REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 44 references
ReFineVLA: Reasoning-Aware Teacher-Guided Transfer Fine-Tuning
T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read ReFineVLA claims that injecting teacher-generated step-by-step reasoning into vision-language-action models during fine-tuning improves both task success and interpretability, reporting average success-rate gains of 5.0% on SimplerEnv…
desk verdict ReFineVLA is a clearly written, plausible CoT-for-VLA fine-tuning recipe, but the reported gains are not yet isolated to reasoning supervision. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the teacher-generated reasoning rationale $r_i$ attached to each observation-action pair, turning dataset $D$ into $D' = \{(o_i, a_i, r_i)\}$. Each rationale follows a fixed four-part chain-of-thought template, observation, situation analysis, spatial reasoning, and task planning, and is produced at scale by prompting a powerful teacher model, with no human validation. The training objective $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{action}} + \lambda_r \mathcal{L}_{\text{reasoning}}$ then supervises the VLA to generate both actions and rationales, while selective transfer fine-tuning freezes lower layers and updates only empirically chosen upper transformer layers and the policy head. The reasoning loss is what carries the paper's argument: it is the only new signal relative to standard VLA fine-tuning.
What would settle it
A control experiment that fine-tunes the same 2B backbone on the same 125,000 trajectories with the teacher rationales replaced by fixed, task-independent text (e.g., 'look at the scene and move the arm') would settle whether the reasoning content matters. If the control retains the reported gains, the improvement comes from extra text supervision or fine-tuning rather than from the rationales' logical content; if it loses the gains, the reasoning supervision is load-bearing.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery the paper pursues is that the missing ingredient in current VLA policies is not capacity or data scale but explicit multimodal reasoning during training. Standard VLA fine-tuning minimizes a negative log-likelihood on action tokens only, so the model learns a reactive mapping from observation to action. ReFineVLA adds a second supervised objective: the model must also reproduce the teacher's chain-of-thought rationales, structured as observation, situation analysis, spatial reasoning, and task planning, before or alongside emitting action tokens. The joint loss is $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{action}} + \lambda_r \mathcal{L}_{\text{reasoning}}$, applied only to later transformer layers and the policy head, keeping lower layers frozen. The paper reports that this yields consistent gains over OpenVLA, Octo, RT-1-X, RoboVLM, TraceVLA, and SpatialVLA on SimplerEnv benchmarks, and that attention maps shift toward semantically relevant objects.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that the teacher-generated rationales are correct and useful: if they misidentify objects, misstate spatial relations, or describe plans that do not match the paired action labels, the reasoning loss trains the model on wrong intermediate steps and the benchmark gains cannot be attributed to reasoning supervision.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Average success rates improve by 5.0% on SimplerEnv WidowX tasks over the strongest baseline, with per-task gains of 21.4% on Put Spoon on Towel and 8.3% on Put Carrot on Plate.
- On SimplerEnv Google Robot tasks, ReFineVLA improves average success by 8.6% in variant aggregation and 1.7% in visual matching over SpatialVLA.
- At inference the fine-tuned model can emit a human-readable chain of thought explaining its actions, which makes the policy's intermediate decisions inspectable.
- Attention-map analysis shows the fine-tuned policy attends to task-relevant objects and spatial anchors rather than only to immediate action targets.
- The best configuration uses reasoning-loss weight $\lambda_r = 0.3$ and freezes the first 24 transformer layers; ablations show that too much or too little reasoning supervision hurts performance.
Reading between the lines
- Because the reported gains are averaged over many SimplerEnv configurations, a direct extension is to test whether the same margin appears on real robots; the paper leaves this as future work.
- If the reasoning content itself drives the improvement, then a control that replaces rationales with generic or shuffled text should lose most of the gain; this comparison is not reported and would isolate the mechanism.
- The same teacher-rationale recipe may transfer to other VLA backbones, since ReFineVLA only changes the training objective and a subset of tunable layers and should therefore be backbone-agnostic.
