Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models for autonomous driving often hit a performance plateau during Reinforcement Learning (RL) optimization. This stagnation arises from exploration capabilities constrained by previous Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), leading to persistent failures in long-tail scenarios. In these critical situations, all explored actions yield a zero-value driving score. This information-sparse reward signals a failure, yet fails to identify its root cause -- whether it is due to incorrect planning, flawed reasoning, or poor trajectory execution. To address this limitation, we propose VLA with Explicit Learning from Failures (ELF-VLA), a framework that augments RL with structured diagnostic feedback. Instead of relying on a vague scalar reward, our method produces detailed, interpretable reports that identify the specific failure mode. The VLA policy then leverages this explicit feedback to generate a Feedback-Guided Refinement. By injecting these corrected, high-reward samples back into the RL training batch, our approach provides a targeted gradient, which enables the policy to solve critical scenarios that unguided exploration cannot. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method unlocks the latent capabilities of VLA models, achieving state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on the public NAVSIM benchmark for overall PDMS, EPDMS score and high-level planning accuracy.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The comparison between RL fine-tuning of general VLA and ELF-VLA. Top: VLA training with RL algorithm suffers from a performance plateau: in certain scenarios, the policy model’s rollouts consistently yield low-scoring answers, trapping the agent and preventing it from discovering a better policy. Bottom: ELF-VLA addresses this by using a teacher model to provide structured feedback, which is then used to re-rollout a refinement, forcing the policy to break through this performance plateau.
Figure 2: Overview of ELF-VLA. First, the model is pre-trained on an autonomous driving Q&A dataset to provide it with foundational driving knowledge. Subsequently, it undergoes SFT on a mixed dataset of “Base Inputs” and “Feedback Inputs”, enabling it to learn trajectory prediction and feedback-based refinement simultaneously. Finally, in the RL phase, a teacher model is used to generate feedback, thereby reducing the proportion of zero-reward rollouts.
Figure 3: Overview of GRPO with feedback . The policy model generates initial responses. Based on the rewards, teacher model (Qwen3-VL-32B) provides feedback, guiding the policy to sample improved refinement responses. A high-quality refinement response is selected and combined with the initial response set for joint optimization. Policy Shaping is applied to the final probability.
Method
Image
Lidar
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
Constant Velocity
68.0
57.8
50.0
100
19.4
20.6
Ego Status MLP
93.0
77.3
83.6
100
62.8
65.6
UniAD [ 11 ]
✓
97.8
91.9
92.9
100
78.8
83.4
TransFuser [ 6 ]
✓
✓
97.7
92.8
92.8
100
84.0
84.0
DiffusionDrive [ 22 ]
✓
✓
98.2
96.2
94.7
100
82.2
88.1
WoTE [ 17 ]
✓
✓
98.5
96.8
94.9
99.9
81.9
88.3
Table 1: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on the NAVSIMv1 with PDMS.
Method
NC ↑
DAC ↑
DDC ↑
TLC ↑
EP ↑
TTC ↑
LK ↑
HC ↑
EC ↑
EPDMS ↑
HydraMDP++ [ 20 ]
97.2
97.5
99.4
99.6
83.1
96.5
94.4
98.2
70.9
81.4
DriveSuprem [ 38 ]
97.5
96.5
99.4
99.6
88.4
96.6
95.5
98.3
77.0
83.1
Recogdrive-8B [ 18 ]
98.3
95.2
99.5
99.8
87.1
97.5
96.6
98.3
86.5
83.6
DiffusionDrive [ 22 ]
98.2
95.9
99.4
99.8
87.5
97.3
96.8
98.3
87.7
84.5
DriveVLA-W0-3B [ 16 ]
98.5
99.1
98.0
99.7
86.4
98.1
93.2
97.9
58.9
86.1
ELF-VLA-8B (Ours)
98.9
98.1
99.4
99.8
88.5
98.4
96.9
98.3
87.2
87.1
Table 2: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods on the NAVSIMv2 with EPDMS.
Method
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
SFT
98.5
95.5
95.3
100
81.3
87.4
GRPO
98.5
96.7
95.4
100
83.2
89.0
GT-GRPO
98.1
97.1
93.5
100
85.2
89.2
Rule-GRPO
98.3
97.3
94.8
100
84.5
89.6
ELF-VLA
98.9
98.1
96.0
100
85.3
91.0
Table 3: Performance comparison of ELF-VLA against conventional GRPO and other feedback strategies.
