In real-world robotic manipulation, states typically admit a neighborhood of near-equivalent actions. That is, for each state, there exist a feasible action neighborhood (FAN) rather than a single correct action, within which motions yield indistinguishable progress. However, prevalent VLA training methodologies are directly inherited from linguistic settings and do not exploit the FAN property, thus leading to poor generalization and low sample efficiency. To address this limitation, we introduce a FAN-guided regularizer that shapes the model's output distribution to align with the geometry of FAN. Concretely, we introduce a Gaussian prior that promotes locally smooth and unimodal predictions around the preferred direction and magnitude. In extensive experiments across both reinforced finetuning (RFT) and supervised finetuning (SFT), our method achieves significant improvement in sample efficiency, and success rate in both in-distribution and out-of-distribution (OOD) scenarios. By aligning with the intrinsic action tolerance of physical manipulation, FAN-guided regularization provides a principled and practical method for sample-efficient, and generalizable VLA adaptation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Geometric structure of policy distribution on a ManiSkill task. (a) After the SFT warm-up stage, the policy learned a narrow, peaked distribution with a minimal FAN, resulting in poor generalization. (b) Subsequent RFT with PPO broadens the distribution, leading to improved task success; (c) Our FAN-PPO method explicitly guides the policy towards a robust Gaussian shape, achieving the highest success rate and demonstrating superior generalization.
Method
In-Distribution
Out-of-Distribution
Vision
Semantic
Execution
Avg.
RL4VLA [ 31 ]
88.5
74.0
61.8
46.2
60.7
OpenVLA + SFT [ 23 ]
78.1 ± 3.1
76.6 ± 1.9
57.4 ± 0.9
40.4 ± 0.8
58.1
OpenVLA + FAN-SFT (Ours)
89.8 ± 0.8
81.7 ± 1.1
63.5 ± 1.5
44.8 ± 0.5
63.3
△ Improvement
+11.7
+5.1
+6.1
+4.4
+5.2
Table 1: Comparison of SFT results on the ManiSkill benchmark. Values denote success rates (%).
Figure 2: SFT performance on OpenVLA with and without FAN-guided regularization across different OOD tasks on ManiSkill.
Figure 3: SFT performance on OpenVLA with and without FAN-guided regularization across different data sizes on in-distribution and three OOD tasks (Vision, Semantic, Execution).
Figure 4: Spatial robustness on LIBERO-Spatial , comparing OpenVLA finetuned with SFT (left) versus our FAN-SFT (right). Color indicates success rate; the black and red dashed lines are the equal-success-rate contours for each method, respectively.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison under spatial perturbation. Vanilla SFT remains biased toward the seen position, whereas FAN-SFT correctly adapts to the perturbed target location.
Method
In-Distribution
Out-of-Distribution
Vision
Semantic
Execution
Avg.
RL4VLA [ 31 ]
93.8
76.6
72.8
78.3
75.9
OpenVLA + PPO
95.9 ± 3.2
80.1 ± 0.1
79.7 ± 2.0
85.8 ± 1.8
81.9
OpenVLA + FAN-PPO (Ours)
97.4 ± 0.7
85.0 ± 4.0
86.7 ± 1.3
92.6 ± 1.5
88.1
△ Improvement
+1.5
+4.9
+7.0
+6.9
+6.2
OpenVLA-OFT + PPO
92.3 ± 2.5
84.9 ± 1.1
49.0 ± 0.6
55.9 ± 1.2
63.3
Table 2: Comparison of RFT results on the ManiSkill benchmark. Values denote success rates (%).
Figure 6: Performance comparison of OpenVLA and OpenVLA-OFT trained with PPO and FAN-PPO across various OOD tasks.
Figure 7: Training curves of rollout and evaluation success rates during RFT of OpenVLA. Our FAN-guided regularization significantly improved the sample efficiency of OpenVLA.
Figure 8: Training curves of rollout and evaluation success rates during RFT of OpenVLA-OFT. Our FAN-guided regularization significantly improved the sample efficiency in evaluation and obtained better performance in training process of OpenVLA-OFT.
