Vision-Language-Action models (VLAs) enable general-purpose embodied intelligence, but their performance is brittle under distribution shift, where unanticipated failures can damage equipment or endanger people. Deploying VLAs in real-world systems therefore requires a runtime monitor that is timely, calibrated, and informative while being efficient enough to run on the edge. Existing methods fail to fulfill these requirements. We present VLA-Tug, a lightweight probe over the latent layers of a VLA backbone that improves early failure detection and bounds the missed-detection and false-alarm rates, with minimal inference overhead. We show that supervising on the pre-failure segment of a trajectory increases early failure detection at matched false-positive rates by up to 30% over the strongest learned baseline. Under shift to unseen tasks, the bounds on missed-detection and false-alarm rates remain valid in up to 86% of runs, versus at most 21% for baselines. Unlike existing methods, VLA-Tug predicts the failure mode to enable corrective actions, raising top-3 accuracy on unseen tasks by up to 44% over a majority baseline. VLA-Tug enables real-time monitoring where the well-timed and informative probe supports lightweight steering that improves task success. We release a dataset of 3,180 annotated manipulation episodes to support future work on latent failure detection in VLAs at https://vla-tug.github.io.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: We introduce VLA-Tug , a probe on the VLA backbone embeddings that predicts failures and their mode. (a) A recurrent encoder maps the embedding into a latent failure space; a score head and a calibrated trigger raise the alarm, and a mode head then predicts the failure mode. (b) VLA-Tug alarms before the failure, allowing early stopping or intervention by an expert model.
Method
Trigger
FPG
TPG
EE
FM
Failure detectors (no steering)
SAFE ( Gu et al., 2025 )
one-sided conformal
✓
×
∘†
×
ActProbe ( Huang et al., 2026 )
split conformal
✓
×
ׇ
×
STAC ( Agia et al., 2024 )
one-sided conformal
✓
×
×
×
FailureSpot ( Ma et al., 2026 )
one-sided conformal
✓
×
∘†
×
Steering methods
Table 1: Comparison with related methods. FPG / TPG: formal calibrated guarantee on the false-positive / true-positive rate. EE: early evaluation, i.e. a per-episode criterion against annotated failure time; ∘ denotes partial use. FM: predicts the failure mode. Trigger: what decides when steering happens. A dash means n/a.
Figure 2: How the embeddings et of a failed rollout are labelled for the four supervision strategies.
Figure 3: A successful (top) and a failed (bottom) rollout with their timeline , failure time , and failure mode labels.
Dataset
Split
Seen tasks
Unseen tasks
LIBERO
leave-three-out
7
3
LIBERO-X
new-task
175
43
new-signature
162
56
new-skill ⋆
159–209
9–59
Real-world
leave-one-out
7
1
Table 2: Task count by dataset and split.
LIBERO-10 π0.5
LIBERO-10 GR00T
LIBERO-X task
LIBERO-X signature
LIBERO-X skill
Real robot
Cost (LIBERO-X)
Method
Cal.
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Fit (s)
State (MB)
GPU (ms)
CPU (ms)
SAFE-LSTM
FC
75.5
34.9
74.1
51.2
64.6
40.4
64.7
41.2
62.5
30.1
44.5
25.1
43.5
26.2
0.066
0.86
SAFE-MLP
FC
74.1
39.9
62.9
39.2
59.3
42.3
53.7
46.2
56.8
23.5
40.1
20.2
114.5
6.3
0.034
0.032
STAC
MC
33.8
36.4
24.2
17.5
21.0
28.0
25.6
28.7
24.6
21.5
–
–
0.0
0.0
21.30
–
ActProbe
MC
39.3
26.7
32.4
30.1
12.6
22.7
11.9
13.9
20.3
13.6
–
–
7.1
0.09
0.15
0.11
FailureSpot
FC
61.9
36.2
36.9
44.7
26.3
20.4
28.0
26.2
30.4
19.6
–
–
9.2
6.4
0.033
0.029
Table 3: Early failure detection on seen and unseen tasks: area under the TPR early vs. FPR curve, averaged over splits. Seen: held-out episodes of training tasks; unseen: held-out tasks. Cal.: calibrator (MC max-conformal, FC functional conformal). Cost on LIBERO-X (lower is better): fit time, memory to score a new episode, and per-step latency on a GPU and a CPU. Dashes: not available. Best in bold, second best in italics.
