Vision-language-action (VLA) policies commonly learn action chunks through a fixed left-to-right (LTR) factorization, although the same expert trajectory distribution admits many valid chain-rule factorizations. We identify factorization order as an overlooked regularization choice and introduce causally anchored permutation (CAP), which samples action reveal orders with a tunable chronological prefix. Its auxiliary objective trains one shared policy to predict actions from different known subsets of the same expert chunk, while deployment retains deterministic LTR control. We call this conditional-set augmentation: it creates multiple conditional prediction problems from one expert chunk without adding demonstrations. This discourages reliance on the single chronological prefix used by ordinary teacher forcing. Controlled experiments show that CAP consistently outperforms standard LTR training on LIBERO and LIBERO-Plus, with the same advantage appearing in cross-dataset CALVIN evaluation. A diagnostic that measures the expected squared difference between a chunk's joint log likelihood under two reveal orders verifies that CAP training internalizes agreement across reveal orders. These findings position sampled subset-conditioned auxiliary objectives as a general recipe for constructing VLA regularizers, illustrated by an extension to diffusion action generators.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of PermVLA . Autoregressive VLA training conventionally factorizes each expert action chunk in chronological order, so every action slot is always predicted from the same teacher-forced prefix. PermVLA treats this reveal order as a training-only degree of freedom: the same physical actions are supervised under multiple valid conditioning subsets, while the expert target, action identities, and chronological autoregressive deployment remain unchanged.
Figure 2: PermVLA architecture. A pretrained VLM with a Perceiver-style resampler produces context tokens that condition a two-stream action decoder; the sampled reveal order enters only through the attention masks during training, while deployment always executes a chronological action prefix.
Model
Robot pretraining
Action generator
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Mean
Representative published policies
Diffusion Policy ( Chi et al., 2023 )
None
Diffusion
78.3
92.5
68.3
50.5
72.4
Octo ( Ghosh et al., 2024 )
Yes
Diffusion
78.9
85.7
84.6
51.1
75.1
OpenVLA ( Kim et al., 2025b )
Yes
Token autoregression
84.7
88.4
79.2
53.7
76.5
π0 ( Black et al., 2025b )
Yes
Flow matching
96.8
98.8
95.8
85.2
94.2
SmolVLA-0.45B ( Shukor et al., 2025 )
None
Flow matching
90.0
96.0
92.0
71.0
87.3
Table 1: LIBERO success rate (%). Published rows retain their original protocols. Diffusion Policy and Octo values follow Kim et al. (2025b) , π0 follows Driess et al. (2025) , and the remaining values follow their cited sources. Our rows use suite-specific policies trained for 30k updates and evaluated over 500 episodes per suite. Labels abbreviate configuration values; e.g., M1/H16/O1/E8 denotes M=1,H=16,O=1,e=8 .
Controlled factor
Setting
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Mean
Objective
LTR-1pass
93.8
88.0
62.0
6.4
62.6
LTR-2pass
95.2
65.4
64.8
23.4
62.2
PermVLA reference
95.4
89.4
69.8
32.2
71.7
CAP orders M
4
93.6
87.4
66.0
42.0
72.3
Horizon H
8
88.6
97.0
90.2
34.2
77.5
History O
2
85.0
96.0
75.4
38.4
73.7
Table 2: Objective and temporal comparisons on LIBERO success rate (%). The reference is M=1,H=16,O=1,e=8,K=1,λ=0.25 , 30k updates, seed zero, and 500 episodes per suite. Every non-objective row changes only the named value.
Method
Original
Camera
Robot
Language
Light
Background
Noise
Layout
Published contextual references
OpenVLA
76.5
0.8
3.5
23.0
8.1
34.8
15.2
28.5
π0 -FAST
85.5
65.1
21.6
61.0
73.2
73.2
74.4
68.8
WorldVLA
79.1
0.1
27.9
41.6
43.7
17.1
10.9
38.0
RIPT-VLA
97.5
55.2
31.2
77.6
88.4
91.6
73.5
74.2
Our controlled study
Table 3: Zero-shot LIBERO-Plus success rate (%). “Original” is the corresponding standard-LIBERO score; the remaining columns partition the 10,030 perturbation instances. Published rows are transcribed from Table 2 of Fei et al. (2026) under their published protocols. We retain representative token, regression, and fast-action baselines here. Our rows use standard-LIBERO training trajectories and frozen policies.
