent-tracking reward $J_R$ while keeping the expected safety cost $J_C$ below a threshold $d$.
We define the edge adaptation as a CMDP tuple $(\mathcal{S, A, P, R, C}, \gamma, d)$ with transition dynamics $\mathcal{P}$ and discount factor $\gamma$, aiming to maximize the intent-tracking reward $J_R$ while keeping the expected safety cost $J_C$ below a threshold $d$.
\textbf{1) State and Action Space:} The state $s_t = [\mathbf{o}^{geo}_t, \mathbf{o}^{lidar}_t]$ integrates geometric and reactive features. $\mathbf{o}^{geo}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{10}$ consists of 5 look-ahead points sampled from the realigned path at $0.2\,\text{m}$ intervals. $\mathbf{o}^{lidar}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{144}$ provides 2D LiDAR proximity data.
To ensure cross-embodiment compatibility, the action $a_t = (\Delta x_t, \Delta y_t)$ is defined as a Universal Local Sub-goal in the current ego frame, which is subsequently converted into velocity commands by a low-level controller.
% 表1###########################
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\small
\caption{Quantitative comparison under two network conditions. SR, CTE, and RER are computed over all 600 episodes (CTE is episode-weighted). RER is the percentage of time steps with $d_{\min} < d_{\text{risk}}$. TTG is computed on the shared-success set (intersection of success episodes across all compared methods; 120/600 for Ideal and 100/600 for Delayed).}
\label{tab:main_results}
\begin{tabular}{l cccc cccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Ideal (Fast Update)}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Non-ideal (Mixed Degradation)}} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-5} \cmidrule(lr){6-9}
& SR (\%) $\uparrow$ & CTE (m) $\downarrow$ & RER (\%) $\downarrow$ & TTG (s) $\downarrow$ & SR (\%) $\uparrow$ & CTE (m) $\downarrow$ & RER (\%) $\downarrow$ & TTG (s) $\downarrow$ \\
\midrule
\textbf{Ours} & \textbf{80.0} & 0.717 & \textbf{1.2} & 8.87 & \textbf{76.7} & \textbf{0.725} & \textbf{1.3} & \textbf{9.29} \\
A2C2 & 56.7 & 0.937 & 1.5 & 8.41 & 43.3 & 1.146 & 1.7 & 9.64 \\
RTC & 40.0 & 0.673 & 3.0 & 8.18 & 30.0 & 1.178 & 4.0 & 9.81 \\
Naive & 20.0 & 1.175 & 5.2 & 7.92 & 16.7 & 1.272 & 5.5 & 10.25 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
% ##############################
\textbf{2) Reward Design (Intent Fidelity):} The reward function $r_t$ focuses on trajectory fidelity and smoothness, independent of obstacle avoidance,
\begin{equation}
r_t = w_{flow}(\mathbf{a}_t^\top \hat{\tau}_t) - w_{cte}\text{tanh}(d^{cte}_t) - w_{smooth}\|\mathbf{a}_t - \mathbf{a}_{t-1}\|_2
\end{equation}
% where $\hat{\tau}_t$ is the local path unit tangent.
where $w_{flow}, w_{cte}, w_{smooth}$ are positive weight coefficients, and $\hat{\tau}_t$ is the local path unit tangent.To ensure gradient continuity, the cross-track error $d^{cte}_t$ is calculated via the point-to-line segment distance:
\begin{equation}
d^{cte}_t = \| \mathbf{p}_0 + t^*(\mathbf{p}_1 - \mathbf{p}_0) \|_2
\end{equation}
% \textbf{2) Reward Design (Intent Fidelity):} The reward function $r_t$ focuses on trajectory fidelity and smoothness, independent of obstacle avoidance:
% \begin{equation}
% r_t = w_{flow}(a_t^\top \hat{\tau}_t) - w_{cte}\tanh(d_t^{cte}) - w_{smooth}\|a_t - a_{t-1}\|_2
% \end{equation}
% where $\hat{\tau}_t$ is the local path unit tangent. To ensure gradient continuity, the cross-track error $d_t^{cte}$ is calculated via the point-to-line segment distance. Given $p_0, p_1$ as the immediate waypoints in the look-ahead window, the projection coefficient $t^*$ and error $d_t^{cte}$ are:
% \begin{equation}
% t^* = \text{clip}\left(\frac{(-p_0)^\top(p_1-p_0)}{\|p_1-p_0\|^2}, 0, 1\right)
% \end{equation}
% \begin{equation}
% d_t^{cte} = \|p_0 + t^*(p_1 - p_0)\|_2
% \end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\quad t^* = \text{clip}\left(\frac{-\mathbf{p}_0^\top(\mathbf{p}_1-\mathbf{p}_0)}{\|\mathbf{p}_1-\mathbf{p}_0\|^2}, 0, 1\right)
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{p}_0, \mathbf{p}_1$ are the immediate waypoints in the look-ahead window.
\textbf{3) Safety Constraints:} Physical safety is enforced as an independent cost $c_t$ based on the minimum LiDAR distance $d_{min}$. Given a safety radius $R_{safe}$, the cost is triggered as:
\begin{equation}
c_t = \mathbb{I}(d_{min} < R_{safe}) + \alpha \max(0, R_{safe} - d_{min})
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{I}(\cdot)$ is the indicator function and $\alpha$ is a penalty scaling factor.
We employ the \textbf{PPO-Lagrangian} algorithm~\cite{achiam2017constrained} to update a dual variable $\lambda$ that balances $J_R$ and $J_C$. When stale VLA intents pose collision risks, the surge in $\lambda$ forces the policy to prioritize safety advantages, resulting in proactive collision avoidance .
\subsection{Training Environment and Kinematic Domain Randomization}
To ensure zero-shot transferability, we train the AsyncShield in a highly stochastic simulated environment using the OmniSafe framework with extensive perturbations.
\textbf{1) Stochastic Environment Configuration:} Training is conducted in a $10\,\text{m} \times 10\,\text{m}$ workspace featuring both static and dynamic collision risks. Each episode is initialized with:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Geometric Diversity:} 6 static and 6 dynamic obstacles with heterogeneous geometries (cylinders, polygons, and irregular shapes). The equivalent radius $R_{obs}$ is sampled from $\mathcal{U}(0.2, 2.0)\,\text{m}$.
\item \textbf{Dynamic Interference:} Dynamic obstacles follow a random-walk model with linear velocities $v_{obs} \in [0.2, 1.0]\,\text{(m/s)}$ and angular velocities $\omega_{obs} \in [0.1, 1.0]\,\text{(rad/s)}$.
\item \textbf{Asynchronous Disturbances:} We simulate irregular communication by sampling latencies $\delta \sim \mathcal{U}(0.3, 1.5)\,\text{s}$ and packet loss probabilities $p_{loss} \in [0, 0.2]$ , and intermittent transient outages (blackouts) lasting up to several seconds .
