Organizations: College of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 211106, China · The Key Laboratory of Brain-Machine Intelligence Technology, Ministry of Education, Nanjing, 211106, China.
Compared with relying solely on initial observations and language instructions, predicting goal images with generative models as high-level visual guidance can significantly enhance the robustness of Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models. However, most existing foundation models have not systematically incorporated goal image conditioning due to the high computational training cost. To this end, we propose Goal-Injected Fine-Tuning (GIFT), a lightweight and efficient fine-tuning framework that seamlessly integrates generated goal images into multiple representative pretrained VLA models. Our approach introduces goal image features into observations via a zero-initialized convolution which progressively grows parameters from zero and prevents harmful noise from disrupting the pretrained policy during fine-tuning. As training proceeds, goal information is gradually incorporated, enabling efficient goal understanding without disrupting model stability. We further introduce a refined image editing method to generate semantically and visually consistent goal images from initial observations and task instructions. Experiments show that goal-aware VLA models achieve substantial performance gains across tasks: with only a single epoch of fine-tuning, GIFT outperforms the base model by 6.0% and 13.4% on two SIMPLER settings, and by 4.7% on LIBERO, demonstrating both efficiency and effectiveness.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed GIFT framework. The image editing model first generates a goal image based on the initial observation and given instruction. The generated goal is then reused throughout policy execution to guide the VLA model at each timestep.
Figure 2: Overview of our proposed Goal-Injected Fine-Tuning framework. The goal image is encoded and injected into the VLA model via zero convolution, enabling efficient goal-image condition.
Figure 3: Illustration of the proposed Image Editing for Robotic Goal pipeline. Given an observation and instruction, the model combines the inversed latent image with random noise in a T2I DiT and iteratively denoises them to generate an instruction-aligned goal image.
Method
Visual Matching
Variant Aggregation
Grasp
Move
Drawer
PutInDrawer
Avg.
Grasp
Move
Drawer
PutInDrawer
Avg.
RT-1
85.7
44.2
73.0
6.5
52.4
89.8
50.0
32.2
2.6
43.7
RT-1-X
56.7
31.7
59.7
21.3
42.4
49.0
32.3
29.4
10.1
30.7
RT-2-X
78.7
77.9
25.0
3.7
46.3
82.3
79.2
35.4
20.6
54.4
Octo-Base
17.0
4.2
22.7
0.0
11.0
0.6
3.1
1.1
0.0
1.2
OpenVLA
18.0
56.3
63.0
0.0
34.3
60.8
67.7
28.8
0.0
39.3
Table 1: Comparison of our approach with existing VLA models on the Google robot across four tasks in two SIMPLER settings. Both settings include four tasks: (1) Pick coke can, (2) Move near, (3) Open/close drawer, and (4) Open top drawer and place apple.
Method
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task4
Avg.
RT-1-X
0.0
4.2
0.0
0.0
1.1
Octo-Base
15.8
12.5
0.0
41.7
17.5
SuSIE
34.7
45.5
6.9
40.2
31.9
GHIL-Glue
54.2
48.6
11.1
47.2
40.3
OpenVLA
4.2
0.0
0.0
12.5
4.2
OpenVLA+GIFT
9.7
0.0
0.0
31.7
10.4
Table 2: Evaluation results on the WidowX robot in the SIMPLER Visual Matching setting. Four tasks are: (1) Put spoon on towel (2) Put carrot on plate (3) Stack green block on yellow block and (4) Put eggplant in yellow basket. Each task is evaluated 3 times.
Method
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Avg.
Diffusion Policy
78.3
92.5
68.3
50.5
72.4
Octo-Base
78.9
85.7
84.6
51.1
75.1
TraceVLA
84.6
85.2
75.1
54.1
74.8
OpenVLA
84.7
88.4
79.2
53.7
76.5
OpenVLA+GIFT
89.5
90.6
88.6
56.0
81.2
Table 3: Evaluation results on the Franka Emika Panda robot in the LIBERO benchmark across four task suites: Spatial, Object, Goal, and Long-horizon tasks.
Figure 4: Real-world deployment setup and evaluation results. Left: Real-world experimental environment. Right: Task performance comparison between π0.5 and the variant with GIFT across ID and OOD scenarios.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of visual editing results across various goal-directed manipulation tasks, comparing our method with existing approaches (SuSIE and Ghil-Glue). From top to bottom, the rows show: the instruction, the initial state, the edited result generated by SuSIE, Ghil-Glue, our method, and the ground-truth (GT) image.
Figure 6: Qualitative comparison among the baseline, GIFT (Ours), and CoT-VLA on the task “put the carrot on the plate,” where both GIFT and CoT-VLA are trained on the same baseline for only a single epoch.