Method
Avg. length
Success@1
Success@2
Success@3
Success@4
Success@5
External protocol context
Diffusion Policy-CNN ( Reuss et al., 2025 )
1.350
63.5
35.3
19.4
10.7
6.4
OpenVLA ( Kim et al., 2025b ; Xiao et al., 2026 )
3.270
91.3
77.8
62.0
52.1
43.5
Matched Gaussian autoregressive controls
LTR-1pass
1.090
61.0
27.6
12.2
5.9
2.3
LTR-2pass
0.694
40.3
18.4
7.6
2.3
0.8
Table 4: CALVIN ABC → D evaluation on 1,000 fixed five-instruction chains. Success@ k is the percentage completing at least k consecutive instructions. External rows use independently published training and model-selection protocols and provide context; bold denotes the best result within each block.
Appendix figures & tables29 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Backbone
Adaptation
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Mean
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
LoRA-32
95.4
89.4
69.8
32.2
71.7
PaliGemma 2–3B
LoRA-32
90.0
82.8
79.0
23.4
68.8
Appendix
Table 5: Backbone replacement under the fixed CAP M=1,H=16,O=1,e=8 protocol. Entries are 500-episode LIBERO success rates (%).
Objective
M
H
O
e
K
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Mean
Main O=1 configurations
PermVLA
1
8
1
8
1
88.6
97.0
90.2
34.2
77.5
LTR-1pass
1
16
1
8
1
93.8
88.0
62.0
6.4
62.6
LTR-2pass
1
16
1
8
1
95.2
65.4
64.8
23.4
62.2
PermVLA ( λ=.25 )
1
16
1
8
1
95.4
89.4
69.8
32.2
71.7
PermVLA
4
16
1
8
1
93.6
87.4
66.0
42.0
72.3
Appendix
Table 6: Four-suite LIBERO configurations (%). Every row uses 30k updates and 500 evaluation episodes per suite. The O=1 block supports the main controlled analysis; the O=2 block reports the observation-history comparison and the earlier M=4 variants.
Controlled change
Held fixed
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Mean
One-factor comparisons
Objective: LTR-1pass → CAP
M1/H16/O1/E8
+1.6
+1.4
+7.8
+25.8
+9.2
Objective: LTR-2pass → CAP
M1/H16/O1/E8
+0.2
+24.0
+5.0
+8.8
+9.5
Objective: LTR-1pass → CAP
M1/H16/O1/E16
+1.0
+20.4
+13.8
+23.4
+14.7
H:16→8
CAP/M1/O1/E8
-6.8
+7.6
+20.4
+2.0
+5.8
O:1→2
CAP/M1/H16/E8
-10.4
+6.6
+5.6
+6.2
+2.0
Appendix
Table 7: Signed change in LIBERO success rate (percentage points) for four-suite comparisons. Each transition is treatment minus parent. The one-factor panel changes only the parameter named in the first column; the coupled panel is descriptive. Positive values denote improvement and negative values denote regression. The Mean column averages the unrounded suite changes.
Task
CAP ref
Change from CAP reference (percentage points)
LTR-1
LTR-2
H8
O2
CAP/E16
LTR/E16
K0
K8
λ=.50
Between plate/ramekin
100
0
-2
0
0
-2
-2
0
0
-2
Next to ramekin
100
-14
-28
-18
-2
-2
-8
-2
-16
-38
Table center
100
0
0
-2
0
-4
0
0
-2
0
On cookie box
96
+2
+2
-16
+4
+4
-2
0
+2
-2
Top cabinet drawer
80
-2
+10
-4
+2
-18
-16
+8
-16
+10
Appendix
Table 8: Task-resolved LIBERO-Spatial comparison (%). Every task places the black bowl on the plate; the first column identifies its initial location.
Task
CAP ref
Change from CAP reference (percentage points)
LTR-1
LTR-2
H8
O2
CAP/E16
LTR/E16
K0
K8
λ=.50
Alphabet soup
82
+16
-34
+18
+4
-24
-6
0
+12
-16
Cream cheese
92
0
-18
+8
+4
+4
+8
-42
-20
+2
Salad dressing
100
-2
-12
0
0
0
-74
-2
-22
0
BBQ sauce
52
+14
-26
+44
+34
-10
-42
-34
+18
-20
Ketchup
82
0
-14
+18
+16
-18
-74
-30
-42
+14
Appendix
Table 9: Task-resolved LIBERO-Object comparison (%). Every task places the named object in the basket.
