CSO: Refining Robotic Policies via Skill Distribution Alignment and Skill-Grained Optimization
Organizations: Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen) · Mashang Consumer Finance Co., Ltd. · Shenzhen Institute for Advanced Study, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
Abstract
Discretizing continuous actions into discrete skills using methods like VQ-VAE has emerged as a powerful paradigm for robotic manipulation. However, quantization errors yield a suboptimal distribution for the skill prior, degrading its performance. While reinforcement learning offers a path for refinement, its direct application faces unstable encoder updates and a granularity dilemma in importance sampling. To address these challenges, we introduce Cascaded Skills Optimization (CSO), a two-stage post-training framework. First, Rejection-Sampling Supervised Fine-tuning aligns the model's observation-to-skill mapping with the distribution of successful online trajectories via supervised fine-tuning. Second, with the observation encoder frozen, Skills Policy Optimization computes an independent, clipped importance ratio for each complete skill, enabling stable and efficient updates. With a lightweight QueST-style policy, CSO raises overall LIBERO success from 80.1% to 97.5%, improves performance on RoboTwin2.0, and achieves 61.0% success across five physical single-arm tasks. Additional comparisons with FAST, discrete BEAST, and fixed-buffer IQL further validate the effectiveness of our two-stage post-training strategy.
Figures & tables
| Method | LIBERO-Object | LIBERO-Spatial | LIBERO-Goal | LIBERO-Long | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Octo † [ 29 ] | |||||
| OpenVLA † [ 14 ] | |||||
| Dita † [ 12 ] | |||||
| [ 2 ] | |||||
| + FAST † [ 31 ] | |||||
| ResNet-T [ 28 ] |
| Method | Clean (%) | Randomized (%) | Average (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| QueST [ 28 ] | |||
| QueST + RIPT [ 37 ] | |||
| CSO (QueST-style) | |||
| CSO (Qwen3-VL-2B) |
| Method / Configuration | LIBERO-Long (%) | LIBERO-90 (%) |
|---|---|---|
| (1) IL-pretrained policy (Baseline) | 69.1 | 88.6 |
| (2) CSO (Ours, Full Model) | 96.0 | 97.7 |
| (3) w/o SPO (R-SFT only) | 85.3 | 93.1 |
| (4) w/o R-SFT (SPO only) | 91.7 | 95.3 |
| (5) w/o Encoder Freeze | 89.6 | 94.4 |
| Method | Update or credit scheme | SR (%) |
|---|---|---|
| GRPO | Token-level ratio | 94.5 |
| GSPO | Episode-level ratio | 93.2 |
| PPO | Learned value critic | 94.3 |
| SPO | Skill-level ratio | 96.0 |
| Representation | Reconstruction MSE | IL | R-SFT | Full CSO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FSQ/QueST-style | 0.042 | 69.1 | 85.3 | 96.0 |
| FAST | 0.018 | 78.2 | 89.5 | 97.2 |
| Discrete BEAST | 0.015 | 84.5 | 91.2 | 98.1 |
| Method | Cube on Cube | Cube in Bowl | Press Button | Cube on Bottle | Sequential Placement | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VQ-BeT | 45 | 35 | 25 | 35 | 5 | 29.0 |
| QueST | 45 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 10 | 41.0 |
| QueST + RIPT | 60 | 60 | 70 | 60 | 25 | 55.0 |
| CSO | 65 | 70 | 80 | 60 | 30 | 61.0 |
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Method | Stage 1 Success Rate | Stage 2 Success Rate (Conditional) | Overall Success Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Cube into Bowl) | (Bowl onto Plate | Stage 1 Success) | ||
