arxiv: 2605.09410 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-10 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

RePO-VLA: Recovery-Driven Policy Optimization for Vision-Language-Action Models

Bingqian Lin, Bowen Peng, Bowen Yang, Dawei Sun, Dongyu Zhang, Guangrun Wang, Jianqi Lin, Jingzhi Liu, Kaidong Zhang, Liang Lin, Min Wang, Rongtao Xu, Ruiyi Chen, Tongtong Cao, Weijia Liufu, Xiaodan Liang, Xiaoyu Guo, Xiwen Liang, Yuze Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.AI

keywords RePO-VLAVision-Language-Action modelsrecovery-driven policy optimizationbimanual manipulationrobustness to execution errorsprogress-aware value functionfailure trajectory learning

0 comments

The pith

RePO-VLA lets vision-language-action models recover from execution drift by treating recovery segments as positive training signals instead of discarding failures.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Vision-language-action models often fail in long-horizon contact-rich tasks because imitation learning uses only successful trajectories and throws away the rest. RePO-VLA assigns separate roles to success, recovery, and failure trajectories so that the model can learn corrective actions from adverse states. It resets history at recovery points, applies a progress-aware value function to label useful prefixes of failures, and refines the policy to favor high-progress actions. The data engine generates or collects corrective rollouts that pull behavior back toward the success manifold. At test time a fixed high value biases decisions toward recovery without needing failure detectors or retries.

Core claim

RePO-VLA is a recovery-driven policy optimization framework that first applies Recovery-Aware Initialization to slice recovery segments and reset history so corrective actions depend only on the current adverse state. It then trains a Progress-Aware Semantic Value Function that aligns trajectory features with instructions and successful references, using reliability decay to salvage informative prefixes while marking drift and terminal failures. Value-Conditioned Refinement trains the policy to prefer high-value actions. A fixed high value at deployment steers the model toward the learned success manifold. The approach is evaluated on FRBench with standardized error injection across bimanual

What carries the argument

The combination of Recovery-Aware Initialization that resets history at adverse states, the Progress-Aware Semantic Value Function that labels trajectory prefixes by progress and reliability decay, and Value-Conditioned Refinement that trains preference for high-progress actions.

If this is right

The policy learns explicit distinctions among nominal, drifting, and corrective actions rather than treating all non-success trajectories as equally bad.
Deployment requires only a fixed high value input to bias toward recovery, removing the need for online failure detectors or heuristic retry logic.
Standardized error injection in FRBench makes recovery performance directly comparable across methods and tasks.
Robustness gains appear consistently in both simulated and real-world bimanual manipulation, reaching 80% in scaled physical trials.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The method could reduce reliance on perfectly executed demonstration data by turning ordinary execution errors into usable training signal.
The value-labeling approach may apply to other long-horizon sequential tasks where partial failures contain recoverable information about progress.
If the data engine can be automated at scale, training loops could continuously improve robustness by harvesting recovery examples from deployed robots.

Load-bearing premise

High-quality corrective rollouts can be generated or collected from adverse states and the progress-aware value function can label failure prefixes without bias introduced by the error-injection or collection process.

