Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have shown strong potential for robotic manipulation, but many existing methods still rely on direct mappings from language and visual observations to dense actions. This formulation can weaken the semantic reasoning capability inherited from pre-trained Vision-Language Models (VLMs), which are mainly optimized for visual-linguistic understanding rather than low-level control, and becomes fragile under spatial variations, including changes in object positions, scene layouts, robot embodiments, and camera viewpoints. To address these limitations, we propose H-VLA, a hierarchical VLA framework that decouples high-level key-action reasoning from low-level motion generation. H-VLA combines a Key-Action Model for predicting a key-action as the next manipulation subgoal, a Motion Planning Model for generating dense future actions conditioned on the predicted key-action, and a Unified Camera-Centric Action Space for consistent representation across datasets, embodiments, and viewpoints. We further adopt a two-stage training strategy that emphasizes key-action reasoning during pre-training and dense motion generation during fine-tuning. Experiments show that H-VLA achieves strong performance on SimplerEnv, reaching 91% on Google Robot visual matching, 84% on Google Robot variant aggregation, and 81% on WidowX visual matching. On Agilex real-robot tasks, H-VLA improves over the strongest baseline by 10, 47, and 16 percentage points under in-distribution, out-of-distribution position, and out-of-distribution scene/object settings, respectively.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: H-VLA: A hierarchical vision-language-action framework for cross-embodiment robot manipulation. (a) Given third-person RGB observations, optional wrist-view observations, language instructions, and current end-effector states, H-VLA first predicts a structured manipulation key-action through a Key-Action Model and then generates future frame-by-frame actions through a Motion Planning Model. A unified camera-centric action space standardizes representations across heterogeneous embodiments and datasets. (b) H-VLA employs a two-stage training strategy, including Key-Action-Centric Pre-training and Motion-Planning-Oriented Fine-tuning. (c) H-VLA achieves strong performance across simulation and real-robot benchmarks.
Figure 2: Detailed architecture of H-VLA using the dual-arm task “tighten the cap of the bottle” as an example. Given third-person RGB observations, wrist-view observations, language instructions, and current end-effector (EEF) states, a pre-trained VLM extracts the cognition feature from a learnable action token and global visual features from the class (CLS) token. Wrist-view observations are encoded by the vision encoder shared with the VLM, and the availability of left and right wrist cameras is indicated by a wrist-camera mask. The Key-Action Model predicts a structured camera-frame end-effector key-action representing the next manipulation subgoal, while the Motion Planning Model generates dense future action chunks in the same camera-centric action space conditioned on the predicted key-action, cognition feature, global visual feature, wrist-view visual features, and current end-effector state.
Google Robot (VM)
Google Robot (VA)
WidowX (VM)
Policy
Coke Can
Move Near
Open/ Close
Drawer+ Apple
Avg
Coke Can
Move Near
Open/ Close
Drawer+ Apple
Avg
Spoon Towel
Carrot Plate
Stack
Eggplant Basket
Avg
† RT-1-X [ 37 ] (PT)
59%
33%
56%
17%
41%
49%
33%
29%
10%
30%
4%
8%
0%
0%
3%
‡ RT-2-X [ 37 ] (PT)
79%
78%
25%
4%
46%
82%
79%
35%
21%
54%
–
–
–
–
–
† Octo [ 44 ] (PT)
18%
4%
24%
0%
11%
1%
4%
1%
0%
1%
4%
8%
0%
38%
13%
† OpenVLA [ 23 ] (PT)
14%
51%
48%
0%
28%
64%
64%
19%
1%
37%
4%
0%
0%
4%
2%
‡ EMMA-X [ 43 ] (PT)
2%
3%
18%
–
–
5%
7%
21%
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Table 1: Task-wise SimplerEnv success rates. For Google Robot, we report Visual Matching (VM) and Variant Aggregation (VA); for WidowX, we report VM. The best result in each column is shown in bold. Methods with missing task results are marked as – and are not compared on the corresponding average. Task names are abbreviated. PT: pre-training only; FT: fine-tuning after robot-policy pre-training; T: downstream training without robot-data pre-training. π0∗ refers to open-pi-zero. † : evaluated by us; ‡ : reported in prior work.