Task
CAP ref
Change from CAP reference (percentage points)
LTR-1
LTR-2
H8
O2
CAP/E16
LTR/E16
K0
K8
λ=.50
Open middle drawer
62
-44
-34
+26
-4
+24
-12
-16
-18
+20
Bowl → stove
98
+2
+2
+2
+2
0
+2
+2
-6
-4
Wine → cabinet
98
-8
-40
+2
-10
-4
-16
-8
0
-8
Open top drawer + bowl
2
+72
+62
+70
+46
+36
+50
+50
+30
+44
Bowl → cabinet
82
+14
+12
+18
+10
+12
+16
+14
0
+6
Appendix
Table 10: Task-resolved LIBERO-Goal comparison (%). The first column gives a compact form of each language-conditioned goal.
Task
CAP ref
Change from CAP reference (percentage points)
LTR-1
LTR-2
H8
O2
CAP/E16
LTR/E16
K0
K8
λ=.50
Soup + sauce → basket
32
-32
-16
-30
-30
+6
-30
-12
-14
+16
Cream cheese + butter → basket
30
-30
+2
+18
+6
+2
-24
+56
+8
+38
Stove on + moka pot
84
-82
-44
-66
-2
-18
-64
-70
+8
-16
Bowl → drawer + close
60
-60
-26
+8
-18
-12
-56
-26
+16
-26
Two mugs → plates
40
-40
-14
+14
-8
-8
-40
+10
0
+6
Appendix
Table 11: Task-resolved LIBERO-Long comparison (%). The first column summarizes each multi-stage instruction.
Objective
Training configuration
e
Long
PermVLA
M1/H8/O1
4
30.4
PermVLA
M1/H8/O1
8
34.2
PermVLA
M1/H16/O1
8
32.2
PermVLA
M1/H16/O1
16
31.6
PermVLA
M4/H16/O2
4
35.2
PermVLA
M4/H16/O2
8
37.2
Appendix
Table 12: Execution-length ablation on LIBERO Long (%). Within each adjacent configuration block, training and model selection are fixed; only the number of open-loop executed actions e changes.
CAP gradient route
Goal
VLM, resampler, and action decoder
77.0
Action decoder only
74.0
Appendix
Table 13: CAP gradient-routing diagnostic on LIBERO Goal (%). Both rows use M=4,H=16,O=2,e=8 . Decoder-only routing detaches VLM and resampler context for the CAP loss while preserving LTR gradients through all modules.
Suite
Original
Camera
Robot
Language
Light
Background
Noise
Layout
Plus mean
Spatial
88.6
25.5
50.6
84.6
92.8
78.3
32.8
76.9
61.9
Object
97.0
16.4
34.9
97.7
78.8
71.0
19.4
55.3
50.2
Goal
90.2
42.6
39.9
28.0
74.2
44.1
33.2
49.6
43.2
Long
34.2
8.8
13.5
19.1
6.6
12.5
3.8
13.1
10.9
All
77.5
23.3
34.3
56.2
63.9
50.0
21.2
50.6
41.3
Appendix
Table 14: Suite-resolved zero-shot LIBERO-Plus success rate (%) for the H=8,O=1,M=1 PermVLA policy. “Original” is the corresponding standard-LIBERO score. The All row averages Original over suites and aggregates each perturbation family over its official instances.
Suite
Original
Camera
Robot
Language
Light
Background
Noise
Layout
Plus mean
Spatial
95.4
33.2
57.7
87.2
97.3
91.5
35.9
91.4
69.3
Object
89.4
23.2
26.9
93.2
73.4
70.6
27.0
56.1
50.1
Goal
69.8
42.2
27.6
36.1
52.3
29.2
41.4
33.9
37.1
Long
32.2
9.1
16.3
38.1
18.6
17.6
4.2
12.8
16.2
All
71.7
26.7
31.4
62.7
61.2
50.6
26.0
50.0
42.9
Appendix
Table 15: Suite-resolved zero-shot LIBERO-Plus success rate (%) for the matched H=16,O=1,M=1 PermVLA policies deployed with e=8 . Every cell contains a released task-map suite–factor block. The final row aggregates each factor over all four suites, and Plus mean aggregates the full 10,030-instance perturbation partition.