\end{itemize}
% \textbf{2) Cross-Embodiment Actuator Randomization:} We decouple the policy from specific robot dynamics by randomizing the actuator response model. The transition from a sub-goal $a_t$ to the actual executed velocity $v_{act}$ is governed by a constrained first-order system:
% \begin{equation}
% v_{act}(t) = \text{clip}\left( \mathcal{F}(v_{cmd}, \tau) + \eta_v + b_v, -a_{max}, a_{max} \right)
% \end{equation}
% \textbf{2) Cross-Embodiment Actuator Randomization:} We decouple the policy from specific robot dynamics by randomizing the actuator response model. The transition from a sub-goal $a_t$ to the actual executed velocity $v_{act}$ is governed by acceleration constraints followed by a first-order lag system:
% \begin{equation}
% % v_{act}(t) = \text{clip}\left( \alpha v_{cmd}(t) + (1-\alpha)v_{act}(t-1) + \eta_v, -v_{max}, v_{max} \right)
% % \end{equation}
% \begin{split}
% v_{act}(t) = \text{clip} \big( \alpha v_{cmd}(t) + (1-\alpha)v_{act}(t-1) \\
% + \eta_v, -v_{max}, v_{max} \big)
% \end{split}
% \end{equation}
% The randomization parameters are sampled per episode to cover diverse chassis profiles:
\textbf{2) Cross-Embodiment Actuator Randomization:} We decouple the policy from specific robot dynamics by randomizing the actuator response model. The transition from a sub-goal $a_t$ to the actual executed velocity $v_{act}$ is governed by acceleration constraints followed by a first-order lag system:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
v_{act}(t) = \text{clip} \big( \tau v_{cmd}(t) + (1-\tau)v_{act}(t-1) \\
+ \eta_v, -v_{max}, v_{max} \big)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $v_{cmd}$ is the intended command derived from $a_t$, and $v_{max}$ is the velocity limit. The randomization parameters are sampled per episode to cover diverse chassis profiles:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{System Latency:} The first-order lag coefficient $\tau \sim \mathcal{U}(0.2, 0.9)$, representing varying motor response times.
\item \textbf{Acceleration Constraints:} Maximum acceleration $a_{max} \sim \mathcal{U}(0.5, 1.5)\,\text{m/s}^2$ to simulate different power-to-weight ratios.
\item \textbf{Stochastic Noise \& Bias:} Velocity-dependent Gaussian noise $\eta_v$ with intensity $\sigma \sim \mathcal{U}(0.05, 0.20)$ and systematic angular bias $b_{\omega} \sim \mathcal{U}(-0.05, 0.05)\,\text{rad/s}$.
\end{itemize}
This extensive kinematic perturbation ensures that the AsyncShield learns a dynamics-agnostic control law capable of seamless deployment on heterogeneous mobile platforms.
\section{EXPERIMENTS}
% This section evaluates the performance of the AsyncShield framework under asynchronous cloud-edge control. We design extensive simulation experiments to answer the following questions: (1) Can AsyncShield maintain system robustness and navigational safety under varying network latencies? (2) What is the inherent trade-off between ``action smoothness'' and ``physical safety'' in mobile robot navigation? (3) How do the core modules---temporal pose buffer, RL adapter, and constrained optimization---contribute to the overall performance?
% ================= 表格 1：主实验 =================
% 注意这里加了星号 table*，代表横跨两栏
% \begin{table*}[t]
% \centering
% \small
% \caption{Quantitative comparison under two network conditions. SR, CTE, and RER are computed over all 600 episodes (CTE is episode-weighted). RER is the percentage of time steps with $d_{\min} < d_{\text{risk}}$. TTG is computed on the shared-success set (intersection of success episodes across all compared methods; 120/600 for Ideal and 100/600 for Delayed).}
% \label{tab:main_results}
% \begin{tabular}{l cccc cccc}
% \toprule
% \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Ideal (Fast Update)}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Non-ideal (Mixed Degradation)}} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){2-5} \cmidrule(lr){6-9}
% & SR (\%) $\uparrow$ & CTE (m) $\downarrow$ & RER (\%) $\downarrow$ & TTG (s) $\downarrow$ & SR (\%) $\uparrow$ & CTE (m) $\downarrow$ & RER (\%) $\downarrow$ & TTG (s) $\downarrow$ \\
% \midrule
% \textbf{Ours} & \textbf{80.00} & 0.717 & \textbf{1.2} & 8.870 & \textbf{76.67} & \textbf{0.725} & \textbf{1.3} & \textbf{9.290} \\
% A2C2 & 56.70 & 0.937 & 1.5 & 8.410 & 43.30 & 1.146 & 1.7 & 9.640 \\
% RTC & 40.00 & 0.673 & 3.0 & 8.180 & 30.00 & 1.178 & 4.0 & 9.810 \\
% Naive & 20.00 & 1.175 & 5.2 & 7.920 & 16.70 & 1.272 & 5.5 & 10.250 \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table*}
This section evaluates the performance of the AsyncShield framework under asynchronous cloud-edge control. We design extensive simulation experiments to answer the following questions: (1) Can AsyncShield maintain system robustness and navigational safety under varying network latencies? (2) What is the inherent trade-off between ``action smoothness'' and ``physical safety'' in mobile robot navigation? (3) How do the core modules---temporal pose buffer, RL adapter, and constrained optimization---contribute to the overall performance?
\subsection{Experimental Setup and Metrics}
% --- 插入轨迹对比大图 (双栏) ---
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
% \textwidth 会自动让图片宽度撑满 IEEE 的双栏
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{fig/exp2.jpg}
\caption{\textbf{Qualitative comparison of executed trajectories under the Mixed Degradation network condition.} We visualize the actual executed robot trajectories (blue solid lines) and the realigned/stale VLA intents (red thin lines) across four highly challenging dynamic scenarios. \textbf{RTC} generates extremely smooth curves but blindly guides the robot to crash into dynamic obstacles. \textbf{A2C2} exhibits severe \textit{Intent Deviation}, causing the robot to oscillate or completely distort the intended path. \textbf{AsyncShield (Ours)} achieves a perfect trade-off: it rigorously restores the VLA's original intent in free space, and autonomously deviates to ensure safety when the intent becomes dangerous.}
\label{fig:traj_comparison}
\end{figure*}
% ------------------------
\noindent\textbf{Environment and Task Setup:}
We construct a 3D navigation environment in OmniSafe. The robot navigates to a target point based on VLA-generated local waypoints. To evaluate the system's obstacle avoidance and error correction capabilities, we randomize the test scenarios:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Spatial Complexity:} Each episode is conducted in a randomly generated $10\text{m} \times 10\text{m}$ map.
\item \textbf{Mixed Obstacle Interference:} We deploy 7 static and 4 dynamic wandering obstacles to evaluate physical safety responses.
\item \textbf{Cross-Embodiment Dynamics Randomization:} We apply a $\pm 40\%$ domain randomization to the robot's kinematic constraints (velocity and acceleration limits) to verify the RL Adapter's universality.
\end{itemize}
\noindent\textbf{Network Conditions \& Degradation Modeling:}
Assuming the cloud VLA generates waypoints at roughly $3\text{ Hz}$, we evaluate the edge execution under two communication profiles:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Ideal (Fast \& Stable Update):} A reliable network with a deterministic ${\sim}200\text{ ms}$ delay and zero packet loss.