ID
OOD Position
OOD Scene/Object
Policy
PickBottles
HandOver
LiftPot
Avg
PickBottles
HandOver
LiftPot
Avg
PickBottles
HandOver
LiftPot
Avg
CogACT [ 27 ]
47%
53%
50%
50%
20%
33%
20%
24%
–
–
–
–
MolmoAct2 [ 13 ]
80%
60%
70%
70%
53%
13%
40%
36%
–
–
–
–
π0 [ 3 ]
60%
100%
90%
83%
33%
30%
30%
31%
37%
23%
72%
44%
π0.5 [ 20 ]
85%
80%
80%
82%
23%
37%
33%
31%
47%
37%
67%
50%
H-VLA (Ours)
100%
90%
90%
93%
77%
93%
80%
83%
73%
63%
61%
66%
Table 2: Real-robot success rates on the Agilex dual-arm benchmark under in-distribution (ID), out-of-distribution (OOD) position shifts, and out-of-distribution (OOD) scene/object shifts.
Model Size
Pretraining
Inference
Policy
VLM
KAM
AM/MPM
Total
Robot Data
Precision
VLM
KAM
AM/MPM
Total
Chunk
π0 [ 3 ]
3.0B
–
300M
3.3B
>1000 K
BF16 (mixed)
49 ms
–
22 ms
73 ms
50
π0.5 [ 20 ]
3.0B
–
300M
3.3B
>1000 K
BF16 (mixed)
48 ms
–
24 ms
73 ms
50
MolmoAct2 [ 13 ]
4.9B
–
621M
5.5B
>300 K
BF16
90 ms
–
320 ms
420 ms
30
CogACT [ 27 ]
7.5B
–
89M
7.6B
≥400 K
BF16
57 ms
–
18 ms
76 ms
16
H-VLA (Ours)
7.5B
89M
89M
7.7B
183K
BF16
54 ms
17 ms
17 ms
103 ms
16
Table 3: Model size, robot pre-training data, and RTX 4090 inference latency. Robot data are reported in trajectories (K: thousands); > and ≥ denote conservative estimates or lower bounds. KAM: Key-Action Model; AM/MPM: Action Model/Motion Planning Model. Total denotes end-to-end latency; for H-VLA, it also includes left/right wrist-RGB encoding that is not included in the VLM/KAM/MPM module times. Chunk is the training action-chunk length and the maximum per-query inference horizon.
Google Robot (VM)
Google Robot (VA)
WidowX (VM)
Variant
Coke Can
Move Near
Open/ Close
Drawer+ Apple
Avg
Coke Can
Move Near
Open/ Close
Drawer+ Apple
Avg
Spoon Towel
Carrot Plate
Stack
Eggplant Basket
Avg
H-VLA (w/o Stage-2 FT)
75%
68%
74%
73%
73%
77%
36%
63%
21%
49%
50%
63%
13%
88%
53%
H-VLA
98%
90%
80%
98%
91%
98%
85%
79%
72%
84%
96%
88%
58%
83%
81%
w/o MPT+TST
98%
91%
72%
80%
85%
94%
84%
83%
63%
81%
71%
83%
42%
100%
74%
w/o MPT+TST+CC
91%
72%
69%
38%
68%
93%
70%
39%
33%
59%
71%
63%
42%
96%
68%
w/o MPT+TST+CC+KA
95%
59%
53%
18%
56%
93%
68%
45%
34%
60%
58%
54%
13%
92%
54%
Table 4: Task-wise ablation results on SimplerEnv [ 29 ] under the SimplerEnv evaluation setup. MPT denotes mixed single-/dual-arm pre-training, TST denotes two-stage training, CC denotes the unified camera-centric action space, and KA denotes the Key-Action Model.
Figure 3: Qualitative visualization of predicted key-actions on five representative single-arm and dual-arm simulation and real-robot tasks. H-VLA predicts task-relevant key-actions for diverse manipulation primitives, including picking, opening, placing, and closing.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Episodes
Tasks
Embodiment
Arm Type
3rd-Person
Wrist
Used Episodes
RoboCOIN Cobot Magic
20k
54
Agilex Robot
Dual-Arm
Yes
Yes
14k
DROID
76k
86
Franka Robot
Single-Arm
Yes
Yes
22k
BridgeDataV2
60k
13 Skills
WidowX Robot
Single-Arm
Yes
No
60k
FractalData
87k
700+
Google Robot
Single-Arm
Yes
No
87k
Agilex Real Data
150
3
Agilex Robot
Dual-Arm
Yes
Yes
150
Appendix
Table 5: Dataset statistics used in H-VLA. The 3rd-Person and Wrist columns indicate the visual streams used by H-VLA after dataset preprocessing.
PnP self-calibration using FK-derived gripper poses and image annotations
Appendix
Table 6: Camera configurations and calibration sources used by H-VLA after preprocessing.
Figure 4: Ground-truth key-action visualization on RoboCOIN Cobot Magic. Green dashed boxes indicate correctly identified key-actions, while red dashed boxes and red arrows indicate failure cases.
Figure 5: Ground-truth key-action visualization on DROID. Green dashed boxes indicate correctly identified key-actions, while red dashed boxes and red arrows indicate failure cases.