- The observed attention-map shift toward task-relevant objects could serve as an early diagnostic during fine-tuning, giving a cheap check of whether reasoning supervision is being absorbed before running full benchmark evaluations.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes ReFineVLA, a fine-tuning framework that augments VLA training data with teacher-generated multimodal reasoning rationales and optimizes a joint objective of action prediction and reasoning generation, while selectively freezing lower transformer layers. The method is instantiated by fine-tuning SpatialVLA on roughly 125,000 trajectories from BridgeData-v2 and RT-1 data, enriched with Gemini-generated rationales. Experiments on SimplerEnv report average success-rate gains of 5.0% on WidowX tasks, 8.6% in the variant-aggregation setting, and 1.7% in the visual-matching setting over SpatialVLA fine-tuning. The paper also presents attention-map visualizations and qualitative chain-of-thought examples, plus ablations over the reasoning-loss weight and number of frozen layers.
Significance. If the central causal claim were established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it would show that teacher-guided reasoning supervision can improve both task success and interpretability of pretrained VLAs without full fine-tuning. The use of the external SimplerEnv benchmark, the transparent loss formulation, and the plan to release code are strengths, and the evaluation is not circular because the benchmark is independent of the training data and rationales. However, the empirical evidence as presented does not yet isolate the effect of reasoning supervision, and the reported gains may depend on data selection, freezing strategy, or test-set tuning. The contribution is therefore promising but needs substantially stronger experiments before the claims can be accepted.
major comments (5)
- [§5.1, Tables 1–2; §4.4] The causal attribution of the gains to reasoning supervision is not established. ReFineVLA differs from the closest baseline, SpatialVLA (fine-tuning), in multiple confounded ways: it uses only about 125,000 selected trajectories (Section 4.4), it freezes the first 24 transformer layers (Figure 7), and it optimizes the joint objective L_action + λr·L_reasoning (Equation 1). The paper never reports a same-data, same-freezing control with λr = 0, nor a control with corrupted or task-irrelevant rationales. Figure 6 shows a λr sweep but does not tie it to the configurations in Tables 1–2 and does not give the success rate at λr = 0 on the same data and frozen-layer setup. Consequently, the reported 5.0/8.6/1.7-point improvements could arise from data selection, regularization from parameter freezing, or joint training, rather than from the reasoning content of the teacher rationales.
- [§5.1, Tables 1–2] No repeated seeds, error bars, or confidence intervals are reported for any of the benchmark numbers. SimplerEnv evaluation involves stochastic initial configurations and rollout variability, so single-point success rates are not sufficient to support claims of consistent improvement. In Table 1, the ReFineVLA row appears to be based on 21 rollouts per cell (e.g., 42.9% = 9/21), whereas SpatialVLA (fine-tuning) appears to use 24 rollouts (e.g., 20.8% = 5/24); Table 2 reports no evaluation counts at all. With gaps as small as 1.7 percentage points, the reported differences may be within rollout noise. The paper should report the number of evaluation episodes per cell, multiple seeds, and confidence intervals or a significance test.
- [§5.2, Figures 6–7] The hyperparameters λr = 0.3 and freezing 24 layers are selected by the average success rate on the same SimplerEnv benchmark used in Tables 1–2, i.e., the evaluation metric is used for model selection. This is test-set tuning and can inflate the reported gains. The paper does not describe a separate validation split or a pre-specified configuration. To support the claim of consistent improvement, the authors should fix the configuration on a validation set and report performance on held-out variants, or at least explicitly discuss the selection procedure and its effect on the reported numbers.
- [§4.1, §6 Future Works] The teacher rationales are generated by Gemini for 125,000 trajectories with no human validation, quality filter, or automatic correctness check. The paper's interpretability and reasoning claims depend on these rationales being meaningful and grounded, but no evidence is provided that they are. The Future Works sentence about 'human-in-the-loop refinement' acknowledges the issue, but the current manuscript does not address it. At a minimum, the authors should include a small human evaluation or an automated agreement metric, and ideally show that rationale quality correlates with downstream success.
- [§2, Tables 1–2] The closest reasoning-aware baselines are cited in the related work but are missing from the experiments. In particular, CoT-VLA (Zhao et al., 2025) and embodied chain-of-thought methods (Zawalski et al., 2024) are directly relevant to the claim that ReFineVLA improves reasoning-aware VLA fine-tuning, yet they are not included in Tables 1–2. Without these comparisons, the paper cannot support its position that it advances the state of the art among reasoning-aware VLA methods; the authors should add these baselines or justify their exclusion.
minor comments (6)
- [Table 2 caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'pre-traineđ' should be 'pre-trained'.
