ViTaR: Visuo-Tactile Residual Adaptation for Foundation VLA Manipulation
Organizations: Beijing Institute of Technology
Abstract
As Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models scale toward real-world deployment, contact-rich manipulation exposes a critical blind spot: these policies encode broad visual-semantic priors yet remain unaware of local contact events, producing identical actions whether contact is established, lost, or destabilized. Existing remedies either modify VLA internals, risking catastrophic forgetting, or demand online reinforcement under near-failure contact conditions. Both grant tactile unbounded influence over action generation, conflicting with the priors that make VLAs generalizable. We introduce ViTaR, which reframes tactile feedback from an action-generating perceptual input to an execution modulator that selects and scales bounded residual corrections atop a frozen VLA, preserving pretrained capabilities by construction. ViTaR decomposes adaptation into two stages: Effect-Guided Modeling determines whether and which correction is locally justified via outcome-grounded preference evidence, and Residual Action Modulation converts this evidence into a residual choice with continuously scaled gain from real-time visuotactile observations. On the UniVTAC benchmark spanning seven contact-rich tasks, ViTaR achieves 61.3% average success, a 30.6 percentage-point improvement over its frozen VLA base that also surpasses purpose-built tactile baselines. Physical-robot experiments confirm that bounded tactile modulation transfers to real sensor noise and dynamics.
Figures & tables
| Method | Lift Bottle | Pull-out Key | Lift Can | Put Bottle | Insert HDMI | Insert Tube | Grasp Classify | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT | 42.0% | 28.0% | 20.0% | 28.0% | 15.0% | 45.0% | 50.0% | 32.6% |
| VITaL | 72.0% | 47.0% | 8.0% | 32.0% | 6.0% | 34.0% | 100.0% | 42.7% |
| ACT + UniVTAC | 71.0% | 46.0% | 29.0% | 31.0% | 28.0% | 56.0% | 99.0% | 51.4% |
| Tactile-VLA | 97.0% | 32.0% | 15.0% | 10.0% | 12.0% | 56.0% | 58.0% | 40.0% |
| 92.0% | 38.0% | 70.0% | 14.0% | 18.0% | 38.0% | 68.0% | 48.3% | |
| OpenVLA-OFT (ref.) | 45.0% | 33.0% | 21.0% | 8.0% | 9.0% | 55.0% | 44.0% | 30.7% |
| Method | Rec. | Pres. | Unsafe. | Avg. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPO-option | .55 | .66 | .25 | 36.0% |
| SAC-residual | .45 | .74 | .31 | 32.0% |
| Full ViTaR | .79 | .92 | .04 | 61.3% |
| Variant | Rec. | Unsafe. | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|
| w/o State | .46 | .16 | 41.0% |
| w/o Tac. | .61 | .13 | 46.0% |
| w/o Both | .40 | .19 | 36.0% |
| Fixed Scale | .57 | .11 | 45.0% |
| Full ViTaR | .79 | .04 | 61.3% |
| Variant | P B | B N | FPR | Avg. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RawScore | .63 | .60 | .40 | 38.0% |
| PairRank | .73 | .72 | .25 | 40.0% |
| + Gap | .71 | .76 | .29 | 44.0% |
| + Restore | .83 | .88 | .12 | 61.3% |
| Variant | Off. T1 | Rec. | Avg. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| EGM-Greedy | .45 | .41 | 36.0% |
| Outcome-only | .64 | .56 | 42.0% |
| Effect-only | .51 | .50 | 42.0% |
| Unweighted | .68 | .61 | 47.0% |
| Two-stage | .62 | .57 | 44.0% |
| Full RAM | .79 | .79 | 61.3% |
| Scale method | States | Exact | W1 | Error | Regret | Success | Unsafe. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed-1.0 | 240 | .34 | .63 | .27 | .15 | 48.7% | .12 |
| No fine tactile | 240 | .46 | .78 | .17 | .10 | 50.8% | .10 |
| ViTaR scaling | 240 | .68 | .94 | .08 | .04 | 61.9% | .04 |