\item \textit{Non-ideal (Mixed Degradation):} A mixed degradation model emulating unreliable wireless communication. It applies three independent perturbations:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Heavy-Tail Latency:} To emulate irregular cloud-side queuing and network delays, the one-way cloud-to-edge delay $\Delta t$ is sampled from a mixture distribution:
$\Delta t \sim (1-q) \cdot \mathcal{U}(0.15, 0.25) + q \cdot \mathcal{U}(0.5, 1.5)\text{ s}$,
where $q = 0.1$ is the probability of a latency spike.
\item \textbf{Stochastic Packet Loss:} To simulate signal interference, each transmitted message is subject to an independent Bernoulli drop with probability $p_{\text{loss}} = 0.15$.
\item \textbf{Transient Outages (Black-outs):} To emulate physical signal dead zones, we define an outage time ratio $r_{\text{out}} = 0.05$, where during randomly sampled continuous segments $D \sim \mathcal{U}(1.0, 2.0)\text{ s}$, the packet loss rate is temporarily forced to $100\%$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\noindent\textbf{Baselines:}
We adapt two state-of-the-art asynchronous execution strategies to the embodied navigation domain for comparison:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Naive (Direct Execution):} Directly executes the VLA-generated local waypoints as current commands without any spatio-temporal alignment.
\item \textbf{RTC~\cite{black2025realtimeexecutionactionchunking} (Real-Time Chunking):} Focuses on the smooth temporal transition of action chunks. We adapt its core mechanism to smoothly stitch consecutive VLA waypoint chunks to eliminate trajectory jitter.
\item \textbf{A2C2~\cite{sendai2025leaveobservationbehindrealtime} (Asynchronous Action Chunk Correction):} Utilizes a lightweight, high-frequency RL correction head to output residual actions based on the latest observation.
\end{itemize}
% \subsection{Experimental Setup and Metrics}
% \noindent\textbf{Environment and Task Setup:}
% We construct a 3D continuous navigation environment in OmniSafe (based on the MuJoCo simulator). The robot's goal is to safely navigate to the target point in an unknown environment based on the local waypoints sent by the VLA. To comprehensively evaluate the system's obstacle avoidance and error correction capabilities under complex conditions, we conduct deep randomization design for the test scenarios:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{Spatial Complexity:} Each test episode is conducted in a randomly generated $10\text{m} \times 10\text{m}$ map.
% \item \textbf{Mixed Obstacle Interference:} To verify the algorithm's low-level physical safety response, we randomly deploy 7 static obstacles and introduce 4 randomly wandering dynamic obstacles in the environment.
% % The existence of dynamic obstacles makes the intents generated by the VLA at historical moments highly prone to failure, constituting a highly challenging time-varying collision risk.
% \item \textbf{Cross-Embodiment Dynamics Randomization:} To prove the universality of the edge-side RL Adapter, we apply domain randomization of $\pm 40\%$ to the robot's low-level kinematic constraints (such as maximum linear velocity, maximum angular velocity, and acceleration limits, which are all $1\text{ m/s}$ or $1\text{ rad/s}$) in every episode.
% \end{itemize}
% \noindent\textbf{Network Conditions \& Degradation Modeling:}
% To faithfully evaluate asynchronous resilience under realistic cloud-edge deployment, we decouple the cloud inference rate from the communication channel. In the following, we model the one-way cloud-to-edge delay (covering both network and queuing effects) as $\Delta t$. Assuming the cloud VLA generates local waypoints at an inference-complete-triggered rate of roughly $3\text{ Hz}$, we evaluate the edge execution under two distinct communication profiles:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textit{Ideal (Fast \& Stable Update):} A baseline condition with a reliable network, featuring a deterministic one-way cloud-to-edge delay of ${\sim}200\text{ ms}$ and zero packet loss. This high-frequency update rate can partially mask the errors of open-loop execution.
% \item \textit{Non-ideal (Mixed Degradation):} We formulate a rigorous mixed degradation model to emulate severe cloud resource contention and unreliable wireless communication (e.g., degraded Wi-Fi/5G). This composite model applies three independent perturbations to the control stream:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{Heavy-Tail Latency:} To emulate irregular cloud-side queuing and network delays, the one-way cloud-to-edge delay $\Delta t$ is sampled from a mixture distribution:
% $\Delta t \sim (1-q) \cdot \mathcal{U}(0.15, 0.25) + q \cdot \mathcal{U}(0.5, 1.5)\text{ s}$,
% where $q = 0.1$ is the probability of a latency spike.
% \item \textbf{Stochastic Packet Loss:} To simulate signal interference, each transmitted message is subject to an independent Bernoulli drop with probability $p_{\text{loss}} = 0.15$.
% \item \textbf{Transient Outages (Black-outs):} To emulate physical signal dead zones, we define an outage time ratio $r_{\text{out}} = 0.05$, where during randomly sampled continuous segments $D \sim \mathcal{U}(1.0, 2.0)\text{ s}$, the packet loss rate is temporarily forced to $100\%$.
% \end{itemize}
% \end{itemize}
% \noindent\textbf{Baselines:}
% % We adapt two state-of-the-art asynchronous execution strategies, originally designed for robotic manipulation, to the mobile navigation domain for comparison:
% We adapt two state-of-the-art asynchronous execution strategies to the embodied navigation domain for comparison:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{Naive (Direct Execution):} Directly executes the VLA-generated local waypoints as current commands without any spatio-temporal alignment.
% \item \textbf{RTC~\cite{black2025realtimeexecutionactionchunking} (Real-Time Chunking):} Focuses on the smooth temporal transition of action chunks. We adapt its core mechanism to smoothly stitch consecutive VLA waypoint chunks to eliminate trajectory jitter.
% \item \textbf{A2C2~\cite{sendai2025leaveobservationbehindrealtime} (Asynchronous Action Chunk Correction):} Utilizes a lightweight, high-frequency RL correction head to output residual actions based on the latest observation.
% \end{itemize}
% \noindent\textbf{Evaluation Metrics:}
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{SR (Success Rate):} Overall task completion rate.
% \item \textbf{CTE (Cross-Track Error):} Episode-weighted trajectory tracking error, measuring the fidelity to the VLA's original intent.
% \item \textbf{RER:} The percentage of time the robot is exposed to high-collision-risk regions, reflecting physical safety.
% \item \textbf{TTG (Time-to-Goal):} Navigation efficiency. To eliminate survivorship bias, TTG is calculated strictly on the shared-success subset across all methods.
% \end{itemize}
\vspace{-2mm} % <--- 缩减上方间距
\noindent\textbf{Evaluation Metrics:}
\vspace{-1mm} % <--- 缩减上方间距
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{SR (Success Rate):} Overall task completion rate.
\item \textbf{CTE (Cross-Track Error):} Episode-weighted trajectory tracking error as defined in \cite{penumarti2024globaluncertaintyawareplanningmagnetic}, measuring the fidelity to the VLA's original intent.
% \item \textbf{RER:} The percentage of time the robot is exposed to high-collision-risk regions, reflecting physical safety.