Suite
Original
Camera
Robot
Language
Light
Background
Noise
Layout
Plus mean
Spatial
93.8
33.8
49.4
75.6
89.0
89.9
37.9
81.8
63.9
Object
88.0
19.2
33.7
70.1
78.5
69.4
22.5
62.3
48.0
Goal
62.0
36.0
32.8
21.5
52.7
26.0
24.8
35.1
32.1
Long
6.4
1.2
4.1
4.4
3.3
4.5
0.7
3.8
3.0
All
62.6
22.2
29.5
42.2
56.8
45.5
20.3
47.7
36.4
Appendix
Table 16: Suite-resolved zero-shot LIBERO-Plus success rate (%) for the H=16,O=1 LTR-1pass policies deployed with e=8 . Every cell contains a released task-map suite–factor block. The final row aggregates each factor over its four suite blocks, and Plus mean aggregates the full 10,030-instance perturbation partition.
Suite
Original
Camera
Robot
Language
Light
Background
Noise
Layout
Plus mean
Spatial
95.2
29.3
51.4
83.6
92.1
85.3
34.2
83.1
64.3
Object
65.4
20.5
19.6
66.4
27.3
56.0
32.5
36.7
35.7
Goal
64.8
38.2
26.9
29.3
44.4
30.6
27.2
34.6
32.7
Long
23.4
5.5
8.7
23.0
5.5
13.8
3.6
8.0
9.6
All
62.2
23.1
25.9
50.0
42.8
45.1
23.5
42.0
35.2
Appendix
Table 17: Suite-resolved zero-shot LIBERO-Plus success rate (%) for the H=16,O=1 LTR-2pass policies deployed with e=8 . Every entry is computed from a released task-map suite–factor block. The All row pools the four suites within each perturbation family; its Plus mean aggregates the full 10,030-instance perturbation partition.
Suite
Samples seen
LTR NLL
CAP NLL
L1
First L1
End L1
Grip
Samples/s
Spatial
479,940
-12.455
-10.880
0.0451
0.1505
0.0421
98.28
6.33
Object
479,874
-13.832
-12.914
0.0386
0.1568
0.0333
98.09
6.47
Goal
479,900
-14.759
-13.837
0.0321
0.1272
0.0253
98.95
6.60
Long
479,960
-14.462
-13.635
0.0359
0.1581
0.0282
98.20
6.47
Appendix
Table 18: Final training-window diagnostics at step 30k for the H=16,O=2,M=4 policies. “CAP NLL” is the sampled anchored-permutation NLL. L1, First L1, and End L1 are mean absolute action errors over all, first, and final chunk slots; Grip is gripper-state accuracy (%).
Training objective
LTR NLL
CAP NLL
L1
First L1
End L1
Grip
Mean log-std
Min-std
Success
LTR-1pass
-14.223
n/a
0.0354
0.1607
0.0280
98.24
-3.383
24.22
6.4
LTR-2pass
-14.522
n/a
0.0355
0.1617
0.0286
98.13
-3.383
23.92
23.4
CAP
-14.392
-13.681
0.0361
0.1646
0.0282
98.32
-3.379
23.87
32.2
Appendix
Table 19: Matched final training diagnostics and closed-loop Long success. All three objectives use H=16,O=1,M=1 , seed zero, 30k updates, and deterministic LTR deployment with e=8 . L1, First L1, and End L1 are mean absolute action errors over all, first, and final chunk slots. “Min-std” is the fraction of Gaussian log-scale outputs at the configured lower bound; Grip and Success are percentages.
Symbol
Meaning
Reference
Values represented in the study
M
sampled CAP orders per context and update
1
1, 4
H
action steps predicted per policy query
16
8, 16
O
temporal observations supplied per camera view
1
1, 2
V
simultaneous RGB camera views per observation
2
2 (primary + wrist; fixed)
e
leading predicted actions executed before replanning
8
4, 8, 16
K
fixed chronological prefix length in CAP orders
1
0, 1, 8 (0 = unrestricted orders)
Appendix
Table 20: Meaning and experimental role of the principal PermVLA parameters. The final column lists settings represented by measured results.