What would settle it

Train an identical model using only success trajectories on the same tasks and error-injection protocol and measure whether adversarial success on FRBench falls back to the 20% baseline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09410 by Bingqian Lin, Bowen Peng, Bowen Yang, Dawei Sun, Dongyu Zhang, Guangrun Wang, Jianqi Lin, Jingzhi Liu, Kaidong Zhang, Liang Lin, Min Wang, Rongtao Xu, Ruiyi Chen, Tongtong Cao, Weijia Liufu, Xiaodan Liang, Xiaoyu Guo, Xiwen Liang, Yuze Wang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Recovery-driven trajectory utilization. Prior VLAs mainly imitate successful demonstrations and often fail under execution drift. RePO-VLA assigns distinct supervision to success, recovery, and failure trajectories, enabling autonomous correction from adverse states. At the same time, their late phases indicate where behavior drifts away from the success manifold and should be marked as low-value rather t… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of RePO-VLA. The framework builds recovery data, learns a progress-aware semantic value signal, and refines a value-conditioned VLA policy. At inference, constant high-value conditioning (v = 1.0) steers execution back toward the success manifold after drift. 3.1 Phase I: Recovery-Aware Initialization (RAI) RAI initializes the policy with expert demonstrations and recovery actions while avoiding c… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Semantic value alignment. Frozen visual and language encoders are projected into Z; cosine similarity provides a dense progress signal. Training: Monotonic Progress Alignment. Adapters are trained on successful trajectories so cosine similarity tracks normalized temporal progress. For each prefix τ0:t, the target progress is t/Tτ , which encourages early prefixes to remain far from the instruction embeddin… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Visualization of the Progress-Aware Value Landscape. 3.3.1 Progress-Aware Hindsight Labeling We construct a continuous value landscape over the raw mixed dataset by assigning each frame a dense label vt ∈ [0, 1]. The labels are designed to separate behavior quality rather than trajectory identity: • Success and recovery: successful trajectories τsucc and effective recovery suffixes τ + rec ⊂ Draw rec recei… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Failure-Recovery Data Engine. Recovery data combines control-intercepted error injection with policy-induced rollouts. Phase-based protocol. FRBench evaluates recovery as a controlled state-transition problem: each trial passes through nominal execution, error projection, and recovery execution, so recovery success is conditioned on a verified adverse state rather than confounded by approach quality [PITH… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Recovery-data scaling trends. Success rates on Pour Water and Fold Towel improve as real-world recovery data increases from 1x to 4x under both standard and adversarial settings, matching the scaling study in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Real-world ablations. (a) Component ablations isolate history reset and value guidance under matched recovery data. (b) A 30-trial validation shows that enabling v = 1 consistently improves success. (c) The decay sweep identifies α = 3 as the best balance between preserving useful failure prefixes and penalizing terminal breakdowns. Component and Value Guidance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Premature Close (Clean) 6.2 Real-World Qualitative Results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Premature Close (Random) E2 : Grasp Slip (Clean) Hanging Mug Pick Dual Bottles Place Shoe Move Pillbottle Pad Place A2b Left Stack Blocks Two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Grasp Slip (Clean) 7 Conclusion We presented RePO-VLA, a recovery-driven framework for training VLA policies from successful, failed, and recovered trajectories. By combining history-reset recovery initialization with progressaware value conditioning, RePO-VLA converts mixed-quality interaction data into autonomous corrective behavior. The central result is that failures need not be discarded: their usef… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Grasp Slip (Random) E3 : Grasp Position Offset (Clean) Move Can Pot Place Bread Basket Place Object Scale Move Playingcard Away Place Can Basket Place Phone Stand [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Grasp Position Offset (Clean) 8 Limitations and Future Work RePO-VLA still relies on observing representative failure modes, so out-of-taxonomy errors can reduce zero-shot recovery. The current iterative data loop can absorb new failures after collection, but broader generalization to unseen physical breakdowns remains open. Real-world Phase II data is also costly because contact dynamics, friction, and d… view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Grasp Position Offset (Random) E4 : Grasp Orientation Mismatch (Clean) Adjust Bottle Place Dual Shoes Place Shoe Move Stapler Pad Place Mouse Pad Place Burger Fries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Grasp Orientation Mismatch (Clean) 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Grasp Orientation Mismatch (Random) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Real-world evaluation tasks. The four contact-rich bimanual settings cover precision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models remain brittle in long-horizon, contact-rich manipulation because success-only imitation provides little supervision for execution drift, while failed rollouts are often discarded. We introduce RePO-VLA, a recovery-driven policy optimization framework that assigns distinct roles to success, recovery, and failure trajectories. RePO-VLA first applies Recovery-Aware Initialization (RAI), slicing recovery segments and resetting history so corrective actions depend on the current adverse state rather than the preceding failure. It then learns a Progress-Aware Semantic Value Function (PAS-VF), aligning spatiotemporal trajectory features with instructions and successful references. The resulting labels salvage useful failure prefixes via reliability decay, while low-value labels mark drift and terminal breakdowns, teaching differences among nominal, failed, and corrective actions. The data engine turns adverse states into planner-generated or human-collected corrective rollouts, teaching recovery to the success manifold. Value-Conditioned Refinement (VCR) trains the policy to prefer high-progress actions. At deployment, a fixed high value ($v=1.0$) biases actions toward the learned success manifold without online failure detectors or heuristic retries. We introduce FRBench, with standardized error injection and recovery-focused evaluation. Across simulated and real-world bimanual tasks, RePO-VLA improves robustness, raising adversarial success from 20% to 75% on average and up to 80% in scaled real-world trials.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

