Replan for Error Recovery: Training Embodied VLMs through Verifiable Interaction with Action-Grouped Turn-GSPO
Authors: Zhuoran Wang, Keqing Fan, Yang Li, Jinbo Su, Ke Wang, Sijia Luo, Yuanzheng Tan, Junkun Peng, Jing Zhang
Organizations: School of Information, Renmin University of China · Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Beijing, China · Beihang University · Zphyture · Engineering Research Center of Database and Business Intelligence, Beijing, China
Embodied VLMs can execute increasingly complex manipulation tasks, yet execution errors can leave the environment in states that require replanning for recovery. Existing recovery methods either rely on inference-time mechanisms with fixed policies or learn from failure examples and reference corrections rather than verified action outcomes. To enable recovery learning through verifiable interaction, we introduce the Embodied Replanning for Recovery Environment (ERR-Env), which provides feedback on task progress and execution errors. We further construct ERR-Bench, a benchmark with held-out tasks spanning nominal, intermediate, and error states for evaluating recovery capability and execution reliability. We then propose Action-Grouped Turn-GSPO (AGT-GSPO), an online reinforcement learning method combining turn-level rewards for task progress and error states with action-grouped advantage estimation, and use it to train ERR-VLM, a compact 2B embodied VLM. Evaluation on ERR-Bench reveals a mismatch between task progress and execution reliability across diverse VLMs. AGT-GSPO improves ERR-VLM by 10.25 percentage points in Strict Success Rate for error-free completion and 22.95 percentage points in Recovery Rate, while ablations and zero-shot transfer further validate the effectiveness of our method.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Recovery scenarios in ERR-Env. (a) A trajectory with errors and corrective replanning. (b) Examples of Manipulation Recovery, Occlusion Recovery, and Missing-Target Recovery.
Figure 2: Training process of AGT-GSPO. The policy interacts with ERR-Env over multiple turns and receives turn-level feedback on task progress and error states. Turns are grouped by action type for relative advantage estimation, enabling credit assignment among comparable recovery decisions.
Model
All Tasks
Recovery Rate
Recovery SSR
SR
PG
NPR
SSR
MR
OR
MTR
Total
MR
OR
MTR
Total
Closed-source models
GPT-5.6 Sol
40.98
76.81
51.97
15.44
38.92
53.29
55.09
49.10
14.97
11.98
8.38
11.78
Qwen3.8-Max
55.16
82.66
53.36
27.21
30.54
85.63
56.89
57.69
25.75
43.71
10.18
26.55
Qwen3.7-Plus
18.16
52.58
54.89
5.39
23.35
37.13
51.50
37.33
9.58
7.78
3.59
6.98
Open-source models
Table 1: Main results on ERR-Bench. We evaluate all tasks with four metrics: Success Rate (SR), Progress (PG), No-Penalty Rate (NPR), and Strict Success Rate (SSR). Recovery Rate and Recovery SSR are reported for Manipulation Recovery (MR), Occlusion Recovery (OR), Missing-Target Recovery (MTR), and their average (Total). All entries are percentages.
Method
All Tasks
Recovery Rate
Recovery SSR
SR
PG
NPR
SSR
MR
OR
MTR
Total
MR
OR
MTR
Total
SFT and full RL
ERR-VLM (SFT)
18.96
62.36
53.09
10.64
26.95
40.72
59.88
42.52
13.17
4.19
8.38
8.58
ERR-VLM (Full)
34.14
71.08
62.41
20.89
40.12
89.22
67.07
65.47
26.35
24.55
15.57
22.16
Recovery-data Ablations
w/o Recovery Data in RL
25.03
69.14
52.77
14.17
28.14
28.74
60.48
39.12
13.17
7.78
13.77
11.57
Table 2: Ablation results on ERR-Bench. Metrics follow Table 1 . All entries are percentages.
Model
RMBench
RoboVoLo
Observe and Pick Up
Cover Blocks
Place Block Mat
Memory
Common Sense
World Knowledge
Complex References
RoboBrain2.5-8B
65.0
33.3
38.3
62.5
95.5
20.0
45.0
ERR-VLM (SFT)
50.0
55.0
46.7
37.0
52.1
15.0
38.3
ERR-VLM (Full)
90.0
56.7
55.0
72.8
96.3
25.0
59.2
Table 3: Results on RMBench and RoboVoLo. Each task reports Progress in percentages.