Table 21: Consolidated parameters for the controlled Gaussian PermVLA study. Sweep rows in Table 2 replace one named value and keep every other entry fixed.
Figure 3: PermDiffusion architecture. During training, a sampled anchored order and cut divide the expert chunk into clean revealed slots S and noisy prediction slots U . Physical positions, per-slot noise levels, and revealed-mask embeddings identify every input to the shared denoiser. Standard diffusion is the special case in which all slots are noisy. Deployment begins from Gaussian noise and applies ordinary synchronous DDIM updates to the full physical-time chunk; the sampled subset construction is used only for training.
Treatment
Temporal config.
Suite
Success
PermDiffusion
H8/O1/E8
Spatial
87.6
PermDiffusion
H8/O1/E8
Object
89.8
PermDiffusion
H8/O1/E8
Goal
84.2
PermDiffusion
H8/O1/E8
Long
36.8
PermDiffusion
H16/O2/E8
Goal
82.2
Appendix
Table 22: PermDiffusion results on LIBERO. The H=8,O=1,e=8 rows form the suite matrix, while the H=16,O=2,e=8 Goal row is a standalone reference. Each entry is a 500-episode success rate (%).
Figure 4: Loss construction in PermVLA . Standard LTR training follows one physical-time factorization and sums teacher-forced per-slot likelihoods against the expert chunk. CAP samples factorization orders over the same physical action variables, illustrated here with K=1 ; each order defines revealed subsets and a corresponding likelihood. Their Monte Carlo average is a training-only regularizer of the shared policy. The drawn losses are unnormalized within-chunk sums; Equations 3 – 4 define the normalized objectives. Action indices denote fixed physical slots in both panels, and deployment retains deterministic physical-time LTR control.
Figure 5: Illustration of CAP’s theoretical interpretation. In the upper path, a reveal order z defines a normalized joint density qθz(A∣C) ; substituting this density into the mixed CAP risk Rmix (Equation 16 ) and minimizing it preserves the expert population target. In the lower path, a demonstrated action chunk creates a family of conditional prediction problems; these problems jointly constrain a finite-capacity model, so features that remain predictive across conditional sets receive repeated support, thereby forming CAP’s regularization mechanism.
Suite
Training objective
SH [IQR]
Δarb
LTR NLL / slot
Long
LTR-1pass
384.85 [114.00, 1,473.49]
59.11
-15.16
LTR-2pass
407.21 [110.73, 1,570.34]
59.98
-15.18
CAP
0.108 [0.055, 0.215]
0.97
-15.16
Goal
LTR-1pass
787.74 [177.30, 7,161.38]
80.36
-15.34
LTR-2pass
1,049.71 [216.04, 9,728.23]
84.91
-15.42
CAP
0.113 [0.062, 0.223]
1.09
-15.28
Appendix
Table 23: Factorization sensitivity of matched M=1,H=16,O=1 models. Tildes denote medians over 640 expert chunks per suite; brackets give the interquartile range of SH . Each chunk is scored under the same 16 uniformly sampled, causally anchored orders with K=1 . Δarb is arbitrary-order minus LTR NLL per action slot. Lower sensitivity and gap indicate greater agreement across factorization orders.
Suite
Training setting
λ
M
K
SH
Δarb / Success
Long
LTR-1pass
0
–
–
384.850
59.11 / 6.4
CAP reference
0.25
1
1
0.108
0.97 / 32.2
CAP weight
0.50
1
1
0.079
0.66 / 40.6
CAP orders
0.25
4
1
0.103
0.93 / 42.0
Anchor
0.25
1
8
182.307
29.09 / 36.0
Goal
LTR-1pass
0
–
–
787.740
80.36 / 62.0
Appendix
Table 24: Factorization-sensitivity interventions on Goal and Long. SH and Δarb are medians under the same 16 Π1 evaluation orders; success is the corresponding 500-episode LIBERO result (%). LTR is the λ=0 endpoint.