RePO-VLA adds a recovery-focused training loop to VLAs with reported robustness gains on bimanual tasks, but the value function and data engine need tighter validation to rule out collection artifacts.

read the letter

RePO-VLA is a recovery-driven policy optimization for vision-language-action models. It claims to improve robustness by using failure trajectories productively instead of discarding them, with gains from 20% to 75% adversarial success in sim and real bimanual tasks. The paper does well by defining clear roles for success, recovery, and failure trajectories. Recovery-Aware Initialization resets history so corrective actions are based on current state. The Progress-Aware Semantic Value Function labels prefixes of failures using reliability decay and alignment to successful references. Value-Conditioned Refinement then trains the policy to favor high-progress actions. At test time, fixing the value to 1.0 biases toward the success manifold. FRBench provides a standardized way to inject errors and evaluate recovery. The soft spots are in the details of implementation and validation. The abstract does not include ablations, statistical significance, or error bars, making it difficult to attribute the gains specifically to the new components. The stress-test concern holds weight: the value function could pick up biases from how adverse states are generated in FRBench or from the human corrective data collection process. Without explicit checks for distribution shift, the learned recovery might not generalize beyond the training failure modes. This paper targets researchers in robotics and imitation learning who want more reliable long-horizon manipulation policies. It would be useful for those exploring ways to leverage failure data in VLA training. It deserves serious peer review because the problem is timely and the proposed framework is well-structured, even with the current gaps in the reported results. I recommend putting it through review, with specific requests for ablations on the value function and controls on the data engine.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces RePO-VLA, a recovery-driven policy optimization framework for Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models in long-horizon, contact-rich bimanual manipulation. It proposes Recovery-Aware Initialization (RAI) to reset history on adverse states, a Progress-Aware Semantic Value Function (PAS-VF) that labels trajectory prefixes via reliability decay and alignment to instructions/success references, Value-Conditioned Refinement (VCR) to train preference for high-progress actions, and the FRBench benchmark with standardized error injection. At deployment, a fixed v=1.0 biases the policy toward the learned success manifold. The central empirical claim is that RePO-VLA raises average adversarial success from 20% to 75% (up to 80% in scaled real-world trials) across simulated and real tasks by salvaging useful failure prefixes rather than discarding them.

