Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are a promising paradigm for field robotics, but their deployment is bottlenecked by strict edge SWaP-C constraints. Compression techniques such as quantization, distillation, and pruning are well-established for LLMs and VLMs. Pruning, however, remains particularly underexplored for VLA models. We surprisingly find that pruning VLA models yields drastic performance degradation and increased safety violations. Through spectral analysis, we identify structural properties of VLA weights that help explain this fragility. Based on this insight, we introduce GLUESTICK, a post-pruning recovery method that restores much of the original model's capability while preserving sparsity benefits. GLUESTICK computes a one-time corrective term by interpolating between the dense and pruned models in weight space. At inference, each pruned layer applies this correction to recover lost performance with minimal overhead. Our approach requires no additional training and is agnostic to the pruning algorithm. Across diverse VLA architectures and domains, GLUESTICK recovers up to 100% of the success rate and restores safety to near-dense levels, while saving up to 5 GB of memory and achieving up to 1.75x speedup. Additional material can be found at: https://gluestick-vla.github.io/
Figures & tables
Figure 1: VLA models break under pruning, and GLUESTICK fixes them. Pruning methods unexpectedly cause task and safety failures in VLAs: colliding with an object in a navigation task (left) , or dropping a bowl in a manipulation task (right) . Our training-free post-pruning method, GLUESTICK , restores the lost functionality by adding a lightweight correction computed purely in weight space, while largely retaining the memory and speed benefits of pruning.
Figure 2
Figure 3: Overview of GLUESTICK. (Top) A VLA model is pruned with a standard algorithm (e.g., Wanda) to enforce 2:4 sparsity in linear layers. (Middle) Offline, the gap between the dense and pruned weights is computed and dominant lost directions are extracted via SVD, yielding lightweight corrections. (Bottom) At inference, these correction terms are applied alongside the pruned weights, adding back lost signal.
Table 4Table 5
Model
Device
Method
Latency ( ↓ )
Speedup ( ↑ )
OpenVLA
NVIDIA Thor
Full Dense
796.50±25.85 ms
—
Full Sparse
434.47±3.63 ms
1.83×
Sparse Language Backbone
439.45±13.37 ms
1.81×
GLUESTICK-200
453.58±31.29 ms
1.75×
GLUESTICK-500
537.49±28.19 ms
1.48×
WorldVLA
NVIDIA Thor
Full Dense
2816.57±65.73 ms
—
Table 6: Edge inference latency. End-to-end inference on NVIDIA Jetson Thor and Orin NX. Pruning accelerates inference; GLUESTICK retains speedup with minimal overhead. † Since dense exceeds device memory, speedup not compared but still accelerated; sparsity enables deployment.
Figure 4: Memory Savings and Rank Tradeoff. Left: VRAM savings relative to Full Dense. All methods use NaVILA. Right: Rank ablation. All methods use OpenVLA and LIBERO Spatial.
Method
Dense
Dense/Int8
Sparse
Sparse/Int8
Sparse/Int8/GLUESTICK
Success Rate (%)
85.2
84.8
31.2
31.8
62.2
Table 7: GLUESTICK composes with quantization. Evaluating OpenVLA on LIBERO Spatial.
Table 9
Method
2:4
4:8
Magnitude
11.0
25.4
Magnitude + GLUESTICK
48.8
61.8
Table 10: GLUESTICK is pruning-algorithm and sparsity-pattern agnostic. Magnitude-pruned OpenVLA language backbone evaluated on LIBERO Spatial (values show success %).
Figure 5: Real-World Manipulation on Unitree G1. With the pruned model, the G1’s arm collides with its own body and the task fails, while with GLUESTICK the G1 successfully places the apple in the bin ( left ). Pruning results in 90% unsafe episodes and 0% task success, while GLUESTICK fully restores safety and reaches 60% success ( right ).
Figure 6: Real-World Navigation on Boston Dynamics Spot. Our real Spot robot navigating in a real office environment (left) . GLUESTICK reduces pruned NaVILA deviation by 50% (right) .
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Correlation of layer-wise spectra with pruning sensitivity. Pruning the top, middle, and bottom 50 layers ranked by AUC/ k change pre/post VLA fine-tuning hurts success most, moderately, and least, respectively.
Model
Method
Success (%)
VRAM (GB)
Δ Success
Δ VRAM
OpenVLA
Full Dense
85.2
16.12
+0.0
+0.00
Full Sparse
0.0
10.17
-85.2
-5.95
Sparse Language Backbone
31.2
10.56
-54.0
-5.56
75% Sparse Language Backbone
25.4
11.96
-59.8
-4.16
GLUESTICK-200
49.0
11.18
-36.2
-4.94
GLUESTICK-500
60.2
11.97
-25.0
-4.15
Appendix
Table 11: LIBERO Spatial. Δ columns are relative to each model’s Full Dense baseline on this benchmark. VRAM measured during inference on same hardware. Corrections stored in Int8.