- [§5.1] The text refers to 'WindowX Robot tasks' in several places; the correct name is WidowX, as used in Table 1 and elsewhere.
- [Figure 5] The caption and text for example (2) say 'closing the drawer while it is opening', which is confusing; the prompt shown is 'close the drawer', and the surrounding text should describe the task consistently.
- [Algorithm 1, Equations (2)–(3)] The notation is inconsistent: Algorithm 1 uses x_j in the loss expressions while Equations (2) and (3) use o_i and a_i; the input to the model in lines 5–6 is denoted o_j. Please unify the notation across equations and pseudocode.
- [§4.1] The teacher model is described only as 'Gemini' without a version or prompting details; providing the specific model version and the full prompt template would improve reproducibility, since the rationale generator is a core component of the method.
- [§4.4] The paper states that approximately 125,000 trajectories were gathered from BridgeData-v2 and RT-1, but it does not specify the selection criteria or the per-dataset split. Please clarify how these trajectories were chosen and how the subset relates to the full datasets used by the SpatialVLA fine-tuning baseline.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: ReFineVLA's reported gains are empirical benchmark results, not derived from or equivalent to the paper's own inputs.
full rationale
ReFineVLA's derivation chain is an empirical one: Gemini-generated rationales are concatenated with BridgeData-v2 and RT-1 trajectories, the pretrained SpatialVLA is fine-tuned with the joint objective L_action + lambda_r L_reasoning (Equations 1-3), and success is measured on SimplerEnv against external baselines. No reported success rate is computed from a fitted parameter or from the reasoning loss by construction; the benchmark outcomes are independent of the training labels and teacher rationales. The lambda_r sweep and frozen-layer sweep (Figures 6-7) are hyperparameter selections, and reporting the best configuration is a test-selection or statistical-power concern, not a circular reduction. The only author-overlapping citation, Robotic-CLIP (Nguyen et al., 2024), appears in a related-work sentence and is not load-bearing for any claim. The attention-map analyses are qualitative illustrations rather than a renamed restatement of the training signal. The absence of a same-data lambda_r = 0 control and the absence of error bars weaken causal attribution of the gains to reasoning supervision, but that is an experimental confound, not circularity. The paper therefore contains no step in which a prediction reduces by definition or by self-citation to its own inputs.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (3)
- Reasoning loss weight λr =
0.3
- Number of frozen transformer layers =
24
- Fine-tuning dataset composition =
125,000 trajectories from BridgeData-v2 and RT-1
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Gemini-generated rationales are semantically correct and aligned with the ground-truth actions.
- ad hoc to paper Explicit reasoning supervision transfers from teacher rationales to improved policy generalization.
- domain assumption Attention maps are a valid proxy for the model's reasoning quality and understanding.
- domain assumption SimplerEnv simulation performance indicates real-world generalization.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of ReFineVLA: Reasoning-Aware Teacher-Guided Transfer Fine-Tuning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OF4OS3ET
@misc{pith2026250519080,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: ReFineVLA: Reasoning-Aware Teacher-Guided Transfer Fine-Tuning},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OF4OS3ET}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19080}
}
abstract
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have gained much attention from the research community thanks to their strength in translating multimodal observations with linguistic instructions into robotic actions. Despite their recent advancements, VLAs often overlook the explicit reasoning and only learn the functional input-action mappings, omitting these crucial logical steps for interpretability and generalization for complex, long-horizon manipulation tasks. In this work, we propose \textit{ReFineVLA}, a multimodal reasoning-aware framework that fine-tunes VLAs with teacher-guided reasons. We first augment robotic datasets with reasoning rationales generated by an expert teacher model, guiding VLA models to learn to reason about their actions. Then, we use \textit{ReFineVLA} to fine-tune pre-trained VLAs with the reasoning-enriched datasets, while maintaining their inherent generalization abilities and boosting reasoning capabilities. In addition, we conduct an attention map visualization to analyze the alignment among visual attention, linguistic prompts, and to-be-executed actions of \textit{ReFineVLA}, showcasing its ability to focus on relevant tasks and actions. Through the latter step, we explore that \textit{ReFineVLA}-trained models exhibit a meaningful attention shift towards relevant objects, highlighting the enhanced multimodal understanding and improved generalization. Evaluated across manipulation tasks, \textit{ReFineVLA} outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines. Specifically, it achieves an average increase of $5.0\%$ success rate on SimplerEnv WidowX Robot tasks, improves by an average of $8.6\%$ in variant aggregation settings, and by $1.7\%$ in visual matching settings for SimplerEnv Google Robot tasks. The source code will be publicly available.