Significance. If the robustness gains are shown to be attributable to the proposed components rather than implementation details or benchmark-specific artifacts, the work would be significant for VLA deployment in robotics: it provides a concrete mechanism to learn recovery without online detectors or heuristic retries, and FRBench offers a standardized recovery-focused evaluation protocol. The approach of turning adverse states into corrective rollouts via planner or human data is a practical strength, but its generality depends on the untested assumption that PAS-VF labels generalize beyond the training error-injection distribution.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract and results: the headline claim of raising adversarial success from 20% to 75% (and up to 80% real-world) is presented without any description of the baselines, number of trials, statistical significance tests, error bars, or ablation studies isolating RAI, PAS-VF, and VCR. This information is load-bearing for attributing gains to the recovery-driven components rather than data collection or training details.
[Data engine / PAS-VF] Data engine and PAS-VF sections: the claim that PAS-VF reliably salvages useful failure prefixes via reliability decay while marking drift assumes no bias from FRBench error injection or human corrective collection. No controls for distribution shift between training adverse states (planner-generated vs. human) and test-time perturbations are described, leaving open whether the fixed v=1.0 success-manifold bias at deployment generalizes or exploits the evaluation protocol.
[Methods (RAI and PAS-VF)] Methods: RAI resets history so corrective actions depend only on the current adverse state, yet PAS-VF still performs spatiotemporal alignment of trajectory features to instructions and successful references. It is unclear how this alignment avoids inheriting bias from the specific failure modes in FRBench, which would undermine the claim that the value function teaches general differences among nominal, failed, and corrective actions.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract / FRBench] The abstract mentions 'standardized error injection' in FRBench but provides no concrete description of the injection mechanisms or how they differ from prior benchmarks; a short table or paragraph would improve clarity.
[Methods] Notation for the value function (e.g., how reliability decay is formalized and how v=1.0 is applied at inference) is described only at a high level; explicit equations or pseudocode would aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback on RePO-VLA. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications from the manuscript and indicating planned revisions where the presentation can be strengthened.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results: the headline claim of raising adversarial success from 20% to 75% (and up to 80% real-world) is presented without any description of the baselines, number of trials, statistical significance tests, error bars, or ablation studies isolating RAI, PAS-VF, and VCR. This information is load-bearing for attributing gains to the recovery-driven components rather than data collection or training details.

Authors: We agree that the abstract is concise and omits key experimental details that support the headline numbers. The full manuscript reports results on FRBench across multiple simulated and real bimanual tasks, with comparisons to standard VLA imitation baselines, reports aggregated over 50-100 trials per task with error bars from multiple random seeds, presents ablation studies isolating RAI, PAS-VF, and VCR, and includes statistical significance via paired tests. To improve clarity, we will revise the abstract to briefly reference the standardized adversarial evaluation protocol on FRBench and point to the detailed baselines, ablations, and statistical analysis in the results section. revision: yes
Referee: [Data engine / PAS-VF] Data engine and PAS-VF sections: the claim that PAS-VF reliably salvages useful failure prefixes via reliability decay while marking drift assumes no bias from FRBench error injection or human corrective collection. No controls for distribution shift between training adverse states (planner-generated vs. human) and test-time perturbations are described, leaving open whether the fixed v=1.0 success-manifold bias at deployment generalizes or exploits the evaluation protocol.

Authors: PAS-VF derives labels from semantic alignment to task instructions and success references combined with reliability decay, rather than from the specific error patterns injected during data collection. The data engine mixes planner-generated and human corrective trajectories precisely to reduce source-specific bias, and the fixed v=1.0 bias at deployment is applied uniformly to steer toward the learned success manifold. We acknowledge that explicit additional controls or out-of-distribution tests beyond the FRBench distribution would further strengthen the generality argument. We will add a dedicated paragraph in the data engine section discussing these considerations and expand the limitations discussion accordingly. revision: partial
Referee: [Methods (RAI and PAS-VF)] Methods: RAI resets history so corrective actions depend only on the current adverse state, yet PAS-VF still performs spatiotemporal alignment of trajectory features to instructions and successful references. It is unclear how this alignment avoids inheriting bias from the specific failure modes in FRBench, which would undermine the claim that the value function teaches general differences among nominal, failed, and corrective actions.

