Human-collected robot manipulation data often mix successful behavior with retries, pauses, recoveries, and failures. Advantage-Conditioned Behavior Cloning (AC-BC) can exploit such mixed-quality data, but only if the conditioning signal is both accurately constructed from offline trajectories and effectively incorporated into the policy's action-vector-field prediction. Existing pipelines can weaken this signal by thresholding estimator-derived advantage scores into noisy conditions, and by routing conditions through prompts that weakly affect the action vector field. We introduce ALIGN, a condition-aligned AC-BC framework for vision-language-action policies. ALIGN directly predicts categorical pairwise conditions in the policy-facing label space and injects them into a DiT action expert through AdaRMS modulation fused with flow time. We evaluate ALIGN on deliberately mixed real-robot datasets for ARX X5 bowl stacking and Franka key hanging, each combining standard demonstrations with retry-heavy trajectories. ALIGN improves condition fidelity, strengthens conditional vector-field separability, and achieves 90.0% and 56.7% closed-loop success, compared with 56.7% and 33.3% for the strongest AC-BC baseline. These results indicate that aligning conditions from estimation to action prediction is an effective way to extract robust manipulation policies from data in which success, recovery and error coexist.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of ALIGN. Left: condition estimation. Given a historical observation, the current observation, robot states, and the task instruction, the direct categorical estimator predicts the AC-BC condition c^t from an ordered observation pair. Right: AC-BC policy training with estimated conditions. The current observation stream is encoded by the VLM, while AdaRMS combines c^t with the flow-time embedding to generate per-layer modulation parameters for the DiT action expert, so the predicted action vector field is explicitly conditioned on the estimated training condition.
Figure 2: Validation-set episodes for ARX X5 bowl stacking and Franka key hanging.
ARX X5 bowl stacking
Franka key hanging
Estimator
Output space
Precision
Recall
F1
Precision
Recall
F1
π0.6∗ -style value
continuous →{+,−}
98.1 %
71.1%
82.5%
91.4%
85.8%
88.5%
χ0 -style stage advantage
continuous →{+,−}
97.8%
70.9%
82.3%
92.7 %
75.6%
83.3%
Direct tri-class
categorical →{+,−}
97.6%
79.0%
87.3%
90.6%
86.5%
88.5%
Direct binary-class (ALIGN)
{+,−}
97.7%
79.2 %
87.5 %
90.7%
89.1 %
89.9 %
Table 1: Condition-estimator ACF on held-out ARX X5 and Franka validation sets.
Figure 3: Estimator-induced AC-BC conditions on a held-out trajectory.
Figure 4: Condition-dependent vector-field separation across injection mechanisms. Left: t-SNE of vector-field effects at flow time t=0.2 . Right: CVFS over flow time, where stronger post-backbone injection yields larger separation than prompt conditioning.
Figure 5: Condition-injection ablation with a fixed direct estimator. Bars report flow-time-averaged CVFS and 30-rollout closed-loop success for ARX X5 bowl stacking and Franka key hanging. Hatched bars denote CVFS on the left axis, while solid bars denote success rate on the right axis.
Policy variant
Condition source
Injection
ARX bowl stacking
Franka key hanging
Condition construction comparison
SFT, 100 demonstrations
none
none
46.7%
6.7%
SFT, 100 demonstrations + 100 retry trajectories
none
none
50.0%
3.3%
π0.6∗ -style threshold
continuous progress
prompt/default
50.0%
26.7%
χ0 -style threshold
continuous stage advantage
prompt/default
56.7%
33.3%
2-class direct estimator
binary categorical
prompt
70.0%
40.0%
Table 2: Closed-loop policy success over 30 rollouts on ARX bowl stacking and Franka key hanging.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Real-robot hardware platforms used in our experiments. Left: the ARX X5 platform used for bowl stacking. Right: the Franka platform used for key hanging.
Platform
Robot embodiment
End effectors
Cameras
Control
ARX X5
Dual 6-DoF arms
Dual 1-DoF parallel grippers
Front RGB + two wrist RGB, 30 Hz
100 Hz position control
Franka Research 3
Dual 7-DoF arms
Dual parallel grippers
Front RGB + two wrist RGB, 30 Hz
200 Hz Cartesian impedance
Appendix
Table 3: Real-robot hardware and observation interfaces used in our experiments.
Annotation rule
π0.6∗ F1
χ0 F1
Binary F1
Tri F1
Best F1
Baseline manual labels
82.5
82.3
87.5
87.3
Binary
Ignore boundary by 1 frame
83.2
83.0
88.4
88.3
Binary
Ignore boundary by 5 frames
83.3
83.2
88.6
88.4
Binary
Ignore boundary by 10 frames
83.5
83.3
88.7
88.5
Binary
Expand bad window by 1 frame
82.5
82.2
87.5
87.3
Binary
Expand bad window by 5 frames
82.5
82.2
87.5
87.3
Binary
Appendix
Table 4: Annotation-boundary robustness of ACF-F1 on the held-out ARX X5 validation set. The raw row gives the baseline manual labels reported in Table 1 ; other rows perturb the manually annotated retry/failure boundaries to account for boundary bias.