Figures
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Marah Abdin, Sam Ade Jacobs, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Jyoti Aneja, Ahmed Awadallah, Hany Awadalla, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Harkirat Behl, et al. Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14219,
-
[3]
Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817,
Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Joseph Dabis, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, et al. Rt-1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817,
-
[6]
Hao-Tien Lewis Chiang, Zhuo Xu, Zipeng Fu, Mithun George Jacob, Tingnan Zhang, Tsang-Wei Edward Lee, Wenhao Yu, Connor Schenck, David Rendleman, Dhruv Shah, et al. Mobility vla: Multimodal instruction navigation with long-context vlms and topological graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07775,
-
[8]
Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model
Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378,
-
[9]
Vision-language models as success detectors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07280,
Yuqing Du, Ksenia Konyushkova, Misha Denil, Akhil Raju, Jessica Landon, Felix Hill, Nando de Freitas, and Serkan Cabi. Vision-language models as success detectors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07280,
-
[10]
Frederik Ebert, Yanlai Yang, Karl Schmeckpeper, Bernadette Bucher, Georgios Georgakis, Kostas Daniilidis, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Bridge data: Boosting generalization of robotic skills with cross-domain datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13396,
-
[11]
Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Ludwig Schmidt, and Shuran Song. Clip on wheels: Zero-shot object navigation as object localization and exploration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10421, 3(4):7,
-
[12]
Polytask: Learning unified policies through behavior distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08573,
Siddhant Haldar and Lerrel Pinto. Polytask: Learning unified policies through behavior distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08573,
Show all 44 references
-
[13]
Baku: An efficient transformer for multi-task policy learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07539,
Siddhant Haldar, Zhuoran Peng, and Lerrel Pinto. Baku: An efficient transformer for multi-task policy learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07539,
-
[14]
Visual chain-of-thought diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16187,
12 William Harvey and Frank Wood. Visual chain-of-thought diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16187,
-
[15]
Visual sketchpad: Sketching as a visual chain of thought for multimodal language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09403,
Yushi Hu, Weijia Shi, Xingyu Fu, Dan Roth, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A Smith, and Ranjay Krishna. Visual sketchpad: Sketching as a visual chain of thought for multimodal language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09403,
-
[16]
Seil Kang, Jinyeong Kim, Junhyeok Kim, and Seong Jae Hwang
URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.22325. Seil Kang, Jinyeong Kim, Junhyeok Kim, and Seong Jae Hwang. Your large vision-language model only needs a few attention heads for visual grounding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06287,
-
[18]
Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945,
Alexander Khazatsky, Karl Pertsch, Suraj Nair, Ashwin Balakrishna, Sudeep Dasari, Siddharth Karamcheti, Soroush Nasiriany, Mohan Kumar Srirama, Lawrence Yunliang Chen, Kirsty Ellis, et al. Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945,
-
[19]
Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246,
Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246,
-
[20]
Cogact: A foundational vision-language-action model for synergizing cognition and action in robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19650, 2024a
Qixiu Li, Yaobo Liang, Zeyu Wang, Lin Luo, Xi Chen, Mozheng Liao, Fangyun Wei, Yu Deng, Sicheng Xu, Yizhong Zhang, et al. Cogact: A foundational vision-language-action model for synergizing cognition and action in robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19650, 2024a. Xi...
