Offline post-training adapts a pretrained robot policy to a target dataset by supervised regression on recorded actions. In practice, robot datasets are heterogeneous: they mix embodiments, camera setups, and demonstrations of varying quality, so many trajectories reflect recovery behavior, inconsistent operator skill, or weakly informative supervision. Uniform post-training gives equal credit to all samples and can therefore average over conflicting or low-attribution data. We propose Posterior-Transition Reweighting (PTR), a reward-free and conservative post-training method that decides how much each training sample should influence the supervised update. For each sample, PTR encodes the observed post-action consequence as a latent target, inserts it into a candidate pool of mismatched targets, and uses a separate transition scorer to estimate a softmax identification posterior over target indices. The posterior-to-uniform ratio defines the PTR score, which is converted into a clipped-and-mixed weight and applied to the original action objective through self-normalized weighted regression. This construction requires no tractable policy likelihood and is compatible with both diffusion and flow-matching action heads. Rather than uniformly trusting all recorded supervision, PTR reallocates credit according to how attributable each sample's post-action consequence is under the current representation, improving conservative offline adaptation to heterogeneous robot data.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of PTR. Left: the standard policy stack (backbone + action expert) is augmented with a lightweight scorer and a BeliefTokenizer. Right: for each training chunk, the scorer identifies the matched post-action target among mismatched candidates; the resulting identification posterior is converted into a conservative weight that rescales the supervised action loss. No reward labels or policy likelihoods are needed.
LIBERO
RoboCasa
Method
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Avg
Pick&Pl.
Door/Dr.
Others
Avg
SFT
98.8
99.0
98.6
96.8
98.3
36.0
71.3
55.3
54.2
SFT+Belief
98.2
98.4
98.0
95.6
97.6
36.7
71.5
55.0
54.4
PTR
98.0
99.2
97.6
97.0
97.8
38.3
73.0
55.5
55.6
Table 1: Standard simulation results (success rate %) on LIBERO and RoboCasa. LIBERO reports per-suite averages over 500 episodes each; RoboCasa reports category averages over 1200 total trials. Bold : best; Underlined : second best.
Figure 2: Robustness under corrupted training data (success rate %). Colored badges show PTR − SFT deltas. PTR maintains higher performance across all corruption types.
Figure 3: Real-robot platforms used for evaluation. (a) Unitree G1 with LinkerHand O6 dexterous hands. (b) PND Adam-U with bimanual dexterous manipulation and a movable head. (c) FR3 single-arm with Inspire dexterous hand.
Platform
DoF
DoF breakdown
Morphology
Camera
View
Hz
Unitree G1 + LinkerHand O6
26
7×2 arms +6×2 hands
Bimanual, dexterous
D435
Fixed ego
20
PND Adam-U
31
3 waist +2 head +7×2 arms +6×2 hands
Bimanual + head + waist
ZED Mini
Movable ego (dual)
20
FR3 + Inspire Hand
13
7 arm +6 hand
Single-arm, dexterous
2× D435
Fixed 3rd-person
50
Table 2: Robot platform specifications for the three real-robot embodiments.
Figure 4: Representative real-robot tasks across three platforms and four capability suites.
Simulation
Real Robot
Method
LIBERO
RoboCasa
Bimanual
Long-Hor.
Spatial
Robust
Overall
SFT-Specialist
98.3
54.2
55.0
63.3
75.0
50.0
71.1
PTR-Specialist
97.8
55.6
66.7
61.7
78.3
61.7
73.5
SFT-Generalist
96.2
50.8
45.0
51.7
63.3
40.0
65.7
PTR-Generalist
97.4
55.0
60.0
65.0
73.3
56.7
72.1
Table 3: Specialist and generalist training results (success rate %). Generalist trains a single checkpoint on all five sources (three real-robot sources plus LIBERO and RoboCasa); Specialist trains one checkpoint per source. “Overall” is the mean of the LIBERO average, the RoboCasa average, and the real-robot overall average. Bold : best; Underlined : second best per column.
Figure 5: Cross-embodiment task correspondence. Different robot platforms (Adam-U & FR3) execute semantically similar manipulation tasks, illustrating the shared post-action structure that enables PTR to selectively transfer useful knowledge.
Suite / Task
Platform
SFT-Spec
PTR-Spec
SFT-Gen
PTR-Gen
Bimanual
Pour Water
Adam-U
60.0
70.0
50.0
65.0
Handover
Adam-U
50.0
65.0
40.0
55.0
Put & Close Box
G1
55.0
65.0
45.0
60.0
Suite average
55.0
66.7
45.0
60.0
Long-Horizon
Table 4: Per-task real-robot success rates (%).
Figure 6: PTR rollouts on all 12 real-robot tasks.
Figure 7: Illustrative hard out-of-distribution (OOD) evaluation with PTR. The scene contains unseen objects, a novel background, flickering overhead lighting, and a transparent bottle that challenges depth perception.
LIBERO
RoboCasa
Configuration
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Avg
Pick&Pl.
Door/Dr.
Others
Avg
PTR (full)
98.0
98.8
97.4
97.0
97.8
38.3
73.0
55.5
55.6
w/o belief tokens
97.6
98.4
97.6
95.8
97.4
36.8
71.0
54.2
54.0
w/o cross-rank gather
97.2
98.2
97.0
95.4
97.0
35.7
71.7
55.5
54.3
w/o EMA (frozen enc.)
95.8
96.6
95.2
93.4
95.3
33.0
67.3
50.5
50.2
w/o refiner
97.8
97.8
96.4
96.2
97.1
34.7
69.3
52.0
51.9
Table 5: Ablation study on standard benchmarks (success %). Bold : best; Underlined : second best.