Figure 4: Task- and episode-level data splits. Episodes from seen tasks are divided into training (65%), validation (15%), calibration (10%), and held-out seen (10%) sets. Unseen tasks form a separate evaluation set. Task-level proportions are schematic.
Figure 5: Early detection on seen (top) and unseen (bottom) tasks: the share of failures detected at or before the failure time ( TPRearly ) against the false-positive rate, for VLA-Tug and the learned and action-based baselines. Each curve is the mean over the splits of a setting, and the area under it up to 40% FPR is the metric of Table 3 . Panel titles give the benchmark, the policy, and the held-out split.
Figure 6: Steering demonstrations showing failure scores and corrections for simulated and real-world tasks. When the probe’s predicted failure score rises above the threshold, the VLA policy is automatically paused. For the simulated bowl task, we find that nudging the end-effector toward the drop-off location can help lead to success. For the real-world mushroom task, we find that nudging the wrist camera towards the target grasp object can help. Future work could systematically explore steering strategies. Refer to Figure 17(a) for more steering strategies and Figure 17(b) for another real world steering example.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Table 4: The eight real-world tasks and the number of demonstrations used to fine-tune the policy ( 510 in total).
π0.5 LIBERO-10-Occ
GR00T LIBERO-10-Occ
GR00T LIBERO-X
GR00T real robot
Mode
% of failures
Time (s)
% of failures
Time (s)
% of failures
Time (s)
% of failures
Time (s)
stuck_or_no_progress
24.5
10.3±3.5
30.2
8.6±3.7
14.1
15.5±10.7
12.2
3.8±3.0
object_displacement
18.2
11.9±5.3
17.8
11.8±6.7
10.8
15.1±10.9
9.4
4.9±2.3
placement_or_insertion
13.6
15.2±4.2
16.0
12.9±7.0
9.9
21.9±10.2
11.4
8.3±4.5
grasp_failure
17.3
9.6±5.4
13.0
8.6±4.3
9.0
12.0±9.7
56.7
4.7±2.3
open_close_failure
7.3
12.6±4.8
9.5
13.9±3.1
4.7
18.7±11.5
7.5
3.8±1.7
Appendix
Table 5: Failure-mode distribution and mean ± std failure time (s) per mode, by policy and dataset.
LIBERO-10 π0.5
LIBERO-10 GR00T
LIBERO-X task
LIBERO-X signature
LIBERO-X skill
Real robot
Cost (LIBERO-X)
Method
Cal.
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Fit (s)
State (MB)
GPU (ms)
CPU (ms)
SAFE-LSTM
FC
75.5 ± 13.4
34.9 ± 3.5
74.1 ± 13.0
51.2 ± 8.4
64.6 ± 3.5
40.4 ± 2.3
64.7 ± 7.4
41.2 ± 7.1
62.5 ± 2.4
30.1 ± 8.5
44.5 ± 13.5
25.1 ± 18.8
43.5
26.2
0.066
0.86
SAFE-MLP
FC
74.1 ± 2.0
39.9 ± 15.1
62.9 ± 18.2
39.2 ± 9.4
59.3 ± 2.0
42.3 ± 2.9
53.7 ± 2.4
46.2 ± 2.3
56.8 ± 6.0
23.5 ± 12.4
40.1 ± 15.9
20.2 ± 16.6
114.5
6.3
0.034
0.032
STAC
MC
33.8 ± 5.1
36.4 ± 5.3
24.2 ± 7.5
17.5 ± 9.8
21.0 ± 2.3
28.0 ± 0.1
25.6 ± 3.7
28.7 ± 0.3
24.6 ± 5.0
21.5 ± 8.0
–
–
0.0
0.0
21.30
–
ActProbe
MC
39.3 ± 11.3
26.7 ± 2.6
32.4 ± 16.8
30.1 ± 9.3
12.6 ± 4.2
22.7 ± 4.6
11.9 ± 3.1
13.9 ± 1.5
20.3 ± 9.4
13.6 ± 7.1
–
–
7.1
0.09
0.15
0.11
FailureSpot
FC
61.9 ± 3.0
36.2 ± 21.0
36.9 ± 19.8
44.7 ± 18.6
26.3 ± 2.1
20.4 ± 1.2
28.0 ± 2.5
26.2 ± 5.6
30.4 ± 3.4
19.6 ± 7.9
–
–
9.2
6.4
0.033
0.029
Appendix
Table 6: Table 3 with the standard deviation over the splits: area under TPR early vs. FPR up to 40% (in %). Dashes: the action chunks the method needs were not saved. Best in bold, second best in italics.