Authors: RAI explicitly resets the observation history at adverse states so that both policy and value function condition solely on the current state and recent observations. PAS-VF then performs alignment of the current trajectory prefix against the (failure-mode-agnostic) language instruction and a pool of successful reference trajectories; the resulting value reflects progress toward success rather than the particular path taken to reach the adverse state. Training explicitly mixes nominal success, failure, and corrective trajectories so the value function learns to differentiate progress levels in a general manner. We will revise the methods section to include a clearer step-by-step explanation and an illustrative figure showing the alignment process independent of FRBench-specific errors. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical framework (RePO-VLA) with procedural components RAI, PAS-VF, and VCR that are described as learned from data or generated via a data engine, without any equations, derivations, or self-referential definitions visible in the abstract or summary. The value function is explicitly trained to align features with instructions and successful references rather than defined in terms of its own outputs. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked in the provided text. The central robustness claims rest on empirical evaluations on FRBench rather than on any reduction of predictions to fitted inputs by construction. This is a standard method paper whose claims are self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 4 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits visibility into any fitted parameters or background assumptions; the new techniques are presented as inventions without external validation mentioned.

invented entities (4)

Recovery-Aware Initialization (RAI) no independent evidence
purpose: Slice recovery segments and reset history so corrective actions depend on current state
New initialization procedure introduced to handle recovery trajectories
Progress-Aware Semantic Value Function (PAS-VF) no independent evidence
purpose: Align trajectory features with instructions and assign reliability-decay labels to failures
New value function for labeling success, recovery, and failure
Value-Conditioned Refinement (VCR) no independent evidence
purpose: Train policy to prefer high-progress actions using value labels
New refinement step that conditions policy on learned values
FRBench no independent evidence
purpose: Standardized benchmark with error injection for recovery evaluation
New evaluation suite introduced for the recovery-focused setting

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5624 in / 1486 out tokens · 50274 ms · 2026-05-12T04:36:21.348822+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordances

Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[2]

V-JEPA 2: Self-Supervised Video Models Enable Understanding, Prediction and Planning

Mido Assran, Adrien Bardes, David Fan, Quentin Garrido, Russell Howes, Matthew Muckley, Ammar Rizvi, Claire Roberts, Koustuv Sinha, Artem Zholus, et al. V-jepa 2: Self-supervised video models enable under- standing, prediction and planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09985,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[3]

Kevin Black, Noah Brown, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Robert Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Manuel Y . Galliker, Dibya Ghosh, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Szymon Jakubczak, Tim Jones, Liyiming Ke, Devin LeBlanc, Sergey Levine, Adrian Li-Bell, Mohith Mothukuri, Suraj Nair, Karl Pertsch, Allen Z. Ren,...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[4]

πrl: Online rl fine-tuning for flow-based vision- language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25889, 2025

Kang Chen, Zhihao Liu, Tonghe Zhang, Zhen Guo, Si Xu, Hao Lin, Hongzhi Zang, Xiang Li, Quanlu Zhang, Zhaofei Yu, et al. πRL: Online rl fine-tuning for flow-based vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25889, 2025a. Tianxing Chen, Zanxin Chen, Baijun Chen, Zijian Cai, Yibin Liu, Zixuan Li, Qiwei Liang, Xianliang Lin, Yiheng Ge, Zhenyu Gu, ...

work page arXiv
[5]

Mastering Diverse Domains through World Models

Danijar Hafner, Jurgis Pasukonis, Jimmy Ba, and Timothy Lillicrap. Mastering diverse domains through world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[6]

Thriftydagger: Budget-aware novelty and risk gating for interactive imitation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08273, 2021

16 Ryan Hoque, Ashwin Balakrishna, Ellen Novoseller, Albert Wilcox, Daniel S Brown, and Ken Goldberg. Thriftydagger: Budget-aware novelty and risk gating for interactive imitation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08273,

work page arXiv
[7]

Inner Monologue: Embodied Reasoning through Planning with Language Models

Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, et al. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05608,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[8]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01642 , year=

Zijun Lin, Jiafei Duan, Haoquan Fang, Dieter Fox, Ranjay Krishna, Cheston Tan, and Bihan Wen. Failsafe: Reasoning and recovery from failures in vision-language-action models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01642,

work page arXiv
[9]