Annotation rule
π0.6∗ F1
χ0 F1
Binary F1
Tri F1
Best F1
Baseline manual labels
88.5
83.3
89.9
88.5
Binary
Ignore boundary by 2 frames
89.2
83.9
89.5
89.2
Binary
Ignore boundary by 5 frames
90.1
84.8
90.4
90.1
Binary
Ignore boundary by 10 frames
91.7
86.3
92.0
91.7
Binary
Expand bad window by 2 frames
88.4
83.3
88.7
88.4
Binary
Expand bad window by 5 frames
88.3
83.4
88.5
88.2
Binary
Appendix
Table 5: Annotation-boundary robustness of ACF-F1 on the held-out Franka validation set. The main text uses the baseline manual labels; other rows perturb the manually annotated retry/failure boundaries to account for boundary bias.
Hyperparameter
Value
Policy backbone
π0.5 -style VLA policy with a flow-matching action expert
Action horizon
50
Training precision
bfloat16
Optimizer
AdamW
AdamW betas / epsilon
(0.9,0.95) / 10−8
Weight decay
10−10
Appendix
Table 6: Policy fine-tuning settings.
Setting
Value
Pair sampling
randomly sample two frames from the same trajectory without sorting their temporal order
Direct-estimator objective
cross-entropy on binary gτ(2)(j−i) or three-class gτ(3)(i,j) labels
Value/progress objective
MSE regression for Vψ(ot) on scalar value or progress target
Local comparison horizon
N=50
Retry validation window
Kr=20 frames
Failure validation window
Kf=30 frames
Appendix
Table 7: ALIGN and π0.6∗ -style estimator settings.
Setting
Value used in our reproduction
Pair sampling for SA
randomly sample two frames from the same trajectory without sorting their temporal order
SA supervision target
pairwise stage-advantage target Ai,jχ
Stage annotation
semantic sub-goals; 4 stages for ARX X5 bowl stacking and 2 stages for Franka key hanging
Positive-label rule
rank local stage-advantage scores; label the top 30% as positive and the rest as negative
Local comparison horizon
N=50 , same as ALIGN and π0.6∗ -style baselines
Optimizer
AdamW, (β1,β2)=(0.9,0.95) , ϵ=10−8
Appendix
Table 8: Matched χ0 -style estimator settings.
Task
Prompt-only success
AdaRMS success
Unscrew bottle cap
0.0%
73.3%
Stack bowls
26.7%
80.0%
Hang key
0.0%
50.0%
Appendix
Table 9: Multitask categorical-condition injection on the Franka platform. Each row reports closed-loop success on the evaluated physical task. Prompt-only uses only the task-specific language prompt, while AdaRMS uses the same prompt together with the matched task category.
Method
Success (%)
First sub-goal (%)
Mean time (s)
Demo
28.0
36.0
50.2
Demo + retry
34.0
46.0
51.7
π0.6∗ thresh. + AdaRMS
64.0
70.0
42.5
Filtered-SFT
76.0
86.0
50.5
ALIGN
86.0
90.0
43.2
Appendix
Table 10: Additional AGI G2 results, with 50 rollouts per method. The first sub-goal is engaging the handle. The final column is the mean time-to-success over successful rollouts only.
Data pool
Composition
Total
Estimator training
400 standard
400
Policy training
100 standard + 100 retry-heavy
200
Held-out ACF
100 standard + 100 retry + 50 failure
250
Appendix
Table 11: Trajectory counts per single-task setting. The estimator-training, policy-training, and held-out ACF pools are disjoint.
Policy
ARX X5
Franka
Condition construction comparison
SFT, standard
14/30; 46.7 [30.2, 63.9]
2/30; 6.7 [1.8, 21.3]
SFT, standard + retry
15/30; 50.0 [33.2, 66.8]
1/30; 3.3 [0.6, 16.7]
π0.6∗ , prompt/default
15/30; 50.0 [33.2, 66.8]
8/30; 26.7 [14.2, 44.4]
χ0 , prompt/default
17/30; 56.7 [39.2, 72.6]
10/30; 33.3 [19.2, 51.2]
Direct binary, prompt
21/30; 70.0 [52.1, 83.3]
12/30; 40.0 [24.6, 57.7]
Appendix
Table 12: Success counts and 95% Wilson score intervals for every policy entry in Table 2 , with n=30 rollouts per policy and task. Each cell reports k/n ; success percentage [95% interval], with interval endpoints also in percent. SFT, standard uses 100 standard trajectories; SFT, standard + retry uses 100 standard and 100 retry-heavy trajectories. These are marginal intervals for each policy, not confidence intervals for paired method differences.
