The limited onboard computing resources of robots make the inference demands of vision-language-action (VLA) models costly to accommodate. Reducing these demands through aggressive compression, however, can degrade manipulation performance beyond what supervised fine-tuning alone recovers. We present SPAR (Structural Pruning and Action Recovery), which simultaneously prunes the hidden and feed-forward intermediate dimensions of the large language model (LLM) backbone through pruning-aware tuning, then applies reinforcement learning (RL) to recover policy performance. Applied to π0.5, SPAR reduces the language backbone from 2.34B to 0.09B parameters and the full model from 3.37B to 1.12B, removing approximately 96% and 67% of their parameters, respectively. At this compression level, RL raises average success across the four LIBERO suites from 84.55% to 93.45%, an 8.90-percentage-point gain. The compressed policy achieves a 1.98× full-policy inference speedup over the unpruned model. These results identify substantial intermediate-dimension redundancy and show that post-pruning RL can recover manipulation performance in compact policies.
Figures & tables
Fig. 2: Overview of the SPAR Framework. Top: SPAR compresses the LLM backbone of a VLA policy, which integrates visual and language inputs to guide the action expert. Bottom: (1) Through pruning-aware tuning , SPAR jointly learns channel masks for the hidden dimension and the FFN intermediate dimension while adapting the policy to manipulation tasks. (2) These masks guide structural pruning , which removes inactive channels to form a smaller dense backbone. (3) After supervised fine-tuning of the compact policy, RL recovery further improves task performance through simulated interaction, updating the action expert and value head while keeping the pruned LLM backbone frozen.
Model
Method
ρhid/ρint
Params (B) Total / LLM
Speedup ( ↑ )
Pruning Ratio
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Avg.
Model
LLM
π0.5
baseline
100% / 100%
3.37 / 2.34
1.00
0%
0%
98.80
98.80
97.40
92.20
96.80
π0.5
PAT only
100% / 90%
3.20 / 2.17
1.05
5%
7%
99.80
98.20
96.60
94.60
97.30
100% / 70%
2.86 / 1.83
1.17
15%
22%
98.40
98.00
98.00
96.20
97.65
100% / 50%
2.52 / 1.49
1.33
25%
36%
98.40
98.60
98.20
94.40
97.40
100% / 30%
2.19 / 1.16
1.52
35%
51%
98.80
98.20
97.80
94.60
97.35
TABLE I: Effect of FFN Intermediate-Dimension Pruning on LIBERO Performance. We vary the FFN intermediate-dimension retention target in π0.5 while keeping the hidden dimension unchanged, and evaluate each policy after SPAR’s PAT stage without RL. The ratios ρhid/ρint specify retention targets for the hidden and intermediate dimensions. Parameter counts are in billions, and pruning ratios indicate the approximate percentages of parameters removed from the full model and LLM relative to the unpruned baseline. Success rates are reported as percentages, with Avg. denoting the mean across the four suites and bold highlighting the best score in each column.
Model
Method
ρhid/ρint
Params (B) Total / LLM
Speedup ( ↑ )
Pruning Ratio
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Avg. ( Δ )
Model
LLM
Compact VLA Models
NORA [ 5 ]
–
3.00 / –
–
–
–
92.20
95.40
89.40
74.60
87.90
NORA-1.5 [ 6 ]
–
3.00 / –
–
–
–
98.00
96.00
95.40
90.50
95.00
SmolVLA [ 4 ]
–
2.25 / –
–
–
–
93.00
94.00
91.00
77.00
88.75
GraspVLA [ 7 ]
–
1.80 / –
–
–
–
–
94.10
91.20
82.00
89.10
TABLE II: LIBERO Performance of SPAR and Comparison Methods. PAT only denotes pruning and supervised adaptation, and PAT+RL adds RL recovery. Notation follows Table I . Parentheses show RL gains in percentage points. Bold marks the best success rates within each PAT group. EcoVLA speedups are reported on RTX 3090 with custom Triton kernels [ 12 ] , whereas SPAR uses TensorRT on Jetson AGX Orin. These speedups are not same-platform comparisons.