-
[21]
Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36, 2024a
Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36, 2024a. Songming Liu, Lingxuan Wu, Bangguo Li, Hengkai Tan, Huayu Chen, Zhengyi Wang, Ke Xu, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Rdt-1b: a diffusion found...
-
[22]
Faithful chain-of-thought reasoning
13 Qing Lyu, Shreya Havaldar, Adam Stein, Li Zhang, Delip Rao, Eric Wong, Marianna Apidianaki, and Chris Callison-Burch. Faithful chain-of-thought reasoning. InThe 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Cha...
2023
-
[24]
Robotic-clip: Fine-tuning clip on action data for robotic applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17727,
Nghia Nguyen, Minh Nhat Vu, Tung D Ta, Baoru Huang, Thieu Vo, Ngan Le, and Anh Nguyen. Robotic-clip: Fine-tuning clip on action data for robotic applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17727,
-
[25]
Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08864,
Abby O’Neill, Abdul Rehman, Abhinav Gupta, Abhiram Maddukuri, Abhishek Gupta, Abhishek Padalkar, Abraham Lee, Acorn Pooley, Agrim Gupta, Ajay Mandlekar, et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08864,
-
[26]
Actor-mimic: Deep multitask and transfer reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06342,
Emilio Parisotto, Jimmy Lei Ba, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Actor-mimic: Deep multitask and transfer reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06342,
-
[27]
URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=1ikK0kHjvj
ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=1ikK0kHjvj. Featured Certification, Outstanding Certification. Daniel Rose, Vaishnavi Himakunthala, Andy Ouyang, Ryan He, Alex Mei, Yujie Lu, Michael Saxon, Chinmay Sonar, Diba Mirza, and William Yang Wang. Visual chain of th...
-
[28]
Policy distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06295,
Andrei A Rusu, Sergio Gomez Colmenarejo, Caglar Gulcehre, Guillaume Desjardins, James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Raia Hadsell. Policy distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06295,
-
[30]
Paligemma 2: A family of versatile vlms for transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03555,
Andreas Steiner, André Susano Pinto, Michael Tschannen, Daniel Keysers, Xiao Wang, Yonatan Bitton, Alexey Gritsenko, Matthias Minderer, Anthony Sherbondy, Shangbang Long, et al. Paligemma 2: A family of versatile vlms for transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03555,
-
[31]
Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805,
Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805,
-
[32]
Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213,
Octo Model Team, Dibya Ghosh, Homer Walke, Karl Pertsch, Kevin Black, Oier Mees, Sudeep Dasari, Joey Hejna, Tobias Kreiman, Charles Xu, et al. Octo: An open-source generalist robot policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12213,
-
[33]
Siglip 2: Multilingual vision-language encoders with improved semantic understanding, localization, and dense features.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14786,
Michael Tschannen, Alexey Gritsenko, Xiao Wang, Muhammad Ferjad Naeem, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Nikhil Parthasarathy, Talfan Evans, Lucas Beyer, Ye Xia, Basil Mustafa, et al. Siglip 2: Multilingual vision-language encoders with improved semantic understanding, localization, and ...
