When do discrete actions make good continuous controllers?

Though modern AI models like LLMs predict discrete tokens, today's robotic foundation models represent actions as continuous vectors. In this paper, we challenge this common consensus by asking if continuous action parametrizations are superior to their discrete counterparts. We conduct an extensive comparison of single-step regression and multi-step flow variants of both continuous and discrete policies in both from-scratch single-task and multi-task VLA training, in both simulation and on real hardware. In all regimes, we find that discrete action prediction, even the most naive, uniform-bin quantization, can match or even outperform continuous-action policies in task success rate. Moreover, we find that the challenge to discrete action policies is not action precision, but rather factorization error introduced by product-distribution predictions across time and action dimensions. We show that, when paired with the correct interventions—iterative computation through discrete flows, or distribution sharpening through classifier-free guidance—discrete flow policies can turn this weakness into a strength, enabling more responsive action changes during a predicted action chunk. Lastly, we show that attempts to explicitly inject geometric information into discrete policies, e.g. through corruption processes that emulate continuous flow matching, do not yield consistent improvements. Taken together, our findings question existing assumptions that robotic action prediction requires distinct design decisions compared to other AI domains, and motivates the possibility of discrete action prediction as a compelling alternative to today's continuous action parametrizations. Link for the webpage https://anonymous-wolf-submissions.github.io/iclr-submissionhttps://anonymous-wolf-submissions.github.io/iclr-submission