Model
2 Targets
3 Targets
4 Targets
MR
MTR
Overall
PG
NPR
PG
NPR
PG
NPR
PG
NPR
PG
NPR
ARR
RoboBrain2.5-8B
47.5
20.0
48.3
70.0
25.7
20.0
55.0
10.0
72.5
40.0
8.9
ERR-VLM (SFT)
42.5
100.0
55.0
100.0
21.4
70.0
45.0
40.0
45.0
80.0
0.0
ERR-VLM (Full)
70.0
100.0
73.3
100.0
40.0
80.0
55.0
60.0
70.0
90.0
78.7
Table 6
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Setting
Base model
Qwen3-VL-2B-Thinking
Epochs
8
Learning rate
5×10−6
Batch size
64
Learning-rate schedule
Cosine
Warmup ratio
3%
Appendix
Table 5: SFT training configuration.
Parameter
Setting
Training batch size
8 prompts
Rollouts per prompt
6
Trajectories per update
48
Loss aggregation
Sequence-mean token-mean
Learning rate
2×10−6
Learning-rate schedule
Cosine decay
Appendix
Table 6: Online RL training configuration.
Model
Short-horizon
Long-horizon
SR
PG
NPR
SSR
SR
PG
NPR
SSR
Closed-source models
GPT-5.6 Sol
40.35
73.11
55.66
12.52
41.62
80.50
48.27
18.35
Qwen3.8-Max
65.38
83.25
59.25
30.23
44.95
82.06
47.47
24.20
Qwen3.7-Plus
21.30
52.57
57.26
3.33
15.03
52.58
52.53
7.45
Open-source models
Appendix
Table 7: Horizon-specific results on ERR-Bench. Short- and long-horizon episodes are reported separately. SR: Success Rate; PG: Progress; NPR: No-Penalty Rate; SSR: Strict Success Rate. All entries are percentages.
Method
Short-horizon
Long-horizon
SR
PG
NPR
SSR
SR
PG
NPR
SSR
SFT and full RL
ERR-VLM (SFT)
24.10
63.60
55.53
11.72
13.83
61.12
50.66
9.57
ERR-VLM (Full)
38.88
71.45
63.65
23.30
29.39
70.70
61.17
18.48
Recovery-data Ablations
w/o Recovery Data in RL
35.02
69.20
55.53
16.64
15.03
69.07
50.00
11.70
Appendix
Table 8: Horizon-specific ablation results on ERR-Bench. Short- and long-horizon episodes are reported separately. SR: Success Rate; PG: Progress; NPR: No-Penalty Rate; SSR: Strict Success Rate. All entries are percentages.
Model
Missing Tool Call
Parse Failure
Invalid Tool/Arguments
Total Error Turns
GPT-5.6 Sol
5
0
0
5
Qwen3.8-Max
744
51
29
824
Qwen3.7-Plus
0
0
0
0
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B
0
0
3
3
InternVL3.5-8B
2434
1754
271
4459
Qwen3-VL-2B (Base)
3907
314
36
4257
Appendix
Table 9: Tool-call format errors observed during the main-result evaluation. Counts are error turns rather than unique trajectories.
Model
Error trajectories
State-changing executed trajectories
Later clean- format turn
All remaining turns malformed
Execution- affected rate
GPT-5.6 Sol
5
0
0
5
0.3%
Qwen3.8-Max
499
477
489
10
0.7%
Qwen3.7-Plus
0
0
0
0
0.0%
Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B
2
2
2
0
0.0%
InternVL3.5-8B
1304
1127
1244
60
4.0%
Qwen3-VL-2B (Base)
1351
404
1351
0
0.0%
Appendix
Table 10: Trajectory-level consequences of tool-call format errors in the main-result evaluation. Execution-Affected Rate is All Remaining Turns Malformed divided by 1,503 episodes.
Method
All Tasks
Recovery Rate
Recovery SSR
SR
PG
NPR
SSR
MR
OR
MTR
Total
MR
OR
MTR
Total
SFT and full RL
ERR-VLM (SFT)
18.96
62.36
53.09
10.64
26.95
40.72
59.88
42.52
13.17
4.19
8.38
8.58
ERR-VLM (Full)
34.14
71.08
62.41
20.89
40.12
89.22
67.07
65.47
26.35
24.55
15.57
22.16
Algorithm Ablations
Turn-GRPO
31.81
74.89
53.89
8.85
45.51
83.83
48.50
59.28
13.77
10.18
9.58
11.18
Appendix
Table 11: More ablation results on ERR-Bench. Metrics follow Table 1 . All entries are percentages.
Figure 4: Successful real-robot trajectories. (a) Two-target nominal manipulation. (b) Manipulation Recovery corrects a misplaced fruit before continuing the task. (c) Missing-Target Recovery completes feasible fruit placement while ignoring the unavailable bottle subtask.