Figure 9: Real-world physical platform. (a) JAKA robot platform; (b) the task of placing the object into a box from unseen spatial positions, to evaluate the model’s spatial robustness.
Method
Task-1
Task-2
Task-3
Task-4
OpenVLA [ 23 ]
19/30
7/30
7/30
1/30
OpenVLA + FAN-SFT
22/30
12/30
17/30
7/30
Table 3: Real-world evaluation results (Successes / Total Trials).
Base Configuration (adopted from RL4VLA)
# GPUs
4 × NVIDIA A100 (80GB VRAM)
learning rate (LR)
5e-4
total batch size
40 (10 per GPU)
grad accumulation steps
1
input images
1 third-person camera
input image size
224 × 224 px
Table 4: Hyperparameters for SFT OpenVLA on the ManiSkill benchmark. We adopt the configuration from RL4VLA for our baseline and extend it with a regularization coefficient α for our method (FAN-SFT).
Base Configuration (adopted from OpenVLA)
# GPUs
2 × NVIDIA A100 (80GB VRAM)
learning rate (LR)
5e-4
total batch size
48 (24 per GPU)
grad accumulation steps
1
input images
1 third-person camera
input image size
224 × 224 px
Table 5: Hyperparameters for SFT OpenVLA on the LIBERO benchmark. We adopt the configuration from OpenVLA for our baseline and extend it with a regularization coefficient α for our method (FAN-SFT).
Base Configuration (adopted from OpenVLA-OFT)
# GPUs
4 × NVIDIA A100 (80GB VRAM)
learning rate (LR)
5e-4
total batch size
32 (8 per GPU)
grad accumulation steps
2
input images
1 third-person camera, 1 wrist-mounted camera
input image size
224 × 224 px
Table 6: Hyperparameters for SFT OpenVLA-OFT on the LIBERO benchmark. We adopt the configuration from OpenVLA-OFT for our baseline and extend it with a regularization coefficient α for our method (FAN-SFT).
Variant
Definition
Vision
Table
unseen table
Texture-w
dynamic texture (weak)
Texture-s
dynamic texture (strong)
Noise-w
dynamic noise (weak)
Noise-s
dynamic noise (strong)
Table 7: Definitions of the OOD task variants. The first five variants correspond to vision OOD, the middle eight to semantic OOD, and the last three to execution OOD.
Method
In-Distribution
Out-of-Distribution
Vision
Semantic
Execution
Avg.
RL4VLA † [ 31 ]
88.5
74.0
61.8
46.2
60.7
OpenVLA + SFT [ 23 ]
78.1 ± 3.1
76.6 ± 1.9
57.4 ± 0.9
40.4 ± 0.8
58.1
OpenVLA + FAN-SFT (Ours)
89.8 ± 0.8
81.7 ± 1.1
63.5 ± 1.5
44.8 ± 0.5
63.3
△ Improvement
+11.7
+5.1
+6.1
+4.4
+5.2
Table 8: Comparison of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) results on the ManiSkill benchmark. Values denote success rates (%). Results marked with † are taken directly from the original RL4VLA paper. Since the SFT dataset used in RL4VLA is not publicly available, we reproduce its setting by collecting an SFT dataset of the same size in the same environments using a motion planner. Based on this reproduced setup, we obtain the OpenVLA + SFT baseline as our reproduction of RL4VLA, and further implement our proposed OpenVLA + FAN-SFT method.
Task
RL4VLA(SFT) †
OpenVLA+SFT
OpenVLA+FAN-SFT
Δ
Vision
Table
86.5
80.6 ± 5.5
84.4 ± 2.9
+3.8
Texture-w
79.7
80.0 ± 3.4
85.9 ± 3.1
+5.9
Texture-s
63.0
72.5 ± 5.8
73.4 ± 4.5
+0.9
Noise-w
77.1
81.3 ± 4.0
87.2 ± 1.8
+5.9
Noise-s
63.5
66.9 ± 2.3
74.1 ± 3.2
+7.2
Semantic
Obj.