Figure 4: Ratio of total-failure samples measured during the RL training phase for GRPO, GT-GRPO, Rule-GRPO, and ELF-VLA. A total failure indicates all rollouts for a sample failed on a specific metric (PDMS below s , NC of 0 and DAC of 0, respectively).
Method
Speed Acc. ↑
Path Acc. ↑
Accuracy ↑
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
37.8
61.3
19.1
InternVL3-8B
40.9
58.7
20.1
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
46.6
55.3
27.6
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
49.4
62.6
28.7
SFT
84.2
90.7
79.2
GRPO
84.3
90.8
79.3
Table 4: Comparison of high-level planning on NAVSIM.
Figure 5: Visualization of trajectory refinement process by ELF-VLA on the NAVSIM dataset. Visualization of the initial Wrong Trajectories ( red ), the Ground Truth ( green ), and the final Refined Trajectory ( blue ). A teacher-generated Feedback guides the refinement of a Wrong Trajectory into a Refined Trajectory. Colored text in the Feedback details the specific refinements that have been applied.
Num.
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
85k
98.5
96.8
95.3
100
83.4
89.1
24k †
98.4
96.8
95.2
100
83.1
88.9
24k*
98.9
98.1
96.0
100
85.3
91.0
Table 5: Ablation study on the number of training data in RL. † : Randomly sampled. *: Curated as Sec. 3.3 .
k
PS
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
4
✓
98.5
96.7
95.4
100
83.3
89.0
2
✓
98.2
97.5
94.3
100
84.9
89.7
1
✗
98.5
97.0
94.9
100
83.9
89.3
1
✓
98.9
98.1
96.0
100
85.3
91.0
Table 6: Ablation study on the number of refinement responses k and the use of Policy Shaping (PS).
Figure 6: Prompt design of VLA Model (Base Inputs).
Figure 7: Prompt design of Teacher Model (Feedback Inputs).
Figure 8: Comparison of feedback mechanisms. Unlike the binary signals in Rule-GRPO (a), our teacher-based feedback in ELF-VLA (b) provides structured diagnostics and concrete, actionable strategies to guide trajectory refinement.
Stage
Hyper-parameter
Value
Pretrain
Epochs
2
Batch size
1
Learning rate
1×10−5
Gradient accumulation steps
4
Weight decay
0.05
Weight ratio
0.05
Table 7: Training hyperparameters of ELF-VLA
Figure 9: Illustration of high-level actions and ground truth generation. The top panels list the discrete categories for longitudinal and lateral planning. The bottom panels demonstrate the labeling criteria: longitudinal states are determined by sliding-window acceleration analysis, while lateral behaviors are identified based on the relationship between the vehicle’s trajectory and map topology.
Model
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
SFT
98.5
93.4
95.1
100
78.8
85.3
Pre+SFT
98.5
95.5
95.3
100
81.2
87.4
Pre+SFT+RL
98.9
98.1
96.0
100
85.3
91.0
Table 8: Ablation Study on ELF-VLA Components. We evaluate the effect of pre-training, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning on driving performance using NAVSIM benchmark.
Method
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
InternVL3-8B(w/o pretrain)
97.9
93.9
94.4
100
82.8
86.9
ELF-VLA-8B(w/o pretrain)
98.1
97.0
94.4
100
86.2
90.0
Table 9: Performance of ELF-VLA without pre-training. “w/o” denotes “without”.
Threshold
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
CF ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
0
98.4
97.1
94.3
100
84.7
89.4
0.5
98.6
97.4
95.3
100
84.9
90.1
0.9
98.4
97.3
94.9
100
84.8
89.8
0.8
98.9
98.1
96.0
100
85.3
91.0
Table 10: Ablation Study on the Feedback Threshold s .
Figure 10: Visualization of trajectory refinement process by ELF-VLA on the NAVSIM dataset. Visualization of the initial Wrong Trajectories ( red ), the Ground Truth ( green ), and the final Refined Trajectory ( blue ).
Figure 11: Visualization of trajectory refinement process by ELF-VLA on the NAVSIM dataset. Visualization of the initial Wrong Trajectories ( red ), the Ground Truth ( green ), and the final Refined Trajectory ( blue ).