Figure 7: Ablation study results. (a) shows the effect of Observation-structure Injection on visual editing. (b) presents quantitative comparisons on SIMPLER Visual Matching across four configurations: baseline, GIFT without Semantic Contrast, GIFT with ZeroConv replaced by FiLM, and GIFT.
Task
Degraded
SuSIE
Turbo
Ours
GT Goal
Grasp
52.1
66.7
80.0
87.6
90.3
Move
45.7
55.9
79.6
88.4
88.9
Drawer
25.5
29.6
70.9
71.7
75.3
Place
41.1
35.6
72.1
75.9
80.5
Stack
10.6
0.0
38.3
41.1
52.5
Spatial
50.4
48.6
85.6
89.5
89.9
Table 4: Comparison of GIFT success rates (%) under varying goal image qualities. Evaluated tasks span across the SIMPLER (first five rows) and LIBERO (last four rows) benchmarks. The GIFT injection module is fixed across all settings.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
BridgeDataset V2
Fractal
LIBERO
CogACT
24.0
43.2
–
OpenVLA
24.0
44.5
9.6
SpatialVLA
20.0
36.0
–
Appendix
Table 5: Training time (hours) for a single epoch across different datasets with 4 NVIDIA L20 GPUs.
Figure 8: Qualitative results on the SIMPLER simulation with the WidowX robot. Each row illustrates a manipulation task, showing the initial state, the goal image, and intermediate execution frames. Our method generates semantically accurate and visually coherent goal images that align with the task instruction, effectively guiding the robot through various object-centric tasks such as precise placement, stacking, and goal-oriented repositioning.
Figure 9: Visualizations of our model’s performance across four representative tasks in the LIBERO simulation environment. Each row corresponds to a specific task instruction from one of the four LIBERO suites (Spatial, Object, Goal, and Long). For each task, we show the initial observation, the edited goal image and several intermediate execution frames. Our proposed model demonstrates the ability to produce semantically meaningful goals and successfully guide the robot through multi-step manipulation sequences.
Figure 10: Qualitative real-robot rollouts under in-domain (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) lighting conditions. We show two tasks, “pick up the bottle” and “put the bottle into the basket”. Each row visualizes a sequence of third-view observations during policy execution. The robot successfully completes both tasks under ID lighting and maintains robust goal-directed behavior under dim OOD lighting.
Figure 11: Qualitative results on the SIMPLER simulation environment using the Google Robot. Each row corresponds to a manipulation task evaluated under both Visual Matching (VM) and Variant Aggregation (VA) settings. For each task, we visualize the initial observation, the goal image edited and intermediate execution frames.
Modalities
Epochs
Grasp
Stack
Stability
V + L
–
80.8
15.0
–
V + L + G
1
86.9
43.1
Stable
V + G
1
0.0
0.0
Unstable
Appendix
Table 6: Input-modality ablation on representative SIMPLER tasks. Removing language instructions severely degrades performance even when goal images are provided, indicating that language remains essential for stable goal-aware adaptation.
Task
Seed 42
Seed 22
Seed 62
Mean ± Std
Grasp
87.9
88.3
87.0
87.7±0.5
Move
86.9
85.7
86.1
86.2±0.6
Drawer
64.7
62.9
63.0
63.5±0.8
Appendix
Table 7: Robustness of GIFT to the stochasticity of goal-image generation under three random seeds in the SIMPLER Visual Matching setting. The performance remains highly consistent across seeds, with standard deviations below 1% on all tasks.
Model
Params
Trainable
FLOPs
Mem
Step Time
Edit
Steps (B / G)
Ep. Cost (B / G)
Overhead
π0.5
3B+20M
100M
0.85T
7.3G
73ms+2ms
4.2s
52.4 / 50.8
6.45s / 10.55s
+63.7%
CogACT
7B+72M
150M
4.32T
15.8G
156ms+4ms
4.2s
85.3 / 77.5
14.16s / 17.38s
+22.7%
OpenVLA
7B+72M
200M
4.29T
15.5G
75ms+4ms
4.2s
125.5 / 113.6
10.67s / 14.31s
+34.1%
SpatialVLA
4B+10M
630M
1.94T
8.5G
97ms+4ms
4.2s
99.7 / 95.3
10.67s / 14.78s
+38.5%
Appendix
Table 8: System-level computational overhead of GIFT across baseline policies. Profiling is conducted on a single NVIDIA L20 GPU in bf16 precision. Params” and Step Time” report base model costs plus GIFT’s overhead. B / G” denotes Base / GIFT. Edit” is a one-time per-episode cost.