| Discrete oracle | 240 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .00 | .00 | 68.4% | .03 |
| Setting | P B | B N | FPR | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strict-pass | .84 | .89 | .11 | 59.7% |
| Strict + downwtd. | .83 | .88 | .12 | 61.3% |
| No restoration wt. | .71 | .76 | .29 | 44.0% |
| Relaxed threshold | .77 | .82 | .20 | 54.8% |
| Setting | Off. T1 | Rec. | Unsafe. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict-pass only | .78 | .78 | .03 |
| Strict + downweighted | .79 | .79 | .04 |
| No restoration weighting | .63 | .61 | .13 |
| Relaxed threshold | .70 | .70 | .08 |
| Platform | P B | B N |
|---|---|---|
| UniVTAC | .91 | .93 |
| Physical subset | .87 | .90 |
| Variant | P B | B N | FPR | Avg. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RawScore | .63 | .60 | .40 | 38.0% |
| PairRank | .73 | .72 | .25 | 40.0% |
| + Gap | .71 | .76 | .29 | 44.0% |
| + Restore | .83 | .88 | .12 | 61.3% |
| Variant | Off. T1 | Rec. | Avg. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| EGM-Greedy | .45 | .41 | 36.0% |
| Outcome-only | .64 | .56 | 42.0% |
| Effect-only | .51 | .50 | 42.0% |
| Unweighted | .68 | .61 | 47.0% |
| Two-stage | .62 | .57 | 44.0% |
| Full RAM | .79 | .79 | 61.3% |
| Method | Rec. | Pres. | Unsafe. | Avg. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPO-option | .55 | .66 | .25 | 36.0% |
| SAC-residual | .45 | .74 | .31 | 32.0% |
| Full ViTaR | .79 | .92 | .04 | 61.3% |
| Option set | Pos. cov. | Best gain | Rec. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matched Random 7D Set | .41 | .13 | .40 |
| Structured 7D ( Full ViTaR ) | .72 | .34 | .79 |
| Option set | Pres. | Unsafe. | Avg. (%) |
| Matched Random 7D Set | .65 | .31 | 31.0% |
| Structured 7D ( Full ViTaR ) | .92 | .04 | 61.3% |
| Record | Reported amount | Role |
|---|---|---|
| OFT demonstrations | 50 trajectories/task; 350 total | Fine-tune the frozen OpenVLA-OFT reference |
| Offline branch collection | 20 restored groups/task from the 50-trajectory corpus; 5 short branches/group = 100 rollouts and 160 derived pairs/task; 140/700/1120 total | Construct EGM/RAM local supervision |
| Repeated-branch analysis | 245 UniVTAC groups and 48 physical groups; | Measure outcome, rank, and label stability |
| Multiscale scale analysis | 240 states 4 scales 3 repeats executions | Compare deployed scales with observed outcomes |
| Main evaluation | 100 UniVTAC episodes/task; 20 physical trials/task | Report end-to-end task success |
| Method group | Result source | Scope and limitation |
|---|---|---|
| ACT, VITaL, ACT+UniVTAC | UniVTAC benchmark report | Imported task-level values; not re-trained or re-evaluated by us |
| OpenVLA-OFT and ViTaR | Author-evaluated | Shared frozen-reference setting; ViTaR additionally uses local branch supervision |
| Tactile-VLA | Author-adapted and evaluated | Adapted to the UniVTAC observation/control interface; upstream training data remain method specific |
| Author-evaluated open-source checkpoint | Same seven-task evaluation protocol; upstream pretraining and checkpoint provenance are external | |
| PPO-option, SAC-residual | Author-evaluated controlled ablations | Same reference, residual interface, decision points, and safety limits; not a matched interaction-budget study |
Contact-Rich Robotic Manipulation
Contact-rich robotic manipulation studies how robots plan and control physical interactions such as grasping, insertion, pushing, and dexterous object handling.
See all 391 papers