53.6
42.5 ± 4.1
49.4 ± 4.8
+6.9
Table 9: Detailed SFT results on the ManiSkill benchmark (OOD tasks).
Method
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Avg.
Octo [ 15 ]
78.9
85.7
84.6
51.1
75.1
OpenVLA [ 23 ]
84.7
88.4
79.2
53.7
76.5
WorldVLA [ 8 ]
87.6
96.2
83.4
60.0
81.8
TriVLA [ 32 ]
91.2
93.8
89.8
73.2
87.0
UniVLA [ 7 ]
96.5
96.8
95.6
92.0
95.2
OpenVLA-OFT [ 22 ]
95.2
94.2
95.2
93.2
94.5
Table 10: Detailed SFT results on the LIBERO Benchmark.
Figure 10: Simulation rollouts on four manipulation tasks from the LIBERO-Spatial benchmark under disturbances applied to the plate (i.e., the target placement location). For Tasks 1 and 2, the plate is perturbed along the x -axis; for Tasks 3 and 4, the plate is perturbed along the y -axis. In each subfigure, the top row shows trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + SFT policy, and the bottom row shows trajectories generated by our proposed OpenVLA + FAN-SFT policy, which exhibits stronger robustness to target-location disturbances.
Regularization coeff. α
In-Distribution
Out-of-Distribution
Vision
Semantic
Execution
Avg.
0.0
78.1
76.3
57.6
41.0
58.3
1e-4
81.8
76.2
58.0
44.6
59.6
1e-3
87.0
75.6
60.9
44.2
60.2
1e-2
89.6
77.5
62.9
46.5
62.3
2e-2
88.4
77.5
62.9
49.1
63.2
Table 11: Sensitivity of OpenVLA + FAN-SFT to the regularization coefficient α on ManiSkill.
Method
In-Distribution
Out-of-Distribution
Vision
Semantic
Execution
Avg.
Ori
78.1
76.6
57.4
40.4
58.1
+ ϵ=0.05
82.8
75.9
62.3
42.2
60.1
+ ϵ=0.1
81.3
69.1
60.3
39.4
56.3
+ ϵ=0.2
79.7
68.1
51.8
42.2
54.0
Ours
89.8
81.7
63.5
44.8
63.3
Table 12: Comparison to label smoothing on ManiSkill.
Base Configuration
# GPUs
1 × NVIDIA A100 (80GB VRAM)
learning rate (LR)
1e-4 for policy; 3e-3 for value head
mini-batch size
8 for OpenVLA; 12 for OpenVLA-OFT
grad accumulation steps
20
LoRA rank
32
input images
1 third-person camera
Table 13: Hyperparameter setup for PPO in our experiments. We follow the configuration from the original implementation, including common parameters and those specific to our FAN-PPO.
Task
RL4VLA (RFT) †
OpenVLA +PPO
OpenVLA +FAN-PPO
Δ
OpenVLA-OFT +PPO
OpenVLA-OFT +FAN-PPO
Δ
Vision
Table
84.4
91.3 ± 2.8
97.1 ± 0.4
+5.9
89.0 ± 1.9
93.5 ± 0.9
+4.5
Texture-w
83.3
85.0 ± 0.9
90.6 ± 6.1
+5.7
93.1 ± 3.0
92.8 ± 2.3
-0.3
Texture-s
63.0
69.2 ± 2.3
72.4 ± 0.7
+3.2
79.3 ± 2.4
83.3 ± 5.1
+4.0
Noise-w
85.4
83.0 ± 1.2
91.2 ± 1.0
+8.2
90.3 ± 1.1
92.8 ± 0.9
+2.5
Noise-s
66.7
72.0 ± 4.6
73.7 ± 6.5
+1.7
73.0 ± 2.7
78.0 ± 4.3
+5.0
Semantic
Obj.
71.4
78.3 ± 3.6
85.4 ± 2.7
+7.1
77.0 ± 3.7
83.6 ± 1.7
+6.6
Table 14: Detailed RFT results on the ManiSkill benchmark (OOD tasks).