\item \textbf{RER (Risk Exposure Rate):} The percentage of time steps where the robot is exposed to high-collision-risk regions ($d_{\min} < d_{\text{risk}}$), reflecting physical safety.
\item \textbf{TTG (Time-to-Goal):} Navigation efficiency as utilized in \cite{rajagopal2025drnavsemanticgeometricrepresentations}. To eliminate survivorship bias, TTG is calculated strictly on the shared-success subset across all methods.
\end{itemize}
% \subsection{Robustness and Safety Analysis}
\subsection{Robustness and Safety Analysis}
% % --- 插入轨迹对比大图 ---
% \begin{figure}[htbp]
% \centering
% % \columnwidth 会自动让图片宽度刚好撑满 IEEE 的单栏
% \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{ieeeconf/fig/exp1.png}
% \caption{\textbf{Qualitative comparison of executed trajectories under the Mixed Degradation network condition.} We visualize the actual executed robot trajectories (blue solid lines) and the realigned/stale VLA intents (red thin lines) across four highly challenging dynamic scenarios. \textbf{RTC} generates extremely smooth curves but blindly guides the robot to crash into dynamic obstacles. \textbf{A2C2} exhibits severe \textit{Intent Deviation}, causing the robot to spin in local minima or completely distort the intended path. \textbf{AsyncShield (Ours)} achieves a perfect trade-off: it rigorously restores the VLA's original intent in free space, and autonomously deviates to ensure safety when the intent becomes dangerous.}
% \label{fig:traj_comparison}
% \end{figure}
% % ------------------------
% 这里紧接着你原来的正文：
% Statistical results across 600 evaluation episodes...
% % --- 插入轨迹对比大图 (双栏) ---
% \begin{figure*}[t]
% \centering
% % \textwidth 会自动让图片宽度撑满 IEEE 的双栏
% \includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{ieeeconf/fig/exp2.jpg}
% \caption{\textbf{Qualitative comparison of executed trajectories under the Mixed Degradation network condition.} We visualize the actual executed robot trajectories (blue solid lines) and the realigned/stale VLA intents (red thin lines) across four highly challenging dynamic scenarios. \textbf{RTC} generates extremely smooth curves but blindly guides the robot to crash into dynamic obstacles. \textbf{A2C2} exhibits severe \textit{Intent Deviation}, causing the robot to oscillate or completely distort the intended path. \textbf{AsyncShield (Ours)} achieves a perfect trade-off: it rigorously restores the VLA's original intent in free space, and autonomously deviates to ensure safety when the intent becomes dangerous.}
% \label{fig:traj_comparison}
% \end{figure*}
% % ------------------------
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Ablation study under the same evaluation protocol as Table~\ref{tab:main_results}. \textit{Note:} `w/o Safety Constraints' disables the Lagrangian safety optimization during training/execution.}
\label{tab:ablation}
\begin{tabular}{l ccc ccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method Variant}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Ideal (Fast Update)}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Non-ideal (Mixed Degradation)}} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-7}
& SR (\%) $\uparrow$ & CTE (m) $\downarrow$ & RER (\%) $\downarrow$ & SR (\%) $\uparrow$ & CTE (m) $\downarrow$ & RER (\%) $\downarrow$ \\
\midrule
\textbf{AsyncShield (Full)} & \textbf{80.0} & 0.717 & \textbf{1.2} & \textbf{76.7} & 0.725 & \textbf{1.3} \\
\midrule
w/o Temporal Alignment & 53.3 & 0.915 & 1.6 & 36.7 & 1.194 & 3.6 \\
w/o RL Adapter & 66.7 & 1.232 & 1.3 & 53.3 & 1.443 & 1.4 \\
w/o Safety Constraints & 40.0 & 0.681 & 4.2 & 23.3 & 0.692 & 4.7 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
% -------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical results across 600 evaluation episodes (summarized in Table~\ref{tab:main_results}) reveal several critical insights regarding asynchronous navigation:
\subsubsection{Overall Task Completion and Safety}
Across both network conditions, AsyncShield achieves the highest task completion (SR: $80.0\% \rightarrow 76.7\%$) and maintains consistently low risk exposure (RER: $1.2\% \rightarrow 1.3\%$). Baseline methods degrade substantially under injected stochastic latency (e.g., A2C2 drops from $56.7\%$ to $43.3\%$, and RTC from $40.0\%$ to $30.0\%$). This discrepancy stems from domain differences: RTC and A2C2 excel in manipulation tasks where intent smoothing and local residual fitting suffice. However, in mobile navigation, large-scale spatial misalignment leads to critical collisions. AsyncShield absorbs this misalignment via $SE(2)$ geometric transformations and an RL adapter, providing robustness to stochastic latency.
\subsubsection{The CTE Paradox: Tracking Fidelity vs. Safety}
A counter-intuitive phenomenon emerges under the Ideal condition: RTC achieves the lowest trajectory tracking error (CTE = $0.673\text{~m}$), yet exhibits a low SR ($40.0\%$) and high RER ($3.0\%$). This reveals a critical navigation paradigm: \textit{blind smooth tracking does not equate to safety}. While RTC seamlessly stitches action chunks, it smoothly executes stale VLA intents, directing the robot toward dynamic obstacles. AsyncShield records a slightly higher CTE ($0.717\text{~m}$) because the PPO-Lagrangian mechanism proactively deviates from unsafe intents for obstacle avoidance. This demonstrates that our ``intent-safety decoupling'' effectively trades minor tracking fidelity for substantial survival rate gains.
\subsubsection{Efficiency on Shared-Success Episodes}
Under the Ideal condition, the Naive method appears fastest (TTG = $7.92\text{~s}$). However, this manifests \textit{survivorship bias}---with an SR of only $20.0\%$, Naive strictly succeeds in trivial, obstacle-free scenarios. Evaluated strictly on the shared-success subset of complex tasks, latency inflates TTG across all methods. AsyncShield exhibits the smallest efficiency degradation ($8.87\text{~s} \rightarrow 9.29\text{~s}$), outperforming A2C2 ($9.64\text{~s}$), RTC ($9.81\text{~s}$), and Naive ($10.25\text{~s}$), demonstrating robust decision-making under adverse latency conditions.
\subsubsection{Qualitative Analysis}
To intuitively understand behavioral differences under the severe Mixed Degradation network, we visualize the executed trajectories (blue solid lines) and realigned/stale VLA intents (red thin lines) across four challenging dynamic scenarios in Fig.~\ref{fig:traj_comparison}. The visualizations highlight the failure modes of the baselines:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{The Pitfall of Blind Smoothness (RTC):} In Case 2 and Case 3, RTC successfully eliminates trajectory oscillation, generating a smooth curve. However, lacking explicit spatial realignment and obstacle perception, RTC smoothly but blindly steers the robot into dynamic obstacles. This matches its high RER.
\item \textbf{The Collapse of Residual Fitting (A2C2):} In Case 3 and Case 4, A2C2 exhibits severe Intent Deviation. Without an explicit geometric anchor, a pure RL residual network struggles to implicitly map large time delays into spatial coordinate corrections. This cumulative error causes the robot to exhibit severe oscillation or completely distort the intended path.