Fig. 3: Soft-mask budget convergence. Hidden and intermediate soft counts approach their respective 32-channel-aligned targets of 224 and 1664 (horizontal dotted lines). The vertical line marks physical pruning at step 6000.
Model
Method
ρhid/ρint
Camera
Robot
Language
Light
Background
Noise
Layout
Overall ( Δ )
π0.5
baseline
100% / 100%
71.04
74.77
85.82
95.80
94.89
86.51
85.84
83.98
π0.5
PAT only
90% / 10%
60.60
54.65
68.77
92.03
87.27
76.89
78.43
72.68
70% / 10%
59.60
41.23
56.60
87.83
79.65
75.27
70.49
65.82
50% / 10%
56.66
32.58
52.37
82.14
71.47
66.83
62.95
59.35
30% / 10%
58.47
30.19
41.77
82.84
65.43
64.21
59.15
56.08
10% / 10%
59.47
24.00
31.36
76.71
48.98
64.15
34.43
47.46
TABLE III: Robustness of Unpruned and Pruned π0.5 on LIBERO-Plus [ 17 ] . For each configuration and RL setting, we evaluate the same checkpoint on LIBERO and LIBERO-Plus. Retention targets, parameter counts, and pruning ratios follow Table II . Scores are percentages, with cross-suite results by perturbation and the aggregate under Overall. Parentheses show RL gains in percentage points. Bold highlights the best pruned score within each RL setting.
Model
Method
ρhid/ρint
Pruning Ratio
Task 1 Bottle
Task 2 Cubes
Task 3 Cup
Task 4 Block
Task 5 Sorting
Task 6 Backpack
Avg. (%)
Model
LLM
π0.5
baseline
100% / 100%
0%
0%
19/20
17/20
15/20
18/20
12/20
4/20
70.83
π0.5
PAT
100% / 20%
40%
58%
19/20
16/20
13/20
16/20
9/20
3/20
63.33
TABLE IV: Real-Robot Task Results. We evaluate unpruned and pruned π0.5 on an AgileX dual-arm platform and report successes out of 20 trials per task. Target retention ratios and parameter reductions follow Table I . Avg. is the mean success rate across the six tasks described below.
Fig. 4: Real-Robot Sorting Task on the AgileX Dual-Arm Platform. Four frames from one recorded execution of Task 5: (a) initial arrangement, (b) block manipulation, (c) screw manipulation, and (d) the final recorded scene. Quantitative results are reported in Table IV .
Model
ρhid/ρint
Latency (ms, ↓ )
Speedup ( ↑ )
GPU Memory (GiB, ↓ )
π0.5
100% / 100%
295.04
1.00
7.098
π0.5
100% / 90%
282.32
1.05
6.713
100% / 70%
252.36
1.17
6.039
100% / 50%
222.65
1.33
5.395
100% / 30%
194.20
1.52
4.752
100% / 20%
178.93
1.65
4.400
TABLE V: Inference Latency and GPU Memory of π0.5 . We report median full-policy latency and GPU memory using TensorRT on NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin. Memory is in GiB, speedup is the unpruned-to-pruned latency ratio, and targets follow Table I . Best values are bold.
Method
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Avg.
PAT w/o Lcount
97.60
98.60
97.40
89.20
95.70
PAT w/o Lentropy
97.40
98.40
96.60
92.00
96.10
PAT w/o Ldisc
97.60
98.80
97.20
90.60
96.05
PAT (full objective)
97.40
97.60
96.80
94.00
96.45
TABLE VI: Pruning-Loss Ablation for π0.5 , Evaluated on LIBERO. We remove one loss at a time from the full objective, targeting ρhid=100% and ρint=10% without RL. Scores are percentages, Long denotes LIBERO-10, and Avg. is the four-suite mean. Bold identifies the best value in each column.