Reflect: Summarizing robot experiences for failure explanation and correction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15724, 2023

Zeyi Liu, Arpit Bahety, and Shuran Song. Reflect: Summarizing robot experiences for failure explanation and correction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15724,

work page arXiv
[10]

Mandlekar, D

Ajay Mandlekar, Danfei Xu, Roberto Martín-Martín, Yuke Zhu, Li Fei-Fei, and Silvio Savarese. Human-in-the- loop imitation learning using remote teleoperation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.06733,

work page arXiv 2012
[11]

$\pi^{*}_{0.6}$: a VLA That Learns From Experience

Physical Intelligence, Ali Amin, Raichelle Aniceto, Ashwin Balakrishna, Kevin Black, Ken Conley, Grace Connors, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Jared DiCarlo, et al. π∗ 0.6: a vla that learns from experience. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.14759,

work page Pith review arXiv
[12]

Römer, A

Ralf Römer, Adrian Kobras, Luca Worbis, and Angela P Schoellig. Failure prediction at runtime for generative robot policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09459,

work page arXiv
[13]

Robomd: Uncovering robot vulnerabilities through semantic potential fields.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02818,

Som Sagar, Jiafei Duan, Sreevishakh Vasudevan, Yifan Zhou, Heni Ben Amor, Dieter Fox, and Ransalu Senanayake. Robomd: Uncovering robot vulnerabilities through semantic potential fields.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02818,

work page arXiv
[14]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12910 , year=

17 Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, Zheyuan Hu, Tony Z Zhao, Archit Sharma, Karl Pertsch, Jianlan Luo, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Yell at your robot: Improving on-the-fly from language corrections.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12910,

work page arXiv
[15]

RePLan: Robotic replanning with perception and language models

Marta Skreta, Zihan Zhou, Jia Lin Yuan, Kourosh Darvish, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Animesh Garg. Replan: Robotic replanning with perception and language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04157,

work page arXiv
[16]

dvla: Diffusion vision-language-action model with multimodal chain-of-thought.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25681, 2025

Junjie Wen, Minjie Zhu, Jiaming Liu, Zhiyuan Liu, Yicun Yang, Linfeng Zhang, Shanghang Zhang, Yichen Zhu, and Yi Xu. dvla: Diffusion vision-language-action model with multimodal chain-of-thought.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25681, 2025a. Junjie Wen, Yichen Zhu, Minjie Zhu, Zhibin Tang, Jinming Li, Zhongyi Zhou, Xiaoyu Liu, Chaomin Shen, Yaxin Peng, and Feife...

work page arXiv
[17]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12224 , year=

Zewei Ye, Weifeng Lu, Minghao Ye, Tao Lin, Shuo Yang, Junchi Yan, and Bo Zhao. Robofac: A comprehensive framework for robotic failure analysis and correction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12224,

work page arXiv
[18]

A1: A Fully Transparent Open-Source, Adaptive and Efficient Truncated Vision-Language-Action Model

Kaidong Zhang, Jian Zhang, Rongtao Xu, Yu Sun, Shuoshuo Xue, Youpeng Wen, Xiaoyu Guo, Minghao Guo, Weijia Liufu, Zihou Liu, Kangyi Ji, Yangsong Zhang, Jiarun Zhu, Jingzhi Liu, Zihang Li, Ruiyi Chen, Meng Cao, Jingming Zhang, Shen Zhao, Xiaojun Chang, Feng Zheng, Ivan Laptev, and Xiaodan Liang. A1: A fully transparent open-source, adaptive and efficient tr...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[19]

Zhang, K

Zijian Zhang, Kaiyuan Zheng, Zhaorun Chen, Joel Jang, Yi Li, Siwei Han, Chaoqi Wang, Mingyu Ding, Dieter Fox, and Huaxiu Yao. Grape: Generalizing robot policy via preference alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19309,

work page arXiv