\item \textbf{Adaptive Trade-off between Geometry and Safety (AsyncShield):} Our method demonstrates exceptional robustness. Driven by the PPO-Lagrangian optimization, the system dynamically adjusts the weights between intent-tracking rewards and safety costs. Consequently, AsyncShield rigorously restores the VLA's original intent in obstacle-free spaces, and autonomously prioritizes collision avoidance when stale intents become dangerous, seamlessly blending task fidelity with physical safety.
\end{itemize}
% Statistical results across 600 evaluation episodes (summarized in Table~\ref{tab:main_results}) reveal several critical insights regarding asynchronous navigation:
% \subsubsection{Overall Task Completion and Safety}
% Across both network conditions, AsyncShield achieves the highest task completion (SR: $80.0\% \rightarrow 76.7\%$) and maintains consistently low risk exposure (RER: $1.2\% \rightarrow 1.3\%$). In contrast, baseline methods degrade substantially under injected stochastic latency (e.g., A2C2 drops from $56.7\%$ to $43.3\%$, and RTC drops from $40.0\%$ to $30.0\%$). This discrepancy stems from domain differences: methods like RTC and A2C2 excel in manipulation tasks, where intent smoothing and local residual fitting are sufficient. However, in mobile navigation, large-scale spatial misalignment leads to critical collisions. AsyncShield fundamentally absorbs this spatial misalignment via $SE(2)$ geometric transformations and RL adapter, granting it exceptional immunity to stochastic latency.
% \subsubsection{The CTE Paradox: Tracking Fidelity vs. Safety}
% An intriguing counter-intuitive phenomenon emerges under the Ideal condition: RTC achieves the lowest overall trajectory tracking error (CTE = $0.673\text{~m}$), yet exhibits a low SR ($40.0\%$) and high RER ($3.0\%$). This reveals a critical paradigm in navigation: \textit{blind smooth tracking does not equate to safety}. While RTC seamlessly stitches action chunks, it faithfully and smoothly executes VLA intents even when they are stale and direct the robot toward dynamic obstacles. In contrast, AsyncShield records a slightly higher CTE ($0.717\text{~m}$) because the PPO-Lagrangian mechanism proactively deviates from unsafe VLA intents to execute obstacle avoidance. This demonstrates that our ``intent-safety decoupling'' effectively trades a negligible margin of tracking fidelity for a substantial gain in survival rate.
% \subsubsection{Efficiency on Shared-Success Episodes}
% Under the Ideal condition, the Naive method appears to be the fastest (TTG = $7.92\text{~s}$). However, this is a classic manifestation of \textit{survivorship bias}---with an SR of only $20.0\%$, Naive only succeeds in trivial, straight-line, obstacle-free scenarios. When evaluating strictly on the shared-success subset of complex tasks, the introduction of latency causes TTG to inflate across all methods. Notably, AsyncShield exhibits the smallest efficiency degradation ($8.87\text{~s} \rightarrow 9.29\text{~s}$), significantly outperforming A2C2 ($9.64\text{~s}$), RTC ($9.81\text{~s}$), and Naive ($10.25\text{~s}$), proving its superior decision-making efficiency under adverse network conditions.
% \subsubsection{Qualitative Analysis}
% To intuitively understand the behavioral differences of each asynchronous control strategy under the severe Mixed Degradation network, we visualize the actual executed robot trajectories (blue solid lines) and the realigned/stale VLA intents (red thin lines) across four challenging dynamic scenarios in Fig.~\ref{fig:traj_comparison}. The visualization results profoundly reveal the fundamental failure modes of the baseline methods:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{The Pitfall of Blind Smoothness (RTC):} As shown in Case 2 and Case 3, RTC successfully eliminates the sawtooth oscillation of the trajectory, generating an smooth curve. However, due to the lack of explicit spatial realignment and obstacle perception mechanisms, when the stale VLA intent points towards a dynamic obstacle, RTC will "smoothly but blindly" guide the robot to crash straight into the obstacle. This matches the high RER observed in our quantitative results.
% \item \textbf{The Collapse of Residual Fitting (A2C2):} In Case 3 and Case 4, A2C2 exhibits severe Intent Deviation. In the absence of an explicit geometric anchor, it is difficult for a pure RL residual network to implicitly map huge time delays into spatial coordinate corrections. This cumulative error causes the robot to exhibit oscillation, or the trajectory is completely distorted, eventually missing the target.
% \item \textbf{Perfect Decoupling of Geometry and Safety (AsyncShield):} Our method shows robustness. Our method achieves a trade-off between restoring the intent and safety. When the VLA's intent is dangerous, our AsyncShield will realize the VLA's intent while ensuring safety; and when there are no obstacles around, it will better restore the VLA's original intent.
% \end{itemize}
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
% ================= 表格 2：消融实验 =================
% 同样加了星号 table*
% \begin{table*}[t]
% \centering
% \small
% \caption{Ablation study under the same evaluation protocol as Table~\ref{tab:main_results}. \textit{Note:} `w/o Safety Constraints' disables the Lagrangian safety optimization during training/execution.}
% \label{tab:ablation}
% \begin{tabular}{l ccc ccc}
% \toprule
% \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method Variant}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Ideal (Fast Update)}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Delayed (Stochastic Latency)}} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){2-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-7}
% & SR (\%) $\uparrow$ & CTE (m) $\downarrow$ & RER (\%) $\downarrow$ & SR (\%) $\uparrow$ & CTE (m) $\downarrow$ & RER (\%) $\downarrow$ \\
% \midrule
% \textbf{AsyncShield (Full)} & \textbf{80.00} & 0.717 & \textbf{1.2} & \textbf{76.67} & 0.725 & \textbf{1.3} \\
% \midrule
% w/o Temporal Alignment & 53.30 & 0.915 & 1.6 & 36.70 & 1.194 & 3.6 \\
% w/o RL Adapter & 46.67 & 0.932 & 2.1 & 26.67 & 1.442 & 4.3 \\
% w/o Safety Constraints & 40.00 & 0.681 & 4.2 & 23.33 & 0.692 & 4.7 \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table*}
% =================================================
To validate the necessity of AsyncShield's core architectural designs, we conduct targeted ablation experiments (see Table~\ref{tab:ablation}):
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{w/o Temporal Alignment (Naive Grafting):} Removing the temporal pose buffer forces the agent to rigidly graft stale local waypoints onto the current ego frame. Under Delayed latency, SR plummets from $76.7\%$ to $36.7\%$, and CTE deteriorates to $1.194\text{~m}$. This strongly corroborates our core premise, ``Latency is Geometry'': under severe stochastic latency, relying on backend RL networks to implicitly fit large-scale coordinate frame discrepancies is highly inefficient without explicit spatial realignment.
% \item \textbf{w/o RL Adapter:} Replacing the end-side RL strategy with a classical rule-based controller (e.g., Pure Pursuit). Even under the Ideal condition, SR is restricted to $46.7\%$ (dropping to $26.7\%$ under latency). This indicates that classical rule-based controllers struggle with the complex, non-ideal kinematic constraints of diverse mobile chassis. The integration of an RL adapter with domain randomization is essential for generating smooth, universal local actions.