Figure 6: Ground-truth key-action visualization on BridgeDataV2. Green dashed boxes indicate correctly identified key-actions, while red dashed boxes and red arrows indicate failure cases.
Figure 7: Ground-truth key-action visualization on FractalData. Green dashed boxes indicate correctly identified key-actions, while red dashed boxes and red arrows indicate failure cases.
Figure 8: Ground-truth key-action visualization on Agilex Real Data. Green dashed boxes indicate correctly identified key-actions, while red dashed boxes and red arrows indicate failure cases.
Short Name
Full Task Name
VM
VA
Coke Can
Pick Coke Can
300
825
Move Near
Move Near
240
600
Open/Close
Open/Close Drawer
216
378
Drawer+Apple
Open Top Drawer and Place Apple
108
189
Spoon Towel
Put Spoon on Towel
24
–
Carrot Plate
Put Carrot on Plate
24
–
Appendix
Table 7: Task-name mapping and number of evaluation trials in the SimplerEnv benchmark sweep used for our evaluations. Google Robot tasks are evaluated under both VM and VA settings, while WidowX Robot tasks are evaluated under VM only.
Task
SimplerEnv Success Stop
X-VLA Success Stop
SimplerEnv Steps
X-VLA Steps
SimplerEnv Trials
X-VLA Trials
Coke Can
No
Yes
80
80×2
VM(300)+VA(825)
VM(300)+VA(825)
Move Near
No
Yes
80
80×2
VM(240)+VA(600)
VM(240)+VA(600)
Open/Close
No
Yes
113
113×2
VM(216)+VA(378)
VM(216)+VA(210)
Drawer+Apple
No
Yes
200
200×2
VM(108)+VA(189)
VM(108)+VA(189)
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison between the SimplerEnv evaluation setup and the X-VLA-modified configuration on Google Robot tasks. X-VLA enables success-triggered early termination, doubles the maximum episode horizon, and changes the Open/Close Drawer VA trial count from 378 to 210.
Task
SimplerEnv Success Stop
X-VLA Success Stop
SimplerEnv Steps
X-VLA Steps
Camera Transform
Spoon Towel
No
Yes
60
1200
Default
Carrot Plate
No
Yes
60
1200
Default
Stack
No
Yes
60
1200
Default
Eggplant Basket
No
Yes
60
1200
Modified by X-VLA
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison between the SimplerEnv evaluation setup and the X-VLA-modified configuration on WidowX Robot tasks. X-VLA enables success-triggered early termination, increases the maximum episode horizon from 60 to 1200 steps, and modifies the robot-base-to-camera transform for Eggplant Basket.
Figure 9: Key-action visualization on Google Robot. We select one short-horizon task and one long-horizon task to illustrate the predicted key-actions at different task phases.
Figure 10: Key-action visualization on WidowX Robot. The cube stacking task requires high precision and fine-grained spatial reasoning.
Component
Model / Configuration
Description
Robot platform
Agilex Cobot Magic-style platform
Dual-arm tabletop manipulation setup
Manipulation arms
Agilex PiPER arms
Two 6-DoF follower arms for policy execution
Teleoperation arms
Agilex PiPER arms
Two leader arms for demonstration collection
End-effectors
Parallel grippers
Used for grasping, handover, and lifting
Third-person camera
Orbbec-DABAI RGB-D camera
Global workspace observation
Wrist cameras
Two Orbbec-DABAI RGB-D cameras
Local left/right arm observations
Appendix
Table 10: Hardware configuration of the Agilex real-robot evaluation platform.
Figure 11: Agilex dual-arm robot platform used in the real-world experiments. The setup consists of two follower robot arms, two leader arms for teleoperation, one third-person RGB camera, two wrist-mounted RGB cameras, and a tabletop manipulation workspace.
Models
Setting
PickBottles
HandOver
LiftPot
Total
H-VLA / π0 / π0.5
ID
20
20
20
60
OOD Position
30
30
30
90
OOD Scene/Object
30
30
18
78
CogACT / MolmoAct2
ID
15
15
10
40
OOD Position
15
15
10
40
OOD Scene/Object
–
–
–
–
Appendix
Table 11: Number of real-robot evaluation trials per model and setting.
