Anatomy of a Closed-Loop Collapse: A Causal Case Study of a Compressed VLA Policy
Organizations: The Ohio State University · The Ohio State University Columbus, OH, USA
Abstract
Compressed manipulation policies can pass offline evaluation while failing in closed-loop execution; this dissociation is established in prior work and is not our claim. We contribute a causal anatomy of one naturally occurring case. An 8-layer distillation of Octo-Base retains 86% of parameters, passes every offline check we applied (0.996 and 1.000 teacher-ratios on the family's own validation metrics), and collapses in closed loop: 0/72 vs. the teacher's 40/72 on a simulated WidowX pick-and-place task. The collapse is structured, not diffuse: early task stages degrade gradually (the student moves the object at 90% of the teacher's rate and grasps at 55%), while transport-to-target fails categorically, at 0% in every training variant. Paired action-trace forensics isolate the signature: a negative, late-heavy residual, roughly 10x its post-repair magnitude, and persistent across the base distillation and both continuation branches. Four standard therapies fail under matched controls: continued training and in-domain offline data leave success at zero, even though the latter measurably improves marginal action statistics; command-level compensation recovers nothing at any offset, although the same perturbations degrade healthy policies; clamping the symptom in the command channel preserves grasping, yet success stays at floor. A minimal-pair intervention that substitutes half of the training stream with deployment-distribution teacher rollouts, with every other setting held fixed, restores parity with the teacher (18/36 vs. 17/36 held-out), eliminates that signature, and recovers a teacher-like perturbation-response profile. We claim existence, not universality. Operationally, offline gates, including a family's own validation metrics, are insufficient acceptance tests for compressed policies; a few dozen closed-loop trials sufficed to find what they missed.
Figures & tables
| Policy | Succ. | Moved | Grasp | Sust. | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher (12L) | 15/24 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 15 |
| Student V1 (8L, 300k) | 0/24 | 18 | 11 | 11 | 0 |
| +5k OXE (Step 0) | 0/24 | 19 | 16 | 13 | 0 |
| +5k Bridge (Step 1) | 0/24 | 20 | 12 | 10 | 0 |
| Policy | Early | Mid | Late | Full |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Student V1 (8L, 300k) | ||||
| +5k OXE (Step 0) | ||||
| +5k Bridge (Step 1) | ||||
| Repaired (step 8k) |
| Hypothesis | Decisive test | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| H1 Same-data continuation is sufficient | Step 0: continue, same data | Not supported at tested budgets (0/24; 0/36) |
| H2 Tested offline task-domain augmentation is sufficient | Step 1: add Bridge data | Insufficient (marginals move; success stays 0/24) |
| H3 Fixed additive bias in the command channel | -offset sweep | Excluded over tested offsets (no recovery; healthy policies degrade) |
| H4 Suppressing the negative command is sufficient | Phase-gated command clamp | Falsified (grasp retained; success at floor) |
| H5 State-conditional policy deficiency in the deployment regime | Rollout-data minimal pair (Sec. VI) | Supported (bundle sufficient; active component unresolved) |
| H6 Failure solely from simulator physics | Teacher control; in-sim repair | Constrained (Sec. VII) |
| Deeper intervention: training supervision |
| Deployment-rollout substitution Replace half of each batch with successful teacher rollouts ( ). Held-out success returns to teacher parity: vs. . The matched zero-rollout control ( ) remains at floor. Rollout bundle sufficient; active component unresolved. |
| Offline task-domain augmentation Add Bridge data through the Step 1 dual-stream schedule. Gripper and rotation marginals change, but success remains . Observed marginal-statistics improvements are insufficient. |
| Same-data continuation Continue training on the unchanged OXE mixture: k steps gives , and k steps gives . Additional same-data training is insufficient at tested budgets. |
| Fixed additive offset | |||||||
| Policy | 0 | .002 | .004 | .006 | .008 | .012 | .020 |
| Teacher (12L) | 19 | 16 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Repaired (8k) | 22 | 22 | 14 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zero-control (8k) | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Student V1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Selection | Held-out | Held-out | |
| Policy | success | success | grasp |
| Student V1 (8L, 300k) | 1/36 | 0/36 | 17/36 |
| Teacher (12L) | 19/36 | 17/36 | 30/36 |
| Repaired, step 6k | 20/36 | 20/36 | 34/36 |
| Repaired, step 8k † | 24/36 | 18/36 | 34/36 |
| Repaired, step 10k | 20/36 | 21/36 | 33/36 |
Robotic Policy Evaluation
Robotic policy evaluation measures whether learned controllers succeed reliably, generalize across conditions, recover from failures, and behave safely.
See all 125 papers