Vision-language-action (VLA) models let robots follow language instructions, but their language backbones of several billion parameters are the main obstacle to running them on robot hardware. Structured pruning reduces that backbone, and removing 63% of it from OpenVLA-OFT drops LIBERO-Long success from 93.2% to 0.8%. A recent approach restores such a model with supervised fine-tuning followed by reinforcement learning, which needs online rollouts and hundreds of GPU-hours. We recover most of the lost success entirely offline. Width pruning narrows the blocks but keeps the residual stream at its original size, so teacher and student hidden states have the same shape and are matched directly, without a projector. Training against a cache built in one teacher pass lifts the 63%-reduced student to within 3.5 points of the teacher in about 8 GPU-hours. A sweep over nine ratios locates where the recovery objective starts to matter. Up to 45% reduction the two do not differ significantly on OpenVLA-OFT. Hidden-state distillation then adds +2.1 to +4.5 points there between 63% and 87%, and +9.4 to +22.1 points on CogACT from 63% onward. At 81% on CogACT, a tripled recovery budget narrows the distilled student's gap to the teacher to 3.9 points on average, while supervised recovery stays more than 20 points below. At matched compression, width pruning yields higher success and depth pruning lower latency. On a 6-DoF manipulator, the distilled student at 72% reduction reaches 77.5% success against 59.5% for supervised recovery, runs 2.23x faster on-board than the teacher, and uses 62% less memory.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models pre-trained on massive video-robot datasets have revolutionized robotic manipulation, yet their multi-billion parameter architectures impose prohibitive computational burdens during downstream fine-tuning and real-time inference. In this work, we reveal a highly non-trivial architectural characteristic of these continuous control foundation policies (e.g., pi_0, GR00T-N1.5): despite being trained on diverse physical trajectories, they exhibit severe layer-wise representational redundancy. To exploit this, we introduce a structural compression pipeline that is entirely training-free, bypassing the need of existing methods to load full-scale models to learn optimized token reductions or dynamic layer selectors. Instead, using only a single forward pass via Centered Kernel Alignment to identify redundant layer features, we remove twin layers to permanently compress the model depth by up to 50% across both the VLM backbone and the continuous control policy head. Downstream fine-tuning of this streamlined architecture yields a dual acceleration benefit: a 40-50% reduction in training time and up to 30% faster real-time inference, while matching or exceeding full-scale base model performance. We comprehensively validate our method across three simulation benchmarks (LIBERO, RoboCasa, SimplerEnv) and 10 diverse real-world manipulation tasks across 4 unique robotic embodiments. These results prove that advanced VLAs require significantly fewer layers than previously assumed, offering a highly compute-efficient paradigm for scalable robot learning.
Gia-Binh Nguyen, Trong-Bao Ho, Thien-Loc Ha +18
Center for AI Research, VinUniversity · VinRobotics · University of Arkansas +10
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are a promising paradigm for field robotics, but their deployment is bottlenecked by strict edge SWaP-C constraints. Compression techniques such as quantization, distillation, and pruning are well-established for LLMs and VLMs. Pruning, however, remains particularly underexplored for VLA models. We surprisingly find that pruning VLA models yields drastic performance degradation and increased safety violations. Through spectral analysis, we identify structural properties of VLA weights that help explain this fragility. Based on this insight, we introduce GLUESTICK, a post-pruning recovery method that restores much of the original model's capability while preserving sparsity benefits. GLUESTICK computes a one-time corrective term by interpolating between the dense and pruned models in weight space. At inference, each pruned layer applies this correction to recover lost performance with minimal overhead. Our approach requires no additional training and is agnostic to the pruning algorithm. Across diverse VLA architectures and domains, GLUESTICK recovers up to 100% of the success rate and restores safety to near-dense levels, while saving up to 5 GB of memory and achieving up to 1.75x speedup. Additional material can be found at: https://gluestick-vla.github.io/