% \item \textbf{w/o RL Adapter:} Replacing the end-side RL strategy with a classical kinematics-aware local planner, i.e., the Dynamic Window Approach (DWA). While DWA effectively avoids obstacles under the Ideal condition (achieving $66.67\%$ SR), its performance drops to $53.30\%$ under stochastic latency. Furthermore, DWA exhibits a significantly higher trajectory tracking error (CTE $> 1.2$~m) across both conditions. This indicates that while DWA survives by aggressively deviating from obstacles, it severely loses fidelity to the VLA's original intent. It highlights the fundamental limitation of traditional cost-function-based planners: they require heavy, chassis-specific parameter tuning and struggle to dynamically balance stale VLA intents with real-time safety. In contrast, our RL adapter, empowered by CMDP and domain randomization, learns a robust, tuning-free policy capable of universal local adaptation across diverse dynamics.
\item \textbf{w/o RL Adapter:} Replacing the RL policy with a classical dynamic window approach (DWA) planner. While DWA effectively avoids obstacles ($66.67\%$ SR under Ideal), its success drops to $53.30\%$ under latency, accompanied by severe trajectory deviation (CTE $> 1.2$~m). This reveals that traditional cost-based planners struggle to balance stale intents with safety, surviving only by aggressively abandoning the VLA's guidance. Conversely, our CMDP-based RL adapter achieves a tuning-free, optimal trade-off between intent fidelity and physical safety.
\item \textbf{w/o Safety Constraints:} Removing the Lagrangian-based obstacle penalty relies purely on flow-tracking rewards. Consequently, the CTE decreases as the agent rigidly adheres to the VLA intent, but RER skyrockets, resulting in task failures due to direct collisions. This inverse validation underscores the indispensable role of the PPO-Lag mechanism as a hard safety baseline in asynchronous heterogeneous navigation.
\end{itemize}
% \subsection{Cross-Embodiment Validation in Simulation}
% To rigorously validate the zero-shot cross-embodiment capability of AsyncShield, we evaluate the policy—which was originally trained strictly on a basic non-holonomic wheeled model (\textit{Car})—directly onto two fundamentally distinct morphological models in OmniSafe: \textbf{Doggo} (a legged robot) and \textbf{Racecar} (an Ackermann-steered vehicle).
% % To ensure a universal evaluation, both models are constrained to a basic $(v_x, v_{yaw})$ tracking interface (i.e., lateral velocity $v_y=0$). We evaluate each embodiment under \textit{Standard} dynamics and \textit{Degraded} dynamics (injected with high system latency).
% As shown in Table \ref{tab:cross_embodiment}, AsyncShield maintains robustness across these different physical constraints without any fine-tuning. Notably, the Risk Exposure Rate (RER) remains strictly bounded between 1.20\% and 1.31\% . This demonstrates that while kinematic discrepancies and latency perturbations slightly impact overall navigation success (SR drops by $2\% \sim 3\%$), our $SE(2)$ spatial re-projection and Lagrangian safety constraints effectively guarantee physical safety regardless of the underlying embodiment. This simulation result closely mirrors and validates our real-world deployment on the quadruped robot.
% \subsection{Cross-Embodiment Validation in Simulation}
% To validate the zero-shot cross-embodiment capability of AsyncShield, we directly deploy the base policy onto two morphologically distinct agents in the OmniSafe simulator: \textbf{Doggo} (a quadruped robot) and \textbf{Racecar} (a vehicle with Ackermann steering constraints).
% Specifically, to eliminate the discrepancy in physical volumes across different embodiments without the need for retraining, we introduce a \textbf{Collision Radius Inflation} mechanism. By subtracting a specific inflation compensation value directly from the raw LiDAR scan distances at the perception level (i.e., equivalently pushing obstacles closer in the observation space), the base policy can zero-shot adapt to physical entities with larger collision volumes.
% We evaluate the agents under two conditions: \textit{Standard dynamics} and \textit{Degraded dynamics} (i.e., weakened kinematic parameters). As shown in Table \ref{tab:cross_embodiment}, AsyncShield demonstrates strong robustness. Across all heterogeneous configurations, the system's Risk Exposure Rate (RER) remains bounded within $1.31\%$. This compellingly proves that although significant differences in chassis kinematics and dynamic degradation slightly impact the overall navigation success rate, our method can safely and effectively generalize to other embodiments. This simulation result not only closely aligns with our hardware deployment performance on the real-world quadruped robot but also provides strong corroboration from both theoretical and empirical perspectives.
% \begin{table}[h]
% \centering
% \caption{Zero-Shot Cross-Embodiment Performance}
% \label{tab:cross_embodiment}
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{4.5pt} % 稍微收缩一下列间距（默认通常是6pt）
% \begin{tabular}{lcccc} % 从 6 列减为 5 列，删除了中间的空列
% \toprule
% \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Embodiment}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Standard}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Degraded}} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){2-3} \cmidrule(lr){4-5} % (lr) 表示横线左右两端自动缩进留白，完美替代空列的作用
% & \textbf{SR (\%)} $\uparrow$ & \textbf{RER (\%)} $\downarrow$ & \textbf{SR (\%)} $\uparrow$ & \textbf{RER (\%)} $\downarrow$ \\
% \midrule
% \textbf{Doggo} (Legged) & 78.00 & 1.25 & 76.00 & 1.31 \\
% \textbf{Racecar} (Wheeled)& 79.00 & 1.20 & 76.00 & 1.29 \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table}
\subsection{Cross-Embodiment Validation in Simulation}
To validate the zero-shot cross-embodiment capability of AsyncShield, we directly deploy the base policy onto two morphologically distinct agents in the OmniSafe simulator: \textbf{Doggo} (a quadruped robot) and \textbf{Racecar} (a vehicle with Ackermann steering constraints), designing significantly different kinematic parameters for each category of robot.
Specifically, to eliminate the discrepancy in physical volumes across different embodiments without the need for retraining, we introduce a \textbf{Collision Radius Inflation} mechanism. By subtracting a specific inflation compensation value directly from the raw LiDAR scan distances at the perception level (i.e., equivalently pushing obstacles closer in the observation space), the base policy can zero-shot adapt to physical entities with larger collision volumes.
As shown in Table \ref{tab:cross_embodiment}, the differences in Success Rate (SR) and Risk Exposure Rate (RER) across all variants are minimal. This proves that our method can safely and effectively generalize to other embodiments.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Zero-Shot Cross-Embodiment Performance}
\label{tab:cross_embodiment}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
\textbf{Embodiment Variant} & \textbf{SR (\%)} $\uparrow$ & \textbf{RER (\%)} $\downarrow$ \\
\midrule
\textbf{Doggo A} & 78.00 & 1.25 \\
\textbf{Doggo B} & 76.00 & 1.31 \\
\midrule
\textbf{Racecar A} & 79.00 & 1.20 \\
\textbf{Racecar B} & 76.00 & 1.29 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Real-world Hardware Deployment and Zero-Shot Transfer}
To validate the ``plug-and-play'' feasibility and zero-shot transferability, we deployed AsyncShield on a Unitree Go2 quadruped robot. The system adopts an edge-cloud architecture: the onboard computer processes 2D LiDAR and odometry at high frequencies, while a cloud GPU runs the VLA models, communicating via real-world Wi-Fi with a baseline round-trip latency of approximately 200ms.