Model
Method
Success (%)
VRAM (GB)
Δ Success
Δ VRAM
OpenVLA
Full Dense
85.8
16.12
+0.0
+0.00
Full Sparse
13.4
10.17
-72.4
-5.95
Sparse Language Backbone
50.8
10.56
-35.0
-5.56
75% Sparse Language Backbone
49.0
11.96
-36.8
-4.16
GLUESTICK-200
66.7
11.18
-19.1
-4.94
GLUESTICK-500
71.2
11.97
-14.6
-4.15
Appendix
Table 12: LIBERO Object. Δ columns are relative to each model’s Full Dense baseline on this benchmark. VRAM measured during inference on same hardware. Corrections stored in Int8.
Model
Method
Success (%)
VRAM (GB)
Δ Success
Δ VRAM
OpenVLA
Full Dense
77.0
16.12
+0.0
+0.00
Full Sparse
0.8
10.17
-76.2
-5.95
Sparse Language Backbone
20.0
10.56
-57.0
-5.56
75% Sparse Language Backbone
20.8
11.96
-56.2
-4.16
GLUESTICK-200
30.4
11.18
-46.6
-4.94
GLUESTICK-500
47.0
11.97
-30.0
-4.15
Appendix
Table 13: LIBERO Goal. Δ columns are relative to each model’s Full Dense baseline on this benchmark. VRAM measured during inference on same hardware. Corrections stored in Int8.
Model
Method
Success (%)
VRAM (GB)
Δ Success
Δ VRAM
OpenVLA
Full Dense
55.8
16.12
+0.0
+0.00
Full Sparse
0.0
10.17
-55.8
-5.95
Sparse Language Backbone
12.4
10.56
-43.4
-5.56
75% Sparse Language Backbone
11.4
11.96
-44.4
-4.16
GLUESTICK-200
16.2
11.18
-39.6
-4.94
GLUESTICK-500
26.6
11.97
-29.2
-4.15
Appendix
Table 14: LIBERO Long. Δ columns are relative to each model’s Full Dense baseline on this benchmark. VRAM measured during inference on same hardware. Corrections stored in Int8. It is worth noting that WorldVLA completely collapsed after pruning on LIBERO Long, producing invalid action tokens and failing to generate meaningful outputs. Although task success rates did not improve, GLUESTICK was able to restore the model to producing more valid outputs.
Figure 8: Navigation Trajectory Quality. Distribution of path lengths (left) and final distances to goal (right) for pruned NaVILA models and GLUESTICK on VLN-CE-Isaac.
Method
Success ( ↑ )
Δ Unsafe ( ↓ )
PL ( ↓ )
DG ( ↓ )
Δ VRAM ( ↓ )
Full Dense
43.0
+0.0
11.7
5.9
+0.00
Full Sparse
0.0
+23.0
17.6
9.5
−5.74
Sparse Language Backbone
23.0
+2.0
14.8
8.5
−5.68
% Sparse Language Backbone
25.0
+12.0
14.9
8.4
−4.59
GLUESTICK-200
41.0
−1.0
12.5
6.5
−5.36
GLUESTICK-500
44.0
−4.0
11.9
5.9
−4.60
Appendix
Table 15: Navigation results. Success denotes task success rate (%). Δ Unsafe and Δ VRAM are reported relative to Full Dense; lower values are better. All methods use the NaVILA model. PL = Path Length. DG = Final Distance to Goal.
Figure 9: Component Sensitivity : Success-rate drop per million parameters when pruning only the language or vision backbone. Vision pruning is 4.8× (OpenVLA) and 37× (NaVILA) more damaging per parameter.
Figure 10: Calibration Set Visualization. LIBERO Spatial calibration trajectories. Full trajectories (left) . 5% window around the first gripper-closing event, with red segments marking closed-gripper states (right) .
Domain
Avg. Path-Length Differences
Manipulation
0.018 m
Navigation
3.292 m
Appendix
Table 16: Average path-length difference between successful and failed episodes in manipulation and navigation tasks. Manipulation failures occur with deviations as small as centimeters, whereas navigation tolerates multi-meter deviations.
Model
Total Parameters
Linear Parameters
Conv. Parameters
OpenVLA
7,541,237,184
7,407,513,280 (98.23%)
1,281,664 (0.02%)
WorldVLA
7,042,582,528
6,744,440,832 (95.77%)
27,310,848 (0.39%)
NaVILA
8,494,180,416
7,962,922,816 (93.75%)
678,528 (0.01%)
Appendix
Table 17: Parameter composition of recent VLA models. Across OpenVLA, WorldVLA, and NaVILA, the vast majority of parameters ( 93–98% ) are contained in linear layers, while convolutional components represent well under 1% of total model size.