Method
Steps to 60% SR
Steps to 70% SR
Steps to 80% SR
Steps to 90% SR
OpenVLA + PPO
18
62
133
249
OpenVLA + FAN-PPO
18
37
56
98
Table 15: Training steps required to reach different rollout success rate thresholds on the training subset of ManiSkill with OpenVLA model. Columns report the number of training steps needed to achieve 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% success rate (SR), respectively. Our method (OpenVLA + FAN-PPO) consistently attains the same success rate with fewer steps, demonstrating improved sample efficiency.
Method
Steps to 55% SR
Steps to 60% SR
Steps to 65% SR
Steps to 70% SR
Steps to 75% SR
OpenVLA + PPO
109
149
209
279
339
OpenVLA + FAN-PPO
29
59
109
129
179
Table 16: Training steps required to reach different evaluation success rate on the test subset of ManiSkill with OpenVLA model. Columns report the number of training steps needed to achieve 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, and 75% success rate (SR), respectively. Our method (OpenVLA + FAN-PPO) consistently attains the same success rate with fewer steps, demonstrating improved sample efficiency.
Method
Steps to 50% SR
Steps to 60% SR
Steps to 70% SR
Steps to 80% SR
Steps to 90% SR
OpenVLA-OFT + PPO
26
35
46
82
186
OpenVLA-OFT + FAN-PPO
17
24
38
60
151
Table 17: Training steps required to reach different rollout success rate thresholds on the training subset of ManiSkill with OpenVLA-OFT model. Columns report the number of training steps needed to achieve 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% success rate (SR), respectively. Our method (OpenVLA-OFT + FAN-PPO) consistently attains the same success rate with fewer steps, demonstrating improved sample efficiency.
Method
Steps to 50% SR
Steps to 60% SR
Steps to 70% SR
Steps to 80% SR
Steps to 90% SR
OpenVLA-OFT + PPO
60
80
120
180
-
OpenVLA-OFT + FAN-PPO
40
50
60
100
240
Table 18: Training steps required to reach different evaluation success rate on the test subset of ManiSkill with OpenVLA-OFT model. Columns report the number of training steps needed to achieve 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% success rate (SR), respectively. Our method (OpenVLA-OFT + FAN-PPO) consistently attains the same success rate with fewer steps, demonstrating improved sample efficiency.
Figure 11: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the in-distribution task. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 12: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’Table’ task under vision OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 13: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’Texture-w’ task under vision OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 14: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’Texture-s’ task under vision OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 15: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’Noise-w’ task under vision OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 16: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’Noise-s’ task under vision OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 17: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’obj’ task under semantic OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 18: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’Recep’ task under semantic OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 19: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’Instruct’ task under semantic OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 20: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’M-obj (IND)’ task under semantic OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 21: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’M-obj (OOD)’ task under semantic OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 22: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’M-obj (OOD)’ task under semantic OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 23: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’Obj. Pos.’ task under execution OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 24: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’Robot Pose’ task under execution OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 25: Qualitative comparison of VLA task executions on the ’Obj. Rep.’ task under execution OOD conditions. Top row: trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + PPO, which fails to accomplish the task. Bottom row: trajectories generated by our OpenVLA + FAN-PPO, which successfully complete the task
Figure 26: Sensitivity of OpenVLA + FAN-PPO to the regularization coefficient α on the ManiSkill PutOnPlateInScene25Main-v3 environment. Subfigure reports the rollout success rate on the training subset, while subfigure shows the evaluation success rate on the test subset.
Figure 27: Sensitivity of OpenVLA + FAN-PPO to the standard deviation σ on the ManiSkill PutOnPlateInScene25Main-v3 environment. Subfigure reports the rollout success rate on the training subset, while subfigure shows the evaluation success rate on the test subset.
Figure 28: Training curves during RFT of OpenVLA.
Figure 29: Real-world experiment hardware setup. (a) The RGB-D camera used for perception. (b) The robot arm used for manipulation. (c) The overall workspace configuration, where three types of target objects are placed on the table and the task is to place them into the black box.