\noindent\textbf{Experimental Setup and Multi-Task Validation:}
We selected three SOTA VLA models covering distinct tasks to verify the generalizability of AsyncShield: \textbf{SocialNav}~\cite{chen2025socialnavtraininghumaninspiredfoundation} for point-goal navigation, \textbf{TrackVLA}~\cite{wang2025trackvla} for person-following, and \textbf{Nav-$R^2$}~\cite{xiang2025navr2dualrelationreasoninggeneralizable} for object-goal navigation. For each model, we evaluated performance across four challenging scenarios: \textit{Dynamic Crowds}, \textit{Narrow Corridors}, \textit{Doorway Entry/Exit}, and \textit{Extreme Network Jitter}. In the jitter scenario, we artificially injected stochastic latencies ranging from 500ms to 1500ms on top of the baseline delay. We conducted 5 trials per scenario, totaling 20 cases for each VLA model.
% ================= Table: Plug-and-Play Validation =================
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\small
\caption{Real-world Success Rates (20 trials each) demonstrating plug-and-play compatibility across different cloud VLA models.}
\label{tab:real_world_vla}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
\textbf{Cloud VLA Model} & \textbf{Direct VLA} & \textbf{VLA + AsyncShield} \\
\midrule
SocialNav (Point-goal) & 6/20 (30\%) & \textbf{17/20 (85\%)} \\
TrackVLA (Following) & 8/20 (40\%) & \textbf{16/20 (80\%)} \\
Nav-$R^2$ (Object-goal) & 5/20 (25\%) & \textbf{18/20 (90\%)} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\noindent\textbf{Results and Qualitative Analysis:}
As shown in Table \ref{tab:real_world_vla}, due to the severe cloud-to-edge latency, naive asynchronous execution (\textit{Direct VLA}) suffers catastrophic performance degradation (25\%--40\% SR) in challenging scenarios, frequently leading to collisions caused by stale commands. Integrating our module immediately restores robust performance (80\%--90\% SR) without any VLA fine-tuning.
In dynamic environments and narrow spaces, AsyncShield allows the robot to autonomously deviate from stale global intents based on real-time local perception. For instance, during doorway traversal, it recalculates corrective trajectories in real-time to prevent lateral drift or wall collisions induced by command lag. Furthermore, in scenarios with induced high network latency, the robot exhibits no oscillations or freezing; instead, it safely proceeds along the primary intent direction while maintaining active obstacle avoidance, demonstrating remarkable resilience to communication failures.
Synthesizing the aforementioned simulation and real-world experiments, the cross-embodiment generalization capability validated in simulation mutually corroborates the hardware deployment performance on the real-world quadruped robot. This demonstrates that AsyncShield can serve as a universal plug-and-play edge module, safely and robustly enabling the real-world physical deployment of cloud-based VLA models without requiring any fine-tuning.
% \subsection{Real-World Hardware Deployment and Zero-Shot Transfer}
% To validate the ``plug-and-play'' feasibility and zero-shot transferability, we deployed AsyncShield on a Unitree Go2 quadruped robot. The edge onboard computer processes 2D LiDAR and odometry at high frequencies, while a cloud GPU runs the VLA models, communicating via real-world Wi-Fi subject to natural long-tail latency and packet loss.
% % ================= 表格：即插即用验证 =================
% \begin{table}[h]
% \centering
% \small
% \caption{Real-world Success Rates (20 trials each) demonstrating plug-and-play compatibility across different cloud VLA models.}
% \label{tab:real_world_vla}
% \begin{tabular}{lcc}
% \toprule
% \textbf{Cloud VLA Model} & \textbf{Direct VLA} & \textbf{VLA + AsyncShield} \\
% \midrule
% SocialNav & 6/20 (30\%) & \textbf{17/20 (85\%)} \\
% TrackVLA & 8/20 (40\%) & \textbf{16/20 (80\%)} \\
% Nav-$R^2$ & 5/20 (25\%) & \textbf{18/20 (90\%)} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table}
% \noindent\textbf{Plug-and-Play Compatibility:} We evaluated the system across three distinct cloud VLA models (Table \ref{tab:real_world_vla}). Naive asynchronous execution (\textit{Direct VLA}) suffers catastrophic failures (25\%--40\% SR) due to real-world network jitter. Integrating our module immediately restores robust performance (80\%--90\% SR) without any VLA fine-tuning, successfully bridging the Sim-to-Real gap.
% \noindent\textbf{Qualitative Evaluation in Core Scenarios:} Across extensive real-world trials in extreme scenarios, AsyncShield demonstrated remarkable resilience. In \textit{Dynamic Crowd Navigation}, the chassis autonomously deviated from stale intents to bypass suddenly crossing pedestrians. In \textit{Narrow Clearance} and \textit{Delayed Doorway Entry}, it accurately anchored discontinuous, delayed waypoints into the absolute physical space, recalculating corrective trajectories to prevent lateral drift and wall collisions. Crucially, under \textit{Induced Wi-Fi Black-outs} (stochastic 0.5--1.0s communication outages), the robot safely coasted along the geometric tangent with active obstacle avoidance, rapidly recapturing intent upon recovery instead of crashing or oscillating.
% \subsection{Real-World Hardware Deployment and Zero-Shot Transfer}
% To validate the feasibility and robustness of AsyncShield in physical environments, we deployed the system zero-shot on a Unitree Go2 quadruped robot. The edge onboard computer runs the AsyncShield policy, processing 2D LiDAR and odometry data at high frequencies, while a cloud GPU workstation runs the visual navigation model SocialNav to generate local semantic intents. The two ends communicate via a real-world Wi-Fi network subject to natural long-tail latency and intermittent packet loss.
% \textbf{Qualitative Evaluation in Core Scenarios:} We established three highly challenging real-world test scenarios, conducting 40 trials for each:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \textbf{Dynamic Crowd Navigation:} In this scenario, the robot follows the cloud intent while a pedestrian suddenly crosses its path. Confronted with outdated cloud commands under high network latency, the chassis autonomously deviates from the stale VLA intent to safely bypass the pedestrian. Once the collision risk is cleared, it smoothly restores the original navigation route without any pauses or collisions.
% \item \textbf{Narrow Clearance:} The robot is required to traverse a narrow passage. Under the latency jitter of real-world Wi-Fi, traditional asynchronous control is highly prone to lateral drift due to command lags. In contrast, AsyncShield accurately anchors the discontinuous cloud waypoints into the current physical space. The robot navigates through the clearance smoothly without stopping, demonstrating exceptionally high trajectory fidelity.
