Long-horizon robot manipulation with Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies remains vulnerable to execution-time deviations, as final task success provides little information for diagnosing and correcting failures caused by action noise, object displacement, or goal misalignment. We introduce a stage-aware failure verification and Prompt Recovery framework that enables closed-loop correction of a fixed VLA policy without parameter updates or privileged simulator states. The framework introduces an observable-history-based Learned Verifier that jointly estimates manipulation progress and execution risk by temporally modeling multi-view visual observations, proprioceptive states, and executed actions. To provide interpretable task understanding, we represent manipulation execution through semantic progress stages, including approach, alignment, grasp, transport, and placement, and identify stage-specific failure patterns. Upon detecting abnormal execution, the framework preserves the original instruction and generates a stage-conditioned recovery prompt, allowing the same frozen VLA policy to produce corrective actions. Extensive multi-round evaluations on LIBERO and LIBERO Plus demonstrate that the proposed approach substantially improves closed-loop reliability under diverse perturbations. Without access to privileged object or goal coordinates, the Learned Verifier achieves recovery performance close to that of the privileged rule-based verifier in the evaluated settings. These results show that observable visual-proprioceptive-action history is sufficient to infer latent task states and enable practical failure recovery for existing VLA policies.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of VLA-Corrector. The frozen VLA policy interacts with the environment using observable visual, proprioceptive, action, and language histories. A stage-aware verifier estimates execution risk and task stage, after which the trigger gate and recovery adapter generate a stage-specific recovery prompt. The privileged rule-based verifier provides supervision during verifier construction.
Configuration
Online verifier
Prompt Recovery
No Assistance
None; original frozen policy
No
Rule + Prompt
Privileged rule-based verifier
Yes; shared interface
Learned Binary + Prompt
Learned Verifier
Yes; shared interface
Table 1: Operational configurations.
Parameter
Value
Collected episodes
120, episode-disjoint
Episode-disjoint split
60% train / 20% validation / 20% test
Sequence length
8; single-frame ablation uses 1
Prediction horizon
10 environment steps
Negative exclusion
20 environment steps
Training epochs
30
Table 2: Learned Verifier training and evaluation configuration.
Figure 2: Real-world manipulation tasks used for evaluation: Pick and Open, Place, and Pour Water.
Figure 3: Success rates in simulation across standard LIBERO and LIBERO Plus at difficulty levels 4 and 5.
Method
Clean ↑
Action Noise ↑
Target-Object Shift ↑
Goal-Region Shift ↑
Combined ↑
Avg. ↑
No Assistance
93.7
85.2
78.3
77.6
70.7
81.14
Rule + Prompt
94.2
89.4
86.2
88.2
82.6 ↑11.7
88.12 ↑6.98
Learned Binary + Prompt
94.1
88.9
83.7
87.5
80.2 ↑9.3
86.88 ↑5.74
Table 3: Robustness to environmental perturbations on standard LIBERO. Each entry reports mean success rate (%) over 1000 evaluation episodes under the specified condition. Arrows indicate absolute improvement over No Assistance.
Figure 4: Online gate diagnostics.
Configuration
Acc. ↑
Prec. ↑
Recall ↑
Pos. F1 ↑
p50/p95 (ms) ↓
Single frame
86.95
48.87
75.49
59.33 ↓15.02
0.214/0.376
Agent-view only
89.73
52.33
80.92
63.56 ↓10.79
0.420/0.503
Vision only
92.66
58.00
82.24
68.03 ↓6.32
0.371/0.477
State-action only
80.75
47.67
75.88
58.55 ↓15.80
0.382/0.455
Temporal + Fusion
93.09
61.14
94.85
74.35
0.457/0.589
Table 4: Ablation study of the Learned Verifier. Arrows indicate the absolute change in Positive F1 relative to Temporal + Fusion.
Figure 5: Execution success rates of the frozen π0.5 baseline and the proposed method across three real-world manipulation tasks. The annotations indicate absolute improvements in percentage points.