Figure 5: Failure cases in real-robot execution. (d) Semantic or target errors lead to incorrect placements and task failure. (e) An occluded target leads to repeated same-point pick attempts and eventual failure.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models remain brittle in long-horizon, contact-rich manipulation because success-only imitation provides little supervision for execution drift, while failed rollouts are often discarded. We introduce RePO-VLA, a recovery-driven policy optimization framework that assigns distinct roles to success, recovery, and failure trajectories. RePO-VLA first applies Recovery-Aware Initialization (RAI), slicing each corrective suffix into a new episode so corrective actions depend on the current adverse state rather than the preceding failure. It then learns a Progress-Aware Semantic Value Function (PAS-VF), aligning spatiotemporal trajectory features with instructions and successful references. The resulting labels salvage useful failure prefixes via reliability decay, while low-value labels mark drift and terminal breakdowns, teaching differences among nominal, failed, and corrective actions. The data engine turns adverse states into planner-generated or human-collected corrective rollouts, teaching recovery to the success manifold. Value-Conditioned Refinement (VCR) trains the policy to prefer high-progress actions. At deployment, a fixed high-value token biases actions toward the learned success manifold without online failure detectors or heuristic retries. We introduce the Failure-Recovery Benchmark (FRBench), with standardized error injection and recovery-focused evaluation. Across simulated and real-world bimanual tasks, RePO-VLA improves robustness, raising adversarial success from 20% to 75% on average and up to 80% in scaled real-world trials. Code and video results are available at https://1018weijia.github.io/RePO-VLA-Web/.
Weijia Liufu, Xiaoyu Guo, Ruiyi Chen +16
Sun Yat-sen University · South China University of Technology · Peng Cheng Laboratory +3
Current embodied models do not respond to their own failures, although what just went wrong could inform a small adjustment on the next attempt, the kind of reflection behind the gains of thinking in language models. We test whether they can repair a known error, which requires producing a correction and judging whether it is right. Stopped at a failure and allowed to retry, they seldom repair it through their own randomness or from a language description of the error, and best-of-N selection cannot pick the successful candidate after a failure. We attribute this to training only on successful demonstrations and to inputs too narrow to show what went wrong, and conclude that reflection must come from a vision-language model (VLM), which takes in far more information, such as the episode history and text, and is more general. Prior VLM-led work has the VLM plan every step and invoke the embodied model as a tool, placing the VLM on the critical path. We propose Spotter, which reverses the roles: the embodied model leads and executes continuously, while the VLM runs in parallel, monitors through a lightweight local screener, intervenes only when an error is detected, reflects on and corrects it, and returns control. We run Spotter with Qwen and with GPT as the VLM, and both improve the embodied models; with GPT, Spotter improves Cosmos Policy and π0.5 by 5.6 and 7.5 percentage points on RoboCasa, and raises π0.5 from 47.2% to 57.0% on the Hard setting of RoboTwin 2.0 and from 53% to 83% on a real robot. Because the VLM steps in only when an error is confirmed, a successful episode with Qwen takes only 13 to 16 s longer than with the embodied model alone and about 70% less time than with a VLM-led baseline using the same model. Our code is available at https://github.com/zqc3117/Spotter.
Long Li, Qichao Zhao, Yue Yang +6
Griffith University · IIIS, Tsinghua University · MainCode +3
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) or World Action (WAM) models have recently demonstrated remarkable performance in robotic manipulation. On LIBERO, SOTA method have achieved nearly 100% success rates, seemingly suggesting that the models are ready for deployment in real world. However, near perfect performance on existing benchmarks can be misleading: success under ideal conditions does not imply real world robustness. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate task completion from predefined initial states, while real world interactions inevitably involve failures such as failed grasps, collisions, and unintended object movements. A robot must therefore not only execute tasks successfully, but also recognize and recover from failures to continue the task. Yet this capability remains largely unmeasured, revealing a critical gap between benchmark performance and real world reliability. To address this gap, we introduce LIBERO-Recover Benchmark, a large scale benchmark for failure recovery in robotic manipulation. Built upon LIBERO, we collect real execution failures from SOTA embodied models and construct 1,000+ scenarios across four recovery levels: (1) Action Retry, (2) Action Adaptation, (3) Object State Recovery, and (4) Environmental Recovery. We evaluate four core capabilities: spatial understanding, object structure reasoning, interaction understanding, and topological reasoning. As the first large-scale benchmark for embodied failure recovery, LIBERO-Recover shifts evaluation from Can the robot succeed?'' to Can the robot recover after failure?'', promoting robust and generalizable embodied agents. The project will be avaible in \textcolor{blue}{https://liulin815.github.io/LIBERO-Recovery/}.
Lin Liu, Zhicheng Bao, Lu Zhang +7
Beta Infinity · Beijing Jiaotong University · School of Information and Communication Engineering Dalian University of Technology +1