| VQ-BeT (IL Baseline) | 20% | 25% | 5% |
| QueST (IL Baseline) | 40% | 25% | 10% |
| QueST + RIPT (RL Baseline) | 50% | 50% | 25% |
| CSO (Ours) | 60% | 50% | 30% |
| Benchmark Suite | Initial IL Success Rate | Rollouts Needed (Avg.) |
|---|---|---|
| LIBERO-Long | 69.1% | 538 |
| LIBERO-90 | 88.6% | 305 |
| MetaWorld ML45 | 85.0% | 341 |
| Sample Efficiency (R-SFT) | Iterative vs. Two-Stage | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| # Samples | Success Rate (%) | Strategy | Success Rate (%) |
| 50 | 91.5 0.7 | Two-Stage (Ours) | 96.0 0.5 |
| 100 | 94.2 0.5 | Iterative Loop | 96.3 0.6 |
| 200 | 96.0 0.5 | Training Cost | 2.5 Time |
| Skill Length | Success Rate (%) | Observation |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | 93.5 | More aggressive compression. |
| 8 (Ours) | 96.0 | Best evaluated value. |
| 16 | 91.6 | Longer autoregressive generation. |
| Action chunk | IL SR (%) | CSO SR (%) | Gain |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 62.4 | 88.5 | +26.1 |
| 32 | 69.1 | 96.0 | +26.9 |
| 64 | 54.2 | 79.8 | +25.6 |
| Method | Clipping Range | Success Rate | Clipping Fraction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Token (GRPO) | 93.8% | 1.2% | |
| 94.2% | 3.1% | ||
| (Best) | 94.5% | 3.5% | |
| Trajectory (GSPO) | 92.1% | 0.8% | |
| (Best) | 93.2% | 1.5% | |
| 86.4% | 12.3% |
| Method | Credit Assignment | LIBERO-Long SR |
|---|---|---|
| SPO (Ours) | Critic-free / Shared terminal advantage | 96.0% |
| Standard PPO | Learned Critic / Fine-grained | 94.3% |
| Protocol | SR (%) |
|---|---|
| Expert-only IL | 69.1 |
| Joint training from scratch | 76.8 |
| Mixed fine-tuning | 80.2 |
| Sequential R-SFT | 85.3 |
| Method | Data strategy | SR (%) |
|---|---|---|
| R-SFT only | No Stage-2 optimization | 85.3 |
| R-SFT + IQL | Fixed offline buffer | 89.4 |
| R-SFT + SPO | Adaptive online collection | 96.0 |
| Expert demonstrations per task | Initial SR (%) | Final CSO SR (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 12.0 | 82.4 |
| 25 | 38.5 | 91.8 |
| 50 | 69.1 | 96.0 |
| Perturbation | QueST | QueST + RIPT | CSO |
|---|---|---|---|
| RGB/camera perturbation | 42.3 | 71.0 | 88.4 |
| Proprioceptive noise | 51.0 | 76.2 | 91.2 |
| Action delay | 38.5 | 65.4 | 84.6 |
| Failure category | Trials |
|---|---|
| Unseen configurations or incorrect skill selection | 14 |
| Insufficient tokenizer precision or missing motion patterns | 11 |
| Contact, grasp, or slippage errors | 8 |
| Long-horizon subgoal errors | 4 |
| Hardware or safety stops | 2 |
| Total | 39 |
| Stage or strategy | Attempts | Wall-clock hours | GPU hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSO R-SFT | 5,380 | 3.5 | 14.0 |
| CSO SPO | 41,200 | 12.0 | 48.0 |
| Complete CSO | 46,580 | 15.5 | 62.0 |
| RIPT, full budget matched | 46,580 | 14.5 | 58.0 |
| Stage | Attempts | Retained data | Robot h | GPU h | Recoveries |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-SFT | 240 | 100 successes (20/task) | 6.5 | 2.0 | 42 |
| SPO | 600 | 400 trajectories | 15.0 | 5.0 | 85 |
| Total | 840 | 100 successes + 400 trajectories | 21.5 | 7.0 | 127 |
Robot Policy Learning
Robot policy learning develops controllers that map sensory observations, task goals, and interaction history to actions for embodied robots.
See all 377 papers