Figure 7: TPRearly against FPR for every setting and method, on seen (top) and unseen (bottom) tasks; mean over the splits of a setting.
Seen tasks
Unseen tasks
FPR target
TPR-early target
PPV bound
Method
Runs
FPR holds
TPR holds
FPR
TPR early
PPV
PPV holds
PPV holds (own π )
FPR holds
TPR holds
FPR
TPR early
PPV
PPV holds
PPV holds (own π )
10%
–
–
LTT
0% (0/14)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Max conformal (MC)
100% (14/14)
57%
–
9.3 ± 4.4
53.4 ± 12.7
90.1
–
–
50%
–
15.6 ± 12.3
35.3 ± 20.5
80.7
–
–
–
–
Functional conformal (FC)
100% (14/14)
71%
–
9.8 ± 5.8
33.9 ± 17.2
90.7
–
–
36%
–
14.9 ± 9.4
26.3 ± 16.2
84.3
–
–
15%
15%
58.1
LTT
50% (7/14)
100%
100%
5.3 ± 3.1
39.2 ± 8.0
92.5
100%
100%
86%
71%
9.8 ± 11.5
27.1 ± 14.7
85.8
100%
100%
–
–
Max conformal (MC)
100% (14/14)
57%
–
14.2 ± 7.3
64.8 ± 9.0
88.1
–
–
14%
–
25.8 ± 12.3
50.7 ± 15.7
77.5
–
–
Appendix
Table 7: Learn-then-Test (LTT), max-conformal (MC), and functional conformal (FC) at the same FPR target, over the 14 LIBERO-X runs ( δ=0.1 ). LTT certifies the TPR-early target of the second column together with the FPR target, and abstains otherwise; its percentages are over the certified runs. PPV bound: βπ/(βπ+α(1−π)) .
Top-1 accuracy (%)
Top-3 accuracy (%)
task
signature
skill
Real robot
task
signature
skill
Real robot
Method
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Most common
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
20.0
20.0
42.9
42.9
42.9
42.9
43.9
39.0
60.4
32.6
Random
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
20.0
20.0
42.9
42.9
42.9
42.9
42.9
42.9
60.0
60.0
VLA-Tug (Ours), own detection (first alarm)
onset_pre
34.2
25.5
35.6
22.6
33.6
20.3
54.3
21.7
65.1
59.9
69.8
56.3
69.4
56.3
88.2
70.4
Appendix
Table 8: Balanced top-1 and top-3 failure-mode accuracy (%), pooled over the splits of each kind. Shaded rows: our probe, by label variant; the oracle rows use the true failure time and are an upper bound. Best in bold, second best in italics, among the other rows.
LIBERO-10 π0.5
LIBERO-10 GR00T
LIBERO-X task
LIBERO-X signature
LIBERO-X skill
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Heads (LSTM, pre-onset label)
Modes + CLIP (ours)
75.1 ± 12.5
47.9 ± 20.9
70.5 ± 10.4
47.4 ± 13.5
67.9 ± 5.0
40.2 ± 1.2
67.0 ± 6.6
47.0 ± 0.6
67.8 ± 4.8
39.0 ± 7.0
No head
82.3 ± 6.4 (+10%)
51.1 ± 4.0 (+7%)
70.1 ± 11.0 ( − 1%)
55.1 ± 5.5 (+16%)
67.1 ± 1.8 ( − 1%)
42.7 ± 1.5 (+6%)
68.3 ± 5.7 (+2%)
45.0 ± 1.3 ( − 4%)
69.2 ± 4.4 (+2%)
43.6 ± 11.5 (+12%)
Modes only
80.4 ± 8.4 (+7%)
48.3 ± 8.8 (+1%)
70.9 ± 8.2 (+0%)
52.9 ± 8.4 (+12%)
69.4 ± 1.0 (+2%)
39.9 ± 3.8 ( − 1%)
68.0 ± 8.8 (+2%)
46.6 ± 3.5 ( − 1%)
68.3 ± 3.5 (+1%)
43.7 ± 10.2 (+12%)
CLIP only
78.2 ± 11.4 (+4%)
58.3 ± 15.3 (+22%)
72.6 ± 4.8 (+3%)
44.4 ± 12.7 ( − 6%)
66.1 ± 3.1 ( − 3%)
41.4 ± 2.4 (+3%)
67.3 ± 8.3 (+1%)
46.2 ± 2.8 ( − 2%)
67.8 ± 5.5 (+0%)
38.5 ± 9.2 ( − 1%)
Appendix
Table 9: Ablations of our probe in the simulated settings: area under TPR early vs. FPR up to 40% (in %), mean ± standard deviation over the splits, and in brackets the change relative to our probe (shaded). Best in bold, second best in italics, within each block.
