AgenticRoboRL: Bringing Coding-Agent Post-Training to Agentic Robotics
Organizations: University of Central Florida · University of Southern California · Michigan State University
Abstract
Agentic robotics systems combine planners with robot harnesses to perform complex manipulation tasks. Recent work improves these systems through better harnesses and external memory, but relies on powerful closed-source models as planners and does not improve the planners' own capabilities. In contrast, coding agents have improved substantially by post-training the model itself. We therefore investigate whether post-training can also improve robot planners. However, applying it across robot harnesses requires accommodating different execution mechanisms, including VLA skill invocation and control-code generation. To this end, we introduce AgenticRoboRL, a framework for post-training robot planners across different harnesses. The training recipe combines supervised fine-tuning with multi-turn reinforcement learning. To accommodate different execution mechanisms, harness-specific adapters connect recorded planner interactions with task outcomes, enabling a common RL training pipeline while keeping execution components fixed. On LIBERO-PRO, AgenticRoboRL raises the success rate of a 9B-parameter planner from 18.1% to 71.0% without external memory, approaching the 72.1% achieved by Codex (GPT-5.5) with external memory. These results demonstrate post-training as an effective approach for improving robot planners. We will release the framework and trained planner checkpoints.
Figures & tables
| Method | Mem. | Spat-T | Spat-S | Obj-T | Obj-S | Goal-T | Goal-S | L10-T | L10-S | Overall | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenVLA ( Kim et al., 2024 ) † | – | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||||||
| ( Black et al., 2024 ) † | – | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | ||||||||||
| ( Intelligence et al., 2025 ) † | – | 1.0 | 20.0 | 1.0 | 17.0 | 2.0 | 38.0 | 1.0 | 8.0 | 11.0 | ||||||||||
| MolmoAct ( Lee et al., 2026 ) † | – | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | ||||||||||
| NORA ( Hung et al., 2025 ) † | – | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||||||
| X-VLA ( Zheng et al., 2026 ) † | – | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.0 | 2.0 | 9.0 | 1.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 3.8 |
| Method | Camera | Robot | Language | Light | Background | Noise | Layout | Total | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenVLA ( Kim et al., 2024 ) † | 0.8 | 3.5 | 23.0 | 8.1 | 34.8 | 15.2 | 28.5 | 15.6 | |||||||||
| OpenVLA-OFT ( Kim et al., 2025 ) † | 56.4 | 31.9 | 79.5 | 88.7 | 93.3 | 75.8 | 74.2 | 69.6 | |||||||||
| OpenVLA-OFT_w † | 10.4 | 38.7 | 70.5 | 76.8 | 93.6 | 49.9 | 69.9 | 55.8 | |||||||||
| NORA ( Hung et al., 2025 ) † | 2.2 | 37.0 | 65.1 | 45.7 | 58.6 | 12.8 | 62.1 | 39.0 | |||||||||
| WorldVLA ( Cen et al., 2025 ) † | 0.1 | 27.9 | 41.6 | 43.7 | 17.1 | 10.9 | 38.0 | 25.0 | |||||||||
| UniVLA ( Bu et al., 2025 ) † | 1.8 | 46.2 | 69.6 | 69.0 | 81.0 | 21.2 | 31.9 | 43.9 |
| Object | Goal | Spatial | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Pos | Task | Pos | Task | Pos | Task | Avg. | |
| 27B (teacher) | 41.0 | 53.0 | 12.0 | 10.0 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 20.3 | |
| 9B | 5.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.7 | |
| 9B, SFT (ours) | 49.0 | 39.0 | 10.0 | 4.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 18.7 | +16.0 |
| [0pt][2] 9B, SFT + RL (ours) | 67.0 | 72.0 | 10.0 | 16.0 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 28.5 | +25.8 |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Field | Meaning | RPent | CaP-X |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Task identifier | Suite and task index | Suite and task index |
| init | Initial-state identifier; with the task it defines the group | Initial-state seed | Trial index, which fixes the initial state |
| attempt | Repeat index within the group | Attempt index | Attempt index |
| reward | Terminal reward | Simulator success check, not the planner’s own finish call | Task-completion flag written by the harness |
| valid | False for infrastructure failures, which are excluded from optimization | False when the failure is attributed to infrastructure | False for infrastructure failures. Errors in the generated code and unsuccessful execution are valid failures with zero reward |
Large Language Model-Based Robot Planning
Large language model-based robot planning turns natural-language goals and sensory observations into grounded, executable actions for robots.
See all 233 papers