Rank
200
400
500
800
1000
2000
2500
Success Rate (%)
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
21.0
Appendix
Table 18: Effect of replacing OpenVLA weights with an approximation using SVD (no pruning).
Method
Total FLOPs (T)
Full Dense
29.32
50% 2:4 Pruned OpenVLA
16.54
50% 2:4 Pruned OpenVLA + GLUESTICK-200
18.51
50% 2:4 Pruned OpenVLA + GLUESTICK-500
21.47
Appendix
Table 19: FLOP analysis for a single inference pass through OpenVLA. FLOP counters for the following operations: aten.convolution , aten.add , aten.addmm , aten._scaled_dot_product_flash_attention , aten.mm , and aten.bmm . In these experiments the language backbone of OpenVLA was pruned with Wanda.
Vision-language-action (VLA) models let robots follow language instructions, but their language backbones of several billion parameters are the main obstacle to running them on robot hardware. Structured pruning reduces that backbone, and removing 63% of it from OpenVLA-OFT drops LIBERO-Long success from 93.2% to 0.8%. A recent approach restores such a model with supervised fine-tuning followed by reinforcement learning, which needs online rollouts and hundreds of GPU-hours. We recover most of the lost success entirely offline. Width pruning narrows the blocks but keeps the residual stream at its original size, so teacher and student hidden states have the same shape and are matched directly, without a projector. Training against a cache built in one teacher pass lifts the 63%-reduced student to within 3.5 points of the teacher in about 8 GPU-hours. A sweep over nine ratios locates where the recovery objective starts to matter. Up to 45% reduction the two do not differ significantly on OpenVLA-OFT. Hidden-state distillation then adds +2.1 to +4.5 points there between 63% and 87%, and +9.4 to +22.1 points on CogACT from 63% onward. At 81% on CogACT, a tripled recovery budget narrows the distilled student's gap to the teacher to 3.9 points on average, while supervised recovery stays more than 20 points below. At matched compression, width pruning yields higher success and depth pruning lower latency. On a 6-DoF manipulator, the distilled student at 72% reduction reaches 77.5% success against 59.5% for supervised recovery, runs 2.23x faster on-board than the teacher, and uses 62% less memory.
Real-time inference of vision-language-action (VLA) models is essential for robotic control. While visual token pruning has shown strong potential for accelerating inference, most existing methods mainly base pruning decisions on shallow-layer cues and risk discarding visual information required by deep layers. To address this issue, we propose SAFE-Pruner, a plug-and-play pruning framework that incorporates attention cues of future layers into pruning decisions. Specifically, we identify semantic attention consistency, the tendency that VLA models concentrate their attention probability mass on the same semantic entity across execution steps. Based on this observation, we design a forward-looking strategy to forecast the token saliency in deep layers, which prevents the premature removal of critical tokens and leads to more stable acceleration. We further introduce an adaptive subtask division strategy to detect abrupt attention shifts, thereby improving forecasting accuracy and pruning reliability. Extensive experiments in simulation and real-world settings demonstrate that our method achieves up to 1.89x speedup with a minimal degradation in success rate of less than 1.7%, while outperforming state-of-the-art methods by up to 1.9%.
Shilin Ma, Chubin Zhang, Changyuan Wang +6
Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University · GigaAI
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have made significant strides in embodied intelligence by integrating the powerful representations of pre-trained Vision-Language Models (VLMs). However, the massive parameter scale of VLAs imposes a heavy computational burden, and these models exhibit extreme sensitivity to parameter pruning. Current paradigms often treat the resulting performance degradation as inevitable, relying on fine-tuning or low-rank corrections to recover efficacy. We challenge this convention by questioning whether the removed parameters are truly redundant if VLA pruning necessitates performance recovery to be effective, or if this paradigm masks the indiscriminate pruning of critical parameters. We revisit parameter redundancy through the lens of VLM-to-VLA adaptation, first quantifying the spatial distribution of parameter divergence during adaptation to reveal structured patterns across different modules. Subsequently, we introduce controlled pruning as a diagnostic probe: by comparing the direct impact of removing different parameter subsets on VLA performance without any fine-tuning, we establish a causal link between adaptation-induced divergence signals and functional contributions. Based on the discovered modular heterogeneities, we design a multi-module joint pruning scheme. Evaluations on the LIBERO benchmark demonstrate that our approach reduces the parameters of OpenVLA and π0.5 by 12%--30% while maintaining approximately 90% of the original performance without any post-pruning recovery. In contrast, existing parameter pruning criteria result in total performance collapse when evaluated under the same recovery-free constraints. Our study reveals the parameter evolution mechanism in VLA adaptation and provides a new path for deploying efficient, robust robotic policies in resource-constrained environments.
Fengnian Zhang, Tao Huang, Siyu Xu +2
Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University +1