Injection
Condition space
ARX X5 (%)
Franka (%)
Prompt
Binary
70.0
40.0
Prompt
Three-class
66.7
20.0
Prompt
Four-class
66.7
16.7
AdaRMS
Binary
90.0
56.7
AdaRMS
Three-class
86.7
33.3
Appendix
Table 13: Closed-loop success for different condition granularities. Four-class results are reported for prompt injection only.
Finetuning a pretrained vision-language model (VLM) on robot demonstrations via behavior cloning (BC) has become the standard recipe for vision-language-action (VLA) policies. However, BC finetuning progressively overwrites the pretrained representations that support visual and semantic generalization. Co-training on web image-text data, a common remedy, applies language and action losses to separate observations, leaving VLAs with language-action misalignment that standard manipulation benchmarks do not expose. We propose Anchor-Align, which augments BC with two objectives: Vision-Language Anchoring distills layer-wise representations from a frozen VLM copy to prevent this drift, while Language-Action Alignment converts each action target into a discrete motion-direction label and jointly trains language and action prediction on the same robot observation. We conduct real-world evaluations across eight manipulation settings on single-arm xArm7 and bimanual YAM robots, using two VLA architectures with regression and flow-matching action heads. Across these settings, Anchor-Align consistently improves over BC on novel targets, layouts, and motion-sensitive bimanual tasks requiring coordinated control. At scale in simulation, we demonstrate consistent improvements on OOD perturbations, perceptual robustness, and long-horizon control across LIBERO-PRO, LIBERO-Plus, and CALVIN, respectively, suggesting that preserving pretrained representations and effective action learning are not fundamentally at odds. Project page: anchoralignvla.github.io
Dwip Dalal, Shivansh Patel, Chahit Jain +8
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Texas A&M University · University of California, Irvine
Long-horizon precise manipulation produces mixed-quality data for post-training vision-language-action (VLA) models: even successful demonstrations and intervention-assisted rollouts may contain detours, hesitations, failed attempts, and imperfect recoveries. The key challenge is to identify which action chunks actually advance the task, rather than uniformly cloning or discarding imperfect trajectories. We propose Graph-Reweighted Behavior Cloning (GR-BC), an offline iterative post-training framework that builds a task-conditioned goal-reachability graph over demonstrations and iteratively collected rollouts, including both successful and failed episodes with human interventions. Reverse graph search computes minimal remaining steps to task success within the dataset support, and each action chunk is weighted by how much its execution reduces this potential. This consequence-based weighting reuses recoverable segments from failed trajectories, leverages interventions as recovery paths, and down-weights locally regressive chunks even inside successful trajectories. New rollouts are incorporated by appending them to the graph and rerunning search, without training a reward model, action-conditioned critic, or progress predictor. Across four precise manipulation tasks and three VLA backbones, GR-BC improves single-round supervised fine-tuning and reaches 91% success after a few offline iterations, without trajectory comparisons or progress labels. More details and videos are available at: https://gr-bc.github.io
Xiaoman Li, Zhiqiang Yang, Jiayu Hu +6
Zhejiang University, State Key Lab of CAD & CG · The Institute of Artificial Intelligence, China Telecom (TeleAI) · South China University of Technology +4
Expert demonstrations are widely assumed to be the gold standard for robot imitation learning. Yet for fine-grained manipulation such as insertion, stacking, and alignment, we uncover a counterintuitive failure mode: fluent demonstrations can be poor teachers. A skilled teleoperator compresses the decisive moments of alignment and recovery into a brief temporal window, leaving the policy flooded with redundant free-space motion and starved of supervision exactly where precision determines success. We address this bottleneck at two levels. At the data level, slowing down near alignment and resampling critical segments both help, yet the gain comes mainly from broadening the coverage of recovery states the policy must learn, not from reweighting frames it already has. Such data-side fixes, however, leave the policy's per-frame view untouched: a single image still maps directly to an action, and the local motion that governs correction stays implicit. We therefore turn to the representation level and introduce STAIR (Spatio-Temporal feature As an Interface for Robot learning), a compact dynamic feature that bridges the vision-language model and the action expert, distilling the short-horizon motion already recorded in each trajectory into dense, motion-aware supervision. Trained on fluent data alone, STAIR recovers most of the deliberate-demonstration gain (50.0 to 62.2% overall, approaching the 64.4% of deliberate demonstrations). These results call for a more pedagogical view of robot data, optimized for machine learnability rather than human efficiency alone.
Mingyu Liu, Zeju Li, Jiuhe Shu +4
Zhejiang University · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (GZ) · Shanghai Innovation Institute