Top-1 accuracy (%)
Top-3 accuracy (%)
task
signature
skill
Real robot
task
signature
skill
Real robot
Method
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
At the first alarm of our probe
Score + modes + CLIP (ours)
41.0 ± 1.4
27.2 ± 2.5
37.3 ± 7.2
23.7 ± 0.7
42.3 ± 5.3
32.2 ± 4.3
57.9 ± 10.6
61.5 ± 44.0
76.0 ± 2.6
65.9 ± 5.7
74.2 ± 1.0
62.8 ± 1.8
74.6 ± 3.4
63.2 ± 5.6
93.3 ± 7.3
100.0 ± 0.0
Score + modes
40.6 ± 3.7
25.8 ± 2.5
44.0 ± 4.6
25.6 ± 0.8
42.5 ± 5.3
28.0 ± 7.0
57.4 ± 11.8
64.1 ± 45.4
76.4 ± 1.5
64.0 ± 2.8
75.6 ± 2.8
63.3 ± 1.0
75.7 ± 2.9
61.9 ± 7.9
91.9 ± 7.0
100.0 ± 0.0
Modes + CLIP
37.3 ± 5.8
23.7 ± 1.4
29.3 ± 11.1
17.7 ± 9.3
44.0 ± 6.4
30.5 ± 5.3
55.0 ± 14.2
59.0 ± 42.8
72.3 ± 7.7
64.9 ± 3.3
62.6 ± 16.4
54.3 ± 13.4
75.3 ± 5.2
61.0 ± 5.6
90.4 ± 7.9
100.0 ± 0.0
Appendix
Table 10: What the CLIP head and the score term add to failure-mode prediction: top-1 and top-3 accuracy (in %), mean ± standard deviation over the splits. Our probe is shaded. Best in bold, second best in italics, per column and anchor.
LIBERO-10 π0.5
LIBERO-10 GR00T
LIBERO-X task
LIBERO-X signature
LIBERO-X skill
Real robot
Method
0 s
+1 s
+2 s
0 s
+1 s
+2 s
0 s
+1 s
+2 s
0 s
+1 s
+2 s
0 s
+1 s
+2 s
0 s
+1 s
+2 s
SAFE-LSTM
34.9
37.2
39.2
51.2
53.1
55.0
40.4
42.1
44.4
41.2
42.8
44.9
30.1
31.7
33.6
25.1
26.8
28.9
SAFE-MLP
39.9
42.1
43.9
39.2
40.6
43.9
42.3
43.3
44.7
46.2
47.2
47.9
23.5
24.3
25.7
20.2
21.4
22.8
STAC
36.4
43.0
53.2
17.5
22.0
27.6
28.0
29.5
32.2
28.7
30.6
34.0
21.5
22.6
25.1
–
–
–
ActProbe
26.6
31.0
37.2
30.1
33.3
38.6
22.7
24.7
27.5
13.9
16.1
18.8
13.6
14.3
15.7
–
–
–
FailureSpot
36.2
39.4
42.7
44.7
46.5
46.6
20.4
20.9
21.7
26.2
27.2
29.1
19.6
20.8
22.8
–
–
–
Appendix
Table 11: Early-detection area (in %) on the unseen episodes when the failure time is moved later by 0, 1, and 2 s; nothing is retrained. Ours is shaded. Best in bold, second best in italics.