Figure 30: Real-world rollouts on four object-in-box manipulation tasks. In each subfigure, the top row shows time-ordered key frames of trajectories generated by the baseline OpenVLA + SFT policy, and the bottom row shows trajectories generated by our proposed OpenVLA + FAN-SFT policy. Task-1 corresponds to the in-distribution setting with matched demonstration conditions, where both methods succeed. Tasks 2–4 introduce different real-world perturbations (object pose, manipulator pose, and box position, respectively), under which the baseline policy fails while our method remains successful.
Large-scale pretraining has made Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models promising foundations for generalist robot manipulation, yet adapting them to downstream tasks remains necessary. However, the common practice of full fine-tuning treats pretraining as initialization and can shift broad priors toward narrow training-distribution patterns. We propose PriorVLA, a novel framework that preserves pretrained priors and learns to leverage them for effective adaptation. PriorVLA keeps a frozen Prior Expert as a read-only prior source and trains an Adaptation Expert for downstream specialization. Expert Queries capture scene priors from the pretrained VLM and motor priors from the Prior Expert, integrating both into the Adaptation Expert to guide adaptation. Together, PriorVLA updates only 25% of the parameters updated by full fine-tuning. Across RoboTwin 2.0, LIBERO, and real-world tasks, PriorVLA achieves stronger overall performance than full fine-tuning and state-of-the-art VLA baselines, with the largest gains under out-of-distribution (OOD) and few-shot settings. PriorVLA improves over pi0.5 by 11 points on RoboTwin 2.0-Hard and achieves 99.1% average success on LIBERO. Across eight real-world tasks and two embodiments, PriorVLA reaches 81% in-distribution (ID) and 57% OOD success with standard data. With only 10 demonstrations per task, PriorVLA reaches 48% ID and 32% OOD success, surpassing pi0.5 by 24 and 22 points, respectively.
Xinyu Guo, Bin Xie, Wei Chai +4
Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Dexmal · Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics +1
Recent large-scale Vision Language Action (VLA) models have shown superior performance in robotic manipulation tasks guided by natural language. However, current VLA models suffer from two drawbacks: (i) generation of massive tokens leading to high inference latency and increased training cost, and (ii) insufficient utilization of generated actions resulting in potential performance loss. To address these issues, we develop a training framework to finetune VLA models for generating significantly fewer action tokens with high parallelism, effectively reducing inference latency and training cost. Furthermore, we introduce an inference optimization technique with a novel voting-based ensemble strategy to combine current and previous action predictions, improving the utilization of generated actions and overall performance. Our results demonstrate that we achieve superior performance compared with state-of-the-art VLA models, achieving significantly higher success rates and 39× faster inference than OpenVLA with 46 Hz throughput on edge platforms, demonstrating practical deployability. The code is available at https://github.com/LukeLIN-web/VOTE.
Juyi Lin, Amir Taherin, Arash Akbari +11
Northeastern University, Boston, USA · EmbodyX,San Mateo,USA
The ability to efficiently and reliably learn new tasks has been a foundational challenge in robotics. Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have demonstrated strong generalization across diverse manipulation tasks, yet pretrained policies consistently fall short of the reliability required for real-world deployment. Reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning offers a promising path to bridge this gap, but existing approaches either train from scratch without fully leveraging pretrained priors, or fine-tune VLAs without achieving the sample efficiency and success rates that practical deployment demands. We present EXPO-FT, a system for stable, sample-efficient RL finetuning of pretrained VLA policies that closes this gap. Our system solves a suite of challenging manipulation tasks, including routing string lights and inserting the plug to light it up, striking a pool ball into a pocket, and inserting a flower into a wine bottle, each requiring combinations of high precision, dynamic actions, and robustness to varied initial states. Our system achieves perfect task performance (30/30 successes) across all evaluated tasks within an average of 19.1 minutes of online robot data, outperforming both prior RL-from-scratch and VLA finetuning approaches. We release an open-source codebase with the aim of facilitating broader adoption of RL finetuning of VLA models in robotics.