ID
OOD Position
OOD Scene/Object
Policy
PickBottles
HandOver
LiftPot
Avg
PickBottles
HandOver
LiftPot
Avg
PickBottles
HandOver
LiftPot
Avg
CogACT [ 27 ]
7/15
8/15
5/10
50%
3/15
5/15
2/10
24%
–
–
–
–
MolmoAct2 [ 13 ]
12/15
9/15
7/10
70%
8/15
2/15
4/10
36%
–
–
–
–
π0 [ 3 ]
12/20
20/20
18/20
83%
10/30
9/30
9/30
31%
11/30
7/30
13/18
44%
π0.5 [ 20 ]
17/20
16/20
16/20
82%
7/30
11/30
10/30
31%
14/30
11/30
12/18
50%
H-VLA
20/20
18/20
18/20
93%
23/30
28/30
24/30
83%
22/30
19/30
11/18
66%
Appendix
Table 12: Success counts on the Agilex real-robot benchmark. Each entry reports successful trials over total trials. The average is the mean of the three task success rates, matching the main paper. Dashes indicate settings that were not evaluated. The best result in each column is shown in bold.
Figure 12: Key-action visualization on the Agilex robot. In the examples shown, the key-actions predicted for both the left and right arms are consistent with the intended manipulation stages.
Vision-language-action models (VLAs) have shown strong promise for general-purpose robotic manipulation by mapping language instructions and vision observations directly to actions. However, most VLAs primarily condition action prediction on current observations and lack an explicit mechanism for reasoning over future task dynamics, which is particularly important for fine-grained, contact-rich manipulation. We present PHR-VLA, a framework that enables planning-horizon reasoning in VLAs through privileged latent representations of future dynamics. PHR-VLA introduces a lightweight auxiliary future head that, during training, aligns the VLA's internal representations with latent dynamics extracted from future observations. Evaluation results demonstrate that local, contact-centric, patch-level latent dynamics supervision from the wrist camera improves success rate on LIBERO from 84.1% to 88.4% and on real-world disassembly tasks from 63.3% to 82.5%. Patch-level supervision from a third-person camera also improves performance on Meta-World from 56.70% to 57.8%. These results demonstrate that privileged latent dynamics alignment provides an effective training signal for improving anticipatory reasoning in VLA policies. Project website: https://davoodsz.github.io/PHR-VLA.github.io/
J. Mike Walker ’66 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA · Department of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA · Zachry Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 USA
Most Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models map observations directly to actions without explicit reasoning, limiting their capacity for reasoning-intensive long-horizon tasks. To address this, existing approaches adopt Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning to enable subgoal decomposition and spatial anticipation. However, those methods lack a unified architecture for effective cross-modal reasoning and fail to explicitly include inverse reasoning ability based on the target state. We argue that manipulation planning naturally decomposes into prediction, anticipating the next visual state, and inverse dynamics, inferring the actions to reach it. Bridging both requires a unified autoregressive architecture that interleaves textual and visual reasoning in a single generation process. We propose \textbf{ThinkingVLA}, a generative model that realizes this decomposition within a unified Mixture-of-Transformers architecture. ThinkingVLA consists of a forward CoT that identifies the immediate subgoal and guides the visual forecasting; the predicted image then serves as the target state, grounding an inverse CoT that reasons about spatial relationships and action intent based on the predicted image; and the final action is generated conditioned on this full reasoning context. Extensive experiments on simulation and real-world benchmarks demonstrate that ThinkingVLA consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, with particularly large gains on long-horizon manipulation tasks.
Tianyi Lu, Hui Zhang, Zijie Diao +8
Fudan University · Shanghai Innovation Institue · China Unicom +1
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have become the dominant recipe for generalist manipulation, yet they are almost universally trained by behavior cloning: a policy imitates expert action chunks conditioned on a static image and a fixed instruction. A natural remedy is to inject explicit reasoning through textual chain-of-thought (CoT). We show, both empirically and analytically, that free-form textual CoT degrades low-level control: the reasoning it produces is ungrounded, its latency breaks closed-loop timing, and, crucially, the reasoning and action tokens are optimized against conflicting objectives so that the policy learns to narrate rather than to act. We argue that what a VLA needs is not the ability to generate language, but the ability to consume grounded language. To this end we introduce \textbf{\ourmethod{}}, a framework that endows a VLA with language competence through (i) in-context post-training, in which perceptual evidence is injected as structured context and the model is supervised only on actions, and (ii) an agentic tool-use interface, in which the policy queries open-vocabulary detectors, monocular depth, and a vision--language model to actively acquire task-relevant information. Rather than emitting a single templated caption, our data engine produces diverse, paraphrased, and evidence-conditioned spatial descriptions, so that the policy learns to interpret language it has never seen verbatim. Across the RoboCasa-GR1, SimplerEnv, and LIBERO simulation benchmarks, together with 8 real-world robot manipulation tasks, our method consistently achieves SOTA results in both performance and efficiency when compared with CoT-based approaches under matched configurations.
Jiarui Yang, Wen Huang, Jiale Zhang +2
Nankai University · Tsinghua University · Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL)