Simulation enables scalable training of Vision-Language-Action policies by using privileged experts to generate visual demonstrations without requiring every trajectory to be collected through manual teleoperation. However, such pipelines typically retain successful demonstrations while failed rollouts are discarded, even though they expose precisely the off-nominal states from which recovery must be learned. We introduce Kintsugi-VLA, a framework for converting failed rollouts into targeted synthetic recovery data by exploiting exact state restoration and branching in simulation. For a fixed privileged expert, we define interventional recoverability as the probability of completing the original task after the simulator is restored to a given state, estimate it using adaptive Monte Carlo continuations with pointwise Wilson intervals, and characterize its non-monotonic evolution along failed trajectories. These estimates identify an observed terminal low-recoverability frontier-the point after which measured recoverability remains below a threshold-which is then used to select informative recovery starting states. In a simulated Franka manipulation task, targeted recovery data yield aggregate SmolVLA recovery success of 34.6% and 38.4% under difficulty- and frame-budget matching, respectively, 5.8 and 6.7 percentage points above uniform sampling within the same recovery window. The same ordering is observed under disturbed end-to-end execution and shifted clutter and physics conditions, while clean-task success decreases from 76.8% to 74.7%. Kintsugi-VLA demonstrates how failed simulator rollouts can be transformed from discarded experience into structured recovery-training data through direct interventional measurement.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Failed rollouts as recovery-data sources. Kintsugi-VLA restores saved simulator states and repeatedly tests expert continuations to identify states suitable for synthetic recovery demonstrations.
Fig. 2: Kintsugi-VLA method overview. Saved simulator states are restored and branched under a privileged expert. Recoverability measurements guide recovery-data collection, followed by difficulty- and frame-budget-matched VLA comparisons.
Fig. 3: Schematic expert-relative recoverability curve. A recovery island follows an earlier threshold crossing, while the frontier precedes the terminal suffix whose upper interval endpoints remain below τ . Shading is illustrative, not a simultaneous confidence band.
Profile
Static friction
Dynamic friction
Mass multiplier
High friction
1.25–1.35
1.05–1.15
1.00–1.20
Heavy object
0.70–0.90
0.55–0.75
1.55–1.70
TABLE I: Protocol G physics profiles. Friction coefficients and mass multipliers are dimensionless; target scale is 1.23.
Fig. 4: Protocol G calibration pool. Bin assignment uses 15 trials per state; the frozen evaluation set contains 30 states from each hard, medium, and easy bin.
Fig. 5: Historical trajectory structure across 127 failed episodes at τ=0.2 . Categories overlap; non-monotonicity uses the separated-rise criterion in Sec. III .
Training seed
Nominal success
Probe recovery
42
200/200
630/1280 (49.2%)
1234
201/201
701/1280 (54.8%)
2026
201/201
689/1280 (53.8%)
TABLE II: Historical teacher acceptance and recovery probe. Each probe uses five attempts from 256 shared states.
Fig. 6: Teacher dependence on the same 256-state probe. Bars show state-wise Spearman correlation and binary agreement at τ=0.2 .
Clutter seed
Profile
States
Ordinary
Recovery
20261706
HF
12
4/4
46/60
20261706
HO
12
4/4
40/60
20261707
HF
12
4/4
50/60
20261707
HO
12
3/4
43/60
20261708
HF
12
4/4
38/60
20261708
HO
12
4/4
40/60
TABLE III: Protocol G teacher outcomes. HF: high friction; HO: heavy object. Recovery uses five attempts per frozen state.
Fig. 7: Protocol G teacher recovery on the frozen balanced set. Each difficulty bin contains 30 states with five evaluation attempts per state; bin assignment uses separate calibration trials.
Protocol A
Protocol B
Protocol G
Variant
Difficulty
Frames
Disturbed
Clean
Recovery
V0
12.5
12.5
55.7
76.8
9.6
V1
25.9
28.8
58.6
75.8
22.1
V2
28.8
31.7
59.5
75.8
25.0
V3
34.6
38.4
63.4
74.7
28.8
TABLE IV: Closed-loop VLA success (%). Bold values indicate the highest aggregate rate in each column.