VP-VLA: Visual Prompting as an Interface for Vision-Language-Action Models
Organizations: HKUST · CUHK · SmartMore
Abstract
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models typically map visual observations and linguistic instructions directly to control signals. This "black-box" mapping forces a single forward pass to simultaneously handle instruction interpretation, spatial grounding, and low-level control, often leading to poor spatial precision and limited robustness in out-of-distribution scenarios. To address these limitations, we propose VP-VLA, a dual-system framework that decouples high-level reasoning and low-level execution via a structured visual prompting interface. Specifically, a "System 2 Planner" decomposes complex instructions into sub-tasks and identifies relevant target objects and goal locations. These spatial anchors are rendered directly within the native RGB observation space as modality-consistent visual prompts, such as crosshairs and bounding boxes. This avoids the modality mismatch introduced by dense masks, affordance maps, or additional control-specific representations. Guided by these prompts and enhanced by a novel auxiliary visual grounding objective during training, a "System 1 Controller" reliably generates precise low-level execution motions. Extensive experiments in simulation and real world demonstrate that VP-VLA surpasses state-of-the-art end-to-end baselines including QwenOFT and GR00T-N1.6. Project page: https://visualprompt-vla.github.io/
Figures & tables
| Task | w/o grounding | w/ all frame grounding | w/ point | w/ direct overlay | Ours (Full) |
| PnP * to * Close (Avg) | 49.7 | 46.3 | 38.7 | 47.7 | 54.3 |
| PnP Novel From Cuttingboard To * (Avg) | 54.4 | 53.6 | 48.8 | 54.0 | 60.8 |
| PnP Novel From Placemat To * (Avg) | 46.0 | 45.0 | 46.0 | 46.5 | 54.5 |
| PnP Novel From Tray To * (Avg) | 43.2 | 46.0 | 49.6 | 50.0 | 46.0 |
| PnP Novel From Plate To * (Avg) | 54.0 | 58.0 | 56.5 | 56.5 | 53.5 |
| Average | 49.4 | 49.5 | 47.3 | 50.8 | 53.8 |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Models | Success Rate (%) |
| QwenOFT | 30 |
| Ours | 50 |
| Section | Prompt Content |
| Task Description | {task_description} |
| Instruction | Decompose this robotic manipulation task into sequential atomic subtasks. |
| Subtask Types | • Pick action (e.g., “pick up the cup”) • Place action (e.g., “place the cup on the table”) • Manipulation action (e.g., “close the drawer”, “open the microwave”) |
| Rules | • Keep subtask descriptions short and clear. • Preserve the object and location names from the original task description. |
| Output Format | { "subtasks": ["subtask 1", "subtask 2", ...] } |
| Section | Prompt Content |
| Task | {task_description} |
| Current Subtask | {current_subtask} |
| Next Subtask | {next_subtask} or “None (this is the last subtask)” |
| Visual Context | • Image A: frame when the current subtask started • Image B: current frame Use visual differences between Image A and Image B to judge whether the current subtask has been completed. |
| Gripper State | LEFT_GRIPPER = {state} RIGHT_GRIPPER = {state} |
| Optional notification if gripper state changes between frames: GRIPPER STATE CHANGE DETECTED: LEFT_GRIPPER: {prev_left} {curr_left} RIGHT_GRIPPER: {prev_right} {curr_right} This change may indicate that the current subtask has been completed. Consider both the visual evidence and this gripper state change when deciding whether to proceed to the next subtask. |
| Object | Ours | QwenOFT | Object | Ours | QwenOFT |
| Green Box | Red Box | ||||
| Bottle (ID) | 7 | 7 | Banana (ID) | 8 | 6 |
| Beige cup (ID) | 9 | 8 | Orange (ID) | 9 | 9 |
| Black shoe (ID) | 10 | 9 | Corn (ID) | 10 | 9 |
| Toy chicken (ID) | 8 | 7 | Potato (ID) | 10 | 10 |
| Blue cup (OOD) | 8 | 8 | Pear (OOD) | 9 | 8 |
| In-Domain | OOD (Color) | OOD (Pos.) | ||||||
| Color | Ours | QwenOFT | Ours | QwenOFT | Ours | QwenOFT | ||
| Blue | 10 | 7 | ||||||
| Pink | 8 | 6 | Purple | 9 | 4 | Blue | 9 | 6 |
| Red | 10 | 8 | Green | 9 | 3 | Red | 9 | 7 |
| Yellow | 9 | 7 | ||||||
| Avg (%) | 77.1 | 58.3 | 75.0 | 29.2 | 75.0 | 54.2 | ||
| In-Domain (ID) | Out-of-Distribution (OOD) | ||||
| Pos. | Ours | QwenOFT | Pos. | Ours | QwenOFT |
| L1 C2 | 5.00 | 4.25 | L1 C3 | 2.50 | 1.75 |
| L1 C4 | 5.00 | 4.50 | L2 C1 | 2.25 | 2.50 |
| L2 C4 | 5.00 | 2.25 | L3 C2 | 5.00 | 3.25 |
| L2 C2 | 4.00 | 4.25 | L4 C3 | 4.00 | 3.50 |
| L3 C1 | 4.50 | 4.50 | Summary Statistics | ||