-
[34]
Scaling image tokenizers with grouped spherical quantization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02632,
Jiangtao Wang, Zhen Qin, Yifan Zhang, Vincent Tao Hu, Björn Ommer, Rania Briq, and Stefan Kesselheim. Scaling image tokenizers with grouped spherical quantization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02632,
-
[35]
Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652,
Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652,
-
[36]
Any-point trajectory modeling for policy learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00025,
Chuan Wen, Xingyu Lin, John So, Kai Chen, Qi Dou, Yang Gao, and Pieter Abbeel. Any-point trajectory modeling for policy learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00025,
-
[37]
Tinyvla: Towards fast, data-efficient vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12514,
Junjie Wen, Yichen Zhu, Jinming Li, Minjie Zhu, Kun Wu, Zhiyuan Xu, Ran Cheng, Chaomin Shen, Yaxin Peng, Feifei Feng, et al. Tinyvla: Towards fast, data-efficient vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12514,
-
[38]
Vila-u: a unified foundation model integrating visual understanding and generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04429,
Yecheng Wu, Zhuoyang Zhang, Junyu Chen, Haotian Tang, Dacheng Li, Yunhao Fang, Ligeng Zhu, Enze Xie, Hongxu Yin, Li Yi, et al. Vila-u: a unified foundation model integrating visual understanding and generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04429,
-
[39]
Vla model-expert collaboration for bi-directional manipulation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04163,
Tian-Yu Xiang, Ao-Qun Jin, Xiao-Hu Zhou, Mei-Jiang Gui, Xiao-Liang Xie, Shi-Qi Liu, Shuang-Yi Wang, Sheng-Bin Duang, Si-Cheng Wang, Zheng Lei, et al. Vla model-expert collaboration for bi-directional manipulation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04163,
-
[40]
Beyond chain-of-thought, effective graph-of-thought reasoning in language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16582,
Yao Yao, Zuchao Li, and Hai Zhao. Beyond chain-of-thought, effective graph-of-thought reasoning in language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16582,
-
[41]
Michał Zawalski, William Chen, Karl Pertsch, Oier Mees, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine
URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id= GVX6jpZOhU. Michał Zawalski, William Chen, Karl Pertsch, Oier Mees, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Robotic control via embodied chain-of-thought reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08693,
-
[42]
Vla-3d: A dataset for 3d semantic scene understanding and navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03540,
15 Haochen Zhang, Nader Zantout, Pujith Kachana, Zongyuan Wu, Ji Zhang, and Wenshan Wang. Vla-3d: A dataset for 3d semantic scene understanding and navigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03540,
-
[43]
Up-vla: A unified understanding and prediction model for embodied agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18867,
Jianke Zhang, Yanjiang Guo, Yucheng Hu, Xiaoyu Chen, Xiang Zhu, and Jianyu Chen. Up-vla: A unified understanding and prediction model for embodied agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18867,
-
[44]
Cot-vla: Visual chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22020,
Qingqing Zhao, Yao Lu, Moo Jin Kim, Zipeng Fu, Zhuoyang Zhang, Yecheng Wu, Zhaoshuo Li, Qianli Ma, Song Han, Chelsea Finn, et al. Cot-vla: Visual chain-of-thought reasoning for vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22020,
-
[45]
3d-vla: A 3d vision-language-action generative world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09631, 2024a
Haoyu Zhen, Xiaowen Qiu, Peihao Chen, Jincheng Yang, Xin Yan, Yilun Du, Yining Hong, and Chuang Gan. 3d-vla: A 3d vision-language-action generative world model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09631, 2024a. Haoyu Zhen, Xiaowen Qiu, Peihao Chen, Jincheng Yang, Xin Yan, Yilun Du, Yinin...
-
[46]
Chatvla: Unified multimodal understanding and robot control with vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14420,
Zhongyi Zhou, Yichen Zhu, Minjie Zhu, Junjie Wen, Ning Liu, Zhiyuan Xu, Weibin Meng, Ran Cheng, Yaxin Peng, Chaomin Shen, et al. Chatvla: Unified multimodal understanding and robot control with vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14420,
-
[2015]
Visual cot: Unleashing chain-of-thought reasoning in multi-modal language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16999,
Hao Shao, Shengju Qian, Han Xiao, Guanglu Song, Zhuofan Zong, Letian Wang, Yu Liu, and Hongsheng Li. Visual cot: Unleashing chain-of-thought reasoning in multi-modal language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16999,
-
[2022]
Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818,
Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choromanski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818,
-
[2023]
Berkeley UR5 demonstration dataset
Lawrence Yunliang Chen, Simeon Adebola, and Ken Goldberg. Berkeley UR5 demonstration dataset. https://sites.google.com/view/berkeley-ur5/home. Yew Ken Chia, Guizhen Chen, Luu Anh Tuan, Soujanya Poria, and Lidong Bing. Contrastive chain-of-thought prompting.arXiv preprint arXiv...
-
[2024]
A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control
Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, et al. A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164,
-
[2025]
Language-driven representation learning for robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12766,
Siddharth Karamcheti, Suraj Nair, Annie S Chen, Thomas Kollar, Chelsea Finn, Dorsa Sadigh, and Percy Liang. Language-driven representation learning for robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12766,
Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.