Figure 8: PTR training dynamics across six embodiment settings ( 60 k steps). (a) Identification accuracy shows two convergence groups; the legend applies to all three subplots. (b) PTR score Tt stabilizes at embodiment-dependent levels. (c) Action loss ℓact decreases steadily.
Figure 9: Belief token and identification margin dynamics. (a) Belief token entropy Htok converges to near-zero across all settings. (b) Identification margin grows steadily, with cross-embodiment training achieving the highest discriminability.
Figure 10: Hyperparameter sensitivity on cross-embodiment LIBERO. Each subplot sweeps one parameter with others fixed at defaults, tracking three normalized diagnostics: success rate, final PTR score Tt , and weight stability 1/Std(w) . Dashed lines mark the default values. Legend is shared across all three subplots.
Figure 11: PTR weight evolution across benchmarks. (a)–(c) Sample weight distribution at early stage ( 3 k steps, grey) vs. late stage ( 60 k steps, colored) for LIBERO, RoboCasa, and real-robot generalist training. (d) Relative loss reduction (ℓSFT−ℓPTR)/ℓSFT over training.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Symbol
Value
Optimization
Optimizer
–
AdamW
Learning rate
η
10−4
Weight decay
–
0.01
Schedule
–
Cosine with 2000 -step linear warmup
Total steps
–
60 k
Appendix
Table 6: Complete hyperparameter listing for PTR post-training.
Offline reinforcement learning (RL) can learn effective policies from fixed datasets, but deployment objectives may change after training, and in many applications the trained actor cannot be retrained because of data, cost, or governance constraints. We study deployment-time adaptation for frozen offline actors using Product-of-Experts (PoE) composition with a goal-conditioned prior. Our main practical finding is graceful degradation rather than universal performance gain: under degraded or random priors, precision-weighted composition remains anchored to the frozen actor, while additive and prior-only adaptation collapse, and a KL-budget selector often recovers a near-oracle operating point. We also make explicit a closed-form identity in the frozen-actor setting: for diagonal-Gaussian actors and priors, PoE with coefficient alpha yields the same deterministic policy as KL-regularized adaptation with beta = alpha / (1 - alpha), with posterior covariances differing only by a global scalar factor. Empirically, across four D4RL environments (3,900 MuJoCo episodes), we observe a 4/5/3 HELP/FROZEN/HURT split. Extending the analysis to six harder cells and two AntMaze diagnostics reveals an actor-competence ceiling: medium-expert remains HURT in all 9 cells at every tested alpha, while AntMaze with a behavior-cloned frozen actor yields zero success for all composition rules. Overall, PoE and KL-regularized adaptation are best viewed as a single actor-anchored safety mechanism for deployment-time steering.
Elias Hossain, Mohammad Jahid Ibna Basher, Ivan Garibay +2
College of Engineering and Computer Science University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Pretrained imitation policies have become a strong foundation for robot manipulation, but they often require online improvement to overcome execution errors, limited dataset coverage, and deployment mismatch. A central question is therefore how reinforcement learning (RL) should adapt policies after offline pretraining. Existing lightweight methods commonly apply residual corrections directly in action space, but this often leads to noisy and poorly structured exploration. In this work, we propose Z-Perturbation Reinforcement Learning (ZPRL), an approach that steers pretrained policies through a compact bottleneck latent rather than through policy weights or output actions. During offline training, we augment the policy with a plug-and-play variational information bottleneck (VIB) module to extract a task-relevant latent interface from observation embeddings. During online finetuning, the base policy is frozen and RL learns only a residual perturbation on this latent, whose decoded representation conditions the frozen action generator. We instantiate ZPRL on flow-matching policies and evaluate it on eight simulation tasks and four real-world tasks. Across diverse manipulation settings, ZPRL improves both sample efficiency and final performance over strong post-training baselines. In the real world, ZPRL improves the average success rate on four tasks by 33.7% over imitation base policies while producing smoother exploration behaviors than an action residual counterpart. These results suggest that a compact, task-aligned bottleneck latent provides an effective interface for online RL adaptation. More videos can be found at https://manutdmoon.github.io/ZPRL/.
Dongjie Yu, Kun Lei, Zhennan Jiang +2
School of Computing and Data Science, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR. · Shanghai Qizhi Institute, Shanghai, China. · Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. +2
Generalist robot policies carry broad manipulation priors from large-scale data, but specializing them to a new task remains the deployment bottleneck. This requires eliciting task-specific behavior from limited demonstrations without degrading their broad capabilities. We introduce Proxy Policy Steering (PPS), an inference-time adaptation method that resolves this challenge by training two lightweight proxy policies whose calibrated velocity-space difference steers the frozen base sampler. A reference proxy models the frozen base's behavior on target-task observations, and a task proxy, initialized from the reference, captures how this behavior changes under task supervision. Their difference forms a calibrated velocity-space residual that steers the frozen base sampler at every denoising step. We identify the conditions under which this residual isolates the change induced by task supervision, and validate them empirically. Because the base is never directly modified, its broad capabilities remain available at inference, including behaviors such as recovery from failure that the demonstrations themselves do not exercise. Adaptation requires only forward velocity predictions from the base, making PPS lightweight to train and applicable even without access to the base's parameters. On 8 real-world and 4 simulation manipulation tasks, PPS lifts the state-of-the-art pi 0.5 base policy by 53% absolute success rate on average, with zero-to-one gains on tasks the base never solves, while preserving the base's broad capabilities. PPS outperforms LoRA fine-tuning, from-scratch specialists, residual policies, and prior inference-time steering methods.