Suite
Training family
Evaluate Π1
Evaluate Π8
Long
Π1
0.108
0.055
Π8
182.307
0.038
Goal
Π1
0.113
0.061
Π8
236.312
0.051
Appendix
Table 25: Anchor-family cross-evaluation. Entries are medians SH over the same chunks. Training with K=1 covers the broad Π1 family; K=8 covers the narrower Π8 family.
Figure 6: Matched robot rollouts under a table-appearance shift. Columns align physical action steps across policies, including the initial state and the full time limit. The final-frame border records the instantaneous official goal predicate. Both LTR-1pass and CAP satisfy that predicate at the limit, despite visibly different pot poses and gripper interactions.
Policy
First success
Goal at limit
Goal losses
Tilt at limit
Gripper contact
LTR-1pass
240
True
4
90.0∘
Absent
LTR-2pass
–
False
0
58.4∘
Absent
CAP
265
True
0
29.8∘
Present
Appendix
Table 26: Measurements for the full-horizon case in Figure 6 . Goal losses count transitions from true to false after first success. Tilt is the angle between the pot’s body vertical axis and the world vertical; contact denotes any pot–gripper contact at the limit.
Figure 7: State diagnostics throughout the same rollouts. The top and bottom panels vertically offset each policy’s binary trace for readability. Success and gripper contact are evaluated from the simulator at each step; pot tilt is measured from its body orientation. Sustained predicate satisfaction can coexist with a tilted pot or continued gripper contact.
Figure 8: Bowl placement and drawer closure in original LIBERO. CAP satisfies both subgoals from action 386 through the time limit. At the limit, LTR-1pass satisfies bowl containment alone, while LTR-2pass satisfies neither containment nor closure. Each row shows actual policy execution through all 520 actions.
Figure 9: Two-object basket placement in original LIBERO. CAP and LTR-2pass first satisfy the joint placement predicate at actions 230 and 338, respectively, and retain it through action 520. LTR-1pass places the alphabet soup in the basket but leaves the cream cheese box outside. Common action-step columns expose progress through both placements.
Test-time sampling can improve Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies, but only if the model can efficiently select a good action from multiple candidates. Prior work often relies on separately trained external verifiers, adding extra models and inference overhead. We propose Token Probability Bucketing (TokenPB), a self-verification approach that discretizes continuous action chunks into bucket tokens and co-trains a single VLA checkpoint with a joint objective: a flow-matching loss for action generation and an auxiliary bucket loss Lbucket that teaches the VLM backbone to model observation-conditioned distributions over bucket-token sequences. At inference, TokenPB samples M candidates, scores each via teacher-forced evaluation under the learned distribution, and selects the best---enabling efficient batched scoring with observation-prefix KV-cache reuse. We provide theory connecting the training objective to a monotonic ranking property and bounds on expected selection regret that separate candidate-set effects from calibration. Across multiple backbones and benchmarks, TokenPB yields consistent success-rate improvements over single-sample inference from the same checkpoint (+2.7 in simulation, +17.1 in real-world, +16.4 under out-of-distribution shifts), and further improves over external-verifier baselines under the same sampling budget. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/RUCKBReasoning/TokenPB.
Chen Zhao, Zhuoran Wang, Haoyang Li +6
School of Information, Renmin University of China · Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Beijing, China · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications +1
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
Flow-based Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies are inherently stochastic: different noise seeds can produce action chunks of varying quality from the same observation. At test time, however, the policy typically commits to a single sample without an explicit estimate of its quality. In fine-grained manipulation, executing a suboptimal action can irreversibly disrupt task progress and lead to failure. To exploit policy stochasticity, we introduce a training-free two-axis trigger that uses two initial samples to measure within-chunk temporal variation and cross-sample variance, detecting the critical states. Once triggered, a JEPA-based latent world model ranks candidate action chunks by predicting action-conditioned future latent states and the corresponding changes in task progress. By operating in latent space, the verifier avoids pixel reconstruction and enables efficient and more accurate ranking. Across three real-world tasks, i.e., pen insertion, pipetting, and apple placement), our method raises the average completion score from 50.8% to 65.5%, while adding 326 ms for sampling and verification per triggered decision on a single RTX 4090. Consistent gains are also observed in simulation, where the average success rate rises from 66.4% to 73.6% in the clean setting of RoboTwin 2.0, from 62.8% to 69.6% in its randomized setting, and from 96.9% to 97.6% on LIBERO.