Figure 8: VLA backbone embedding, by outcome.
Figure 9: VLA backbone embedding, by failure mode.
Figure 10: Probe LSTM state, by outcome.
Figure 11: Probe LSTM state, by failure mode.
Figure 12: Failure score head layer, by outcome.
Figure 13: Failure score head layer, by failure mode.
Figure 14: Failure mode head layer, by failure mode (failures only).
Figure 15: Seen tasks (training episodes). A success (green, “pick up the bowl on the plate and place it to the left of the bowl drainer”) and an object displacement failure (red, “place the striped book in the top region of the shelf”).
Figure 16: Unseen tasks. A success (green, “place the red bowl in the basket”) and a press failure (red, “turn on the flat stove”).
Figure 17: Steering strategies, in simulation and on the real robot.
Vision-language-action models (VLAs) achieve state-of-the-art performance on many robotic manipulation tasks, yet they can still behave unpredictably in out-of-distribution scenarios. Runtime failure detection is therefore essential for the safe real-world deployment of VLAs.However, existing task failure detectors require computationally expensive action sampling, are based on architectural assumptions that limit their applicability to VLAs, or need access to failure rollouts. We propose VLA-FAIL, a lightweight and broadly applicable failure detection framework for VLAs that combines two novel failure detectors with minimal overhead, without requiring failure data. The first, last-layer Mahalanobis distance (LLMD), detects out-of-distribution states by measuring token-wise deviations in last-layer features relative to the training data. The second, action chunk consistency (ACC), exploits the temporal overlap induced by receding-horizon control and detects failures when consecutive action chunks become inconsistent. To capture the trade-off between detection accuracy and detection latency, we introduce AUCPDT, a threshold-independent metric that jointly evaluates precision, recall, and detection time. Through extensive real-world and simulation experiments, we demonstrate that LLMD and ACC capture complementary failure modes whose combination enables reliable and early failure detection across diverse tasks, frequently outperforming significantly more expensive baseline methods. Project page: https://vla-fail.github.io/vla-fail-2026
Vision-language-action (VLA) models map visual observations and natural-language instructions to robotic actions, but distribution shifts can compromise their reliability. Because these models may still succeed under out-of-distribution (OOD) conditions, detecting OOD inputs alone is insufficient to predict execution failure. In this paper, we introduce VLA-Scope, a two-stage framework that combines input-shift characterization with execution history to predict failure during OOD rollouts. The first stage uses pooled image and language representations to detect OOD inputs and classify their shift categories. For inputs flagged as OOD, the second stage combines the predicted category, action-prefix features, and execution progress features. A logistic regression model shared across shift categories updates failure risk as execution proceeds. We evaluate the framework with OpenVLA on ten LIBERO-Spatial tasks using leave-one-group-out cross-validation. OOD detection achieves a ROC-AUC of 0.9454, and shift classification achieves 91% accuracy. Evaluated independently of the OOD gate on all 1,400 OOD rollouts, the failure predictor achieves a ROC-AUC of 0.8497 after 60 executed actions, compared with 0.7906 without execution progress features. It also achieves a higher ROC-AUC than the evaluated ActProbe and SAFE-MLP baselines. These results suggest that combining action features with temporally aggregated execution step representations improves failure prediction under input shifts.
Kaiwen Zhu, Dongfang Liu, Liangkai Liu
Department of Computer Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA · Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models can perform diverse manipulation tasks directly from visual observations and natural language instructions, but they remain prone to mistakes and unpredictable failures. Deploying these policies without continuous human supervision will require robust runtime monitors that detect when the policy has gone off-course. Existing monitors use external foundation models, such as vision-language models (VLMs) to supervise the policy, introducing significant complexity and computational cost for monitoring at runtime. In this work, we investigate an alternate approach: can a VLA's own internal activations provide the information needed to monitor its execution? Our method trains linear probes on policy activations from demonstrations to estimate progress, then flags executions that deviate from expected progress. In experiments with the open-source VLA π0.5 and across simulated and real-world manipulation tasks, this approach is competitive with or outperforms VLM-based monitors in task failure detection, as well as methods which require failure data for training. These findings suggest that simple probes of VLA internals can be used to develop reliable runtime monitors, opening a path toward building policies that can act reliably and monitor their execution without external foundation models.