% \item \textbf{Delayed Doorway Entry:} The robot is instructed by the VLA to turn and enter a room. Due to network latency, the cloud's intent arrives after the chassis has already bypassed the optimal turning point. A naive asynchronous execution would execute the turning maneuver too late, leading to a direct collision with the adjacent wall. In contrast, AsyncShield re-projects the delayed intent onto the absolute physical coordinates of the doorway. The system recalculates a feasible corrective trajectory, aligning with the doorframe and completing the entry without collision.
% \item \textbf{Induced Wi-Fi Black-out:} We manually blocked the robot's Wi-Fi communication for several seconds to simulate real-world network dead zones. During this extreme communication outage, the robot exhibited neither out-of-control crashes nor in-place oscillations. Instead, the system safely coasted along the geometric tangent of the historical intent while performing active obstacle avoidance, and rapidly re-captured the latest intent upon network recovery.
% \end{itemize}
% \textbf{Summary:} The real-world deployment results confirm that converting asynchronous temporal delays into explicit spatial geometric alignment, coupled with local safety constraints, effectively bridges the Sim-to-Real gap. This framework successfully enables the safe and robust deployment of cloud-edge collaborative architectures in real-world dynamic environments.
% \section{USING THE TEMPLATE}
% Use this sample document as your LaTeX source file to create your document. Save this file as {\bf root.tex}. You have to make sure to use the cls file that came with this distribution. If you use a different style file, you cannot expect to get required margins. Note also that when you are creating your out PDF file, the source file is only part of the equation. {\it Your \TeX\ $\rightarrow$ PDF filter determines the output file size. Even if you make all the specifications to output a letter file in the source - if your filter is set to produce A4, you will only get A4 output. }
% It is impossible to account for all possible situation, one would encounter using \TeX. If you are using multiple \TeX\ files you must make sure that the ``MAIN`` source file is called root.tex - this is particularly important if your conference is using PaperPlaza's built in \TeX\ to PDF conversion tool.
% \subsection{Headings, etc}
% Text heads organize the topics on a relational, hierarchical basis. For example, the paper title is the primary text head because all subsequent material relates and elaborates on this one topic. If there are two or more sub-topics, the next level head (uppercase Roman numerals) should be used and, conversely, if there are not at least two sub-topics, then no subheads should be introduced. Styles named ÒHeading 1Ó, ÒHeading 2Ó, ÒHeading 3Ó, and ÒHeading 4Ó are prescribed.
% \subsection{Figures and Tables}
% Positioning Figures and Tables: Place figures and tables at the top and bottom of columns. Avoid placing them in the middle of columns. Large figures and tables may span across both columns. Figure captions should be below the figures; table heads should appear above the tables. Insert figures and tables after they are cited in the text. Use the abbreviation ÒFig. 1Ó, even at the beginning of a sentence.
% \begin{table}[h]
% \caption{An Example of a Table}
% \label{table_example}
% \begin{center}
% \begin{tabular}{|c||c|}
% \hline
% One & Two\\
% \hline
% Three & Four\\
% \hline
% \end{tabular}
% \end{center}
% \end{table}
% \begin{figure}[thpb]
% \centering
% \framebox{\parbox{3in}{We suggest that you use a text box to insert a graphic (which is ideally a 300 dpi TIFF or EPS file, with all fonts embedded) because, in an document, this method is somewhat more stable than directly inserting a picture.
% }}
% %\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{figurefile}
% \caption{Inductance of oscillation winding on amorphous
% magnetic core versus DC bias magnetic field}
% \label{figurelabel}
% \end{figure}
% Figure Labels: Use 8 point Times New Roman for Figure labels. Use words rather than symbols or abbreviations when writing Figure axis labels to avoid confusing the reader. As an example, write the quantity ÒMagnetizationÓ, or ÒMagnetization, MÓ, not just ÒMÓ. If including units in the label, present them within parentheses. Do not label axes only with units. In the example, write ÒMagnetization (A/m)Ó or ÒMagnetization {A[m(1)]}Ó, not just ÒA/mÓ. Do not label axes with a ratio of quantities and units. For example, write ÒTemperature (K)Ó, not ÒTemperature/K.Ó
% \section{CONCLUSIONS}
% A conclusion section is not required. Although a conclusion may review the main points of the paper, do not replicate the abstract as the conclusion. A conclusion might elaborate on the importance of the work or suggest applications and extensions.
% \section{Conclusion}
% This paper proposes \textbf{AsyncShield}, an asynchronous control framework designed to address the spatio-temporal misalignment caused by network jitter and inference latency when deploying Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models in mobile navigation tasks. Based on the core insight that \textit{``Latency is Geometry,''} the system discards traditional implicit fitting along the time axis. Instead, it utilizes analytical kinematic transformations to accurately convert command lag in the temporal dimension into spatial pose offsets. This mechanism fundamentally eliminates error accumulation under continuous displacement, achieving a complete decoupling of low-frequency cloud inference and high-frequency edge execution.
% To balance high-level semantic intent and low-level physical safety, we formulate the edge adaptation process as a Constrained Markov Decision Process (CMDP). By introducing an optimization strategy based on the PPO-Lagrangian algorithm, the system utilizes dynamic multipliers to adaptively adjust the weights between task and safety, ensuring that the low-level control prioritizes independent obstacle avoidance when outdated commands pose collision risks. Combined with a universal action space and deep kinematic domain randomization, AsyncShield possesses the characteristics of a \textit{plug-and-play} module. Extensive experiments demonstrate that, without the need to fine-tune the cloud-based VLA models, the framework can not only resist severe long-tail network jitter in a zero-shot manner but also seamlessly transfer to various heterogeneous mobile bases, significantly improving the success rate and safety of asynchronous navigation tasks.
% Future work will explore extending this analytical realignment mechanism to more complex 3D unstructured environments, and investigate the introduction of lightweight multimodal local perception at the edge to further enhance the system's safety redundancy and robustness in highly dynamic scenarios.
\section{CONCLUSION}
\label{sec:conclusion}
This paper proposes AsyncShield, a plug-and-play asynchronous control framework designed for cloud-based Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models in mobile navigation tasks. To address the spatio-temporal misalignment caused by cloud-to-edge latency, we discard traditional black-box time-series prediction in favor of a deterministic physical white-box spatial mapping. We restore the original intent of the VLA through geometric transformations and formulate the edge adaptation as a CMDP. Utilizing the PPO-Lagrangian algorithm, we develop a reinforcement learning adapter to achieve an adaptive dynamic trade-off between tracking the true VLA intent and responding to high-frequency LiDAR obstacle avoidance hard constraints.
Furthermore, benefiting from a standardized universal sub-goal interface, domain randomization, and perception-level adaptation (i.e., Collision Radius Inflation), AsyncShield demonstrates zero-shot cross-embodiment generalization capabilities. Simulation and real-world experiments show that, without fine-tuning any cloud-based foundation model weights, the framework exhibits stable generalization capability and effectively improves the success rate and physical safety of asynchronous navigation.
Future work will explore extending this analytical geometric re-projection mechanism to more complex 3D unstructured environments, and investigate the introduction of lightweight multimodal local perception models at the edge to further enhance the system's safety redundancy and robustness in dynamic scenarios.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\bibliography{IEEEabrv, refs}
\end{document}