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models for autonomous driving rely heavily on successful expert demonstrations, leaving model-specific failures underexploited. Learning from these failures is hindered by unreliable diagnoses, poorly matched correction targets, and coarse rewards. We propose RefineDrive, a failure-guided post-training framework that learns from self-generated failures through targeted supervision and safety-aware reinforcement learning. Reliable Diagnosis derives structured, verifiable feedback on collisions and drivable-area violations directly from simulator states. Minimum-Correction Target Retrieval searches a clustered human trajectory bank for nearby corrections that satisfy hard-safety constraints in the current scene, prioritizing preservation of the failed prediction's motion pattern. Conditioned on the driving context and failed trajectory, Correction SFT learns to generate the diagnosis followed by the retrieved correction as a training-only auxiliary task. We then apply GRPO with a Safety-Layered Reward that strictly prioritizes hard-safe trajectories, retains continuous safety feedback for both unsafe and hard-safe trajectories, and rewards driving progress only after hard safety is satisfied. At inference, the policy directly predicts trajectories from the driving context without an explicit diagnosis or repair stage. On NAVSIM v1, RefineDrive improves the 4B base SFT policy from 87.7 to 91.7 PDMS. Using the same checkpoint without additional training, RefineDrive achieves 89.4 EPDMS on the original NAVTEST scenes evaluated with NAVSIM v2 extended metrics. Controlled ablations support the benefits of structured diagnosis supervision, retrieved corrections, and safety-layered optimization for direct planning.
Zhe Sun, Ziyi Luo, Yehao Lu +2
College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · Yinwang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have recently emerged as a promising paradigm for end-to-end autonomous driving by enabling unified reasoning across perception, language, and planning. However, existing approaches lack mechanisms to exploit past failures or adapt to distribution shifts, causing the model to persistently underperform on similar scenarios where it has previously failed. In this paper, we propose DriveVLA-M0, a retrieval-augmented VLA with failure-aware latent memory. We construct a latent memory pool that stores failure cases along with their structure scene representations and expert trajectory labels, and design a dedicated Retrieve Model that decouples static road structure and dynamic agent interactions to enable structurally grounded retrieval. At inference time, retrieved cases are injected into the model via a lightweight decoupled LoRA-based test-time training (TTT) mechanism, allowing targeted and scenario-specific correction without modifying the backbone. Extensive experiments on NAVSIMv1 and NAVSIMv2 benchmark demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms prior methods, achieving 94.1 PDMS on Navtest and 47.0 EPDMS on Navhard with only 26.44 ms TTT backward latency overhead. Furthermore, we show that DriveVLA-M0 scales effectively with additional memory, enabling training-free performance gains through memory expansion. The code is available at https://github.com/ZebinX/DriveVLA-M0.
Zebin Xing, Yupeng Zheng, Qiang Chen +10
Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Chongqing Chang’an Technology Co., Ltd., Chongqing, China
Reinforcement learning improves autonomous-driving vision-language-action (VLA) models by evaluating trajectories sampled from the current policy. Group relative policy optimization (GRPO) learns from reward differences within each rollout group. When all sampled trajectories are poor, this relative signal can rank failures without identifying behavior outside the failed region. We introduce FIRE-VLA, a failure-informed self-evolution framework that converts such unresolved failures into privileged supervision for the next policy. Low-reward, low-diversity groups trigger self-distillation from a frozen round-start copy of the same model. Teacher and student have the same parameter scale, but only the teacher observes the hidden future trajectory. Supervision follows the student's generated prefix and is restricted to answer tokens, while GRPO remains active for every group. The updated policy supplies the teacher for the next round, allowing the routed failure distribution to change with the policy without requiring a larger external teacher. Starting from the same Qwen2.5-VL-3B SFT checkpoint, the comparison matches student rollout and policy-update counts. On 6,019 examples from 150 held-out nuScenes scenes, FIRE-VLA retains comparable single-sample planning, reduces G=4 mean L2 from 1.848 to 1.500 m, and lowers evaluation-persistent failure prevalence from 13.03% to 11.20%. The reduction in mean error arises mainly from rare severe rollouts rather than uniform improvement across ordinary trajectories.