Figure 12: Qualitative results of edited goal images generated by our method ( Ours ) across diverse manipulation tasks from our test dataset. Each column represents a distinct task, with the initial state shown in the first row. Our framework successfully produces visually and semantically aligned goal states, preserving spatial and object-specific cues necessary for grounding manipulation actions, even under complex instructions and cluttered scenes.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have recently emerged as a promising paradigm for robotic manipulation, in which reliable action prediction critically depends on accurately interpreting and integrating visual observations conditioned on language instructions. Although recent works have sought to enhance the visual capabilities of VLA models, most approaches treat the LLM backbone as a black box, providing limited insight into how visual information is grounded into action generation. Therefore, we perform a systematic analysis of multiple VLA models across different action-generation paradigms and observe that sensitivity to visual tokens progressively decreases in deeper layers during action generation. Motivated by this observation, we propose DeepVision-VLA, built on a Vision-Language Mixture-of-Transformers (VL-MoT) framework. This framework enables shared attention between the vision foundation model and the VLA backbone, injecting multi-level visual features from the vision expert into deeper layers of the VLA backbone to enhance visual representations for precise and complex manipulation. In addition, we introduce Action-Guided Visual Pruning (AGVP), which leverages shallow-layer attention to prune irrelevant visual tokens while preserving task-relevant ones, reinforcing critical visual cues for manipulation with minimal computational overhead. DeepVision-VLA outperforms prior state-of-the-art methods by 9.0% and 7.5% on simulated and real-world tasks, respectively, providing new insights for the design of visually enhanced VLA models.
Yulin Luo, Hao Chen, Zhuangzhe Wu +10
State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Simplexity Robotics
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models that couple pretrained Vision-Language Models (VLMs) with continuous action experts have achieved strong manipulation performance, yet generalization to out-of-distribution (OOD) language instructions remains poor. A known challenge is the structural imbalance in VLA data, where language is far less diverse than visual and action content, making policies prone to visual shortcuts. While discrete-action methods mitigate this through vision-language co-training, continuous action experts lack such protection: they start from random initialization and learn entirely from imbalanced data, producing noisy gradients that corrupt the VLM and fail to exploit its language capability. We address this from a Bayesian perspective, factorizing the policy into a language-agnostic Vision-Action (VA) prior and a language-conditioned VLA likelihood, and propose APT, a two-stage training method emphasizing Action expert PreTraining. In Stage 1, the action expert is pretrained as a VA prior on vision-action pairs from a frozen VLM, bypassing the language imbalance. In Stage 2, language tokens are injected through a gated fusion mechanism that integrates VLM features while preserving the learned visuomotor prior. APT applies to mainstream VLA architectures, including the π and GR00T-style architectures. Comprehensive experiments validate that APT achieves consistent gains on unseen instructions and compositional tasks. Project Page: https://xukechun.github.io/papers/APT/
Kechun Xu, Zhenjie Zhu, Anzhe Chen +2
Zhejiang University · Zhejiang Humanoid Robot Innovation Center
A fine-tuned Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policy can easily place the alphabet soup in the basket on command, just as it saw during fine-tuning. However, if the basket is shifted five centimeters to the left, it drops the soup off the table. We developed an interpretability pipeline to investigate what such a policy is computing. Injecting task A's activations into the action expert while the policy looks at task B's scene makes pi0.5 execute task A's motor trajectory in 99.6% of episodes (n=1,968). The injected program is bound to absolute workspace coordinates and ignores the visible scene, which provides a mechanistic account of the perturbation brittleness that concurrent benchmarks report. The binding holds on a physical UR10e: directed replay redirects the commanded task in 26/26 rollouts in one direction and 18/26 in the other, with no-injection and random-direction controls at the floor, and once the source object is moved 10--15,cm the arm grasps and releases at the recorded coordinates in 50/50 trials, picking up the wrong block when one sits there and closing on empty air when none does. Applying the same interventions to six VLAs on LIBERO, MetaWorld, SimplerEnv, and ALOHA over 420{,}000+ rollouts yields three further findings: every architecture encodes the instruction, and four of the five weight it below vision whenever the scene alone identifies the goal; under the standard replacement write-back the SAE pooling that preserves behavior is architecture-specific (pi0.5 per-token, X-VLA mean-pool, SmolVLA indifferent), and goal selection and motor generation separate into VLM and expert pathways wherever the two are distinguishable. We release Action Atlas (https://action-atlas.com), an interactive platform covering all 520+ trained SAEs, 79 identified concepts, and the scored UR10e rollouts. Code: https://github.com/CWRU-AISM/action-atlas