VISION · LANGUAGE · ACTION

FIT-MAC

Failure-Aware Inference-Time Multi-Agent Control
for Robust VLA Manipulation

Observe the failure. Adapt the control. Continue the task.

Anonymous authors

Frozen VLA backbones · Inference-time recovery

FAILURE-AWARE CONTROL LOOPAt inference time
01 / PERCEIVEPlan & ground

Decompose the instruction and resolve the intended target.

02 / MONITORDetect & diagnose

Distinguish target-binding errors from execution failures.

03 / INTERVENERebind or recover

Correct the target or apply bounded local recovery.

TL;DR

FIT-MAC adds failure diagnosis and two complementary recovery paths to a frozen VLA: target rebinding for grounding errors, and local pick-and-place recovery for execution failures.

01 / THE IDEA

Abstract

Vision-language-action (VLA) models have achieved strong performance on standard robotic manipulation benchmarks. However, their reliability can degrade substantially when task conditions deviate from the nominal setting. Perturbations in object positions and task instructions may lead to complete task failure. Existing VLA policies generally lack an explicit runtime mechanism for distinguishing these failure modes and selecting an appropriate recovery strategy.

To systematically mitigate this issue, we propose FIT-MAC, a failure-aware, closed-loop multi-agent control framework for improving the robustness of VLA policies at inference time.

FIT-MAC augments a VLA policy with an inference-time control layer. First, the Planner Agent parses the language instruction into a structured task specification that captures the manipulation goal and spatial constraints, and the Grounder Agent resolves each instruction-level reference to a visual target. Next, the Monitor-Diagnoser Agent tracks phase-specific execution progress and distinguishes target-binding failures from local execution failures. Finally, FIT-MAC routes each detected failure to a corresponding recovery mechanism, target rebinding for target failures and bounded grasping or placement recovery for execution failures. When no failure is detected, the original VLA remains the default action generator.

Extensive experiments on LIBERO-PRO demonstrate that FIT-MAC improves robustness across multiple VLA backbones, consistently increasing success rates and achieving state-of-the-art performance under diverse perturbations.

02 / MOTIVATION

Different failures need
different corrections.

A wrong object and a failed placement require different recovery decisions.

Motivation: standard VLA execution versus the FIT-MAC agent framework
Standard VLA execution predicts actions directly. FIT-MAC adds planning, instance-level grounding, and runtime monitoring to decide when correction is needed. View original PDF ↗
01 / TARGET

Correct the binding

When the language-specified object is uncertain or inconsistent with the scene, rebind the target and regenerate the grounded prompt.

02 / EXECUTION

Recover the motion

When grounding is correct but manipulation fails, retain the target lock and invoke bounded grasping or placement recovery.

03 / POLICY

Keep the backbone frozen

The pretrained VLA remains the default action generator. Recovery changes inference-time control without updating policy parameters.

03 / HOW IT WORKS

Plan. Ground. Verify. Correct.

FIT-MAC method architecture
FIT-MAC coordinates planning, grounding, monitoring, and recovery through a shared global state. Target failures route to rebinding; execution failures route to local action recovery. View original PDF ↗
  1. Parse the task

    Extract targets, destinations, relations, and spatial constraints, then organize the instruction into bounded manipulation attempts.

  2. Resolve the visual instance

    Detect candidate objects and ground the instruction to a target. Use a VLM resolver when candidates are uncertain or ambiguous.

  3. Monitor phase-specific progress

    Track approach, grasp, lift, transport, placement, and release using geometric progress, gripper state, object motion, and timeout signals.

  4. Route the intervention

    Rebind an unreliable target or invoke bounded local recovery for a physical execution failure. Otherwise, continue with the base VLA.

04 / DEMO

FIT-MAC in action.

A dedicated space for the full demonstration video. The complete demo is coming soon.

Demo preview

Placeholder · Sample clip
This temporary preview uses the successful rollout from Target correction, Case 02. It will be replaced with the full demo video.

05 / RECOVERY COMPARISON VIDEOS

Watch the failure.
Compare the outcome.

Eight paired examples across target correction and execution recovery. Choose a case to compare its unsuccessful and successful rollouts.

TARGET BINDING

Target correction

Recover from incorrect object selection by correcting the target binding.

Unsuccessful rolloutCase 01
Download video ↓
Successful rolloutCase 01
Download video ↓

Case 01 · Paired by the supplied case number.

Play pair starts both clips together. Each clip retains its original duration and stops at its final frame.

Illustrated target-correction examples
Target-correction cases: the annotated sequences show a wrong object choice and redirection toward the intended target. View original PDF ↗

LOCAL EXECUTION

Execution recovery

Recover from a manipulation or placement error after selecting the intended target.

Unsuccessful rolloutCase 01
Download video ↓
Successful rolloutCase 01
Download video ↓

Case 01 · Paired by the supplied case number.

Play pair starts both clips together. Each clip retains its original duration and stops at its final frame.

Illustrated execution-correction examples
Execution-correction cases: the annotated sequences show a placement error and redirection to the plate. View original PDF ↗

06 / EXPERIMENTS

Robustness across perturbations.

LIBERO-PRO evaluation on LIBERO-Object and LIBERO-Spatial.

78.7%

FIT-MAC average success rate

+32.8%

Gain over OpenVLA's 45.9%

3

Frozen VLA backbones evaluated

The main comparison covers ten settings: five perturbation types in each suite. OpenVLA and FIT-MAC use matched evaluation conditions; other methods use reported results.

TABLE 1

Comparison across perturbations

Comparison across perturbations
MethodLIBERO-ObjectLIBERO-SpatialAvg.
Obj.Pos.Sem.TaskEnv.Obj.Pos.Sem.TaskEnv.
MolmoAct92.06.096.00.0—90.00.088.00.0——
NORA86.00.092.00.0—92.00.091.00.0——
X-VLA89.02.098.08.0—97.00.096.00.0——
AtomVLA93.010.099.00.0—95.016.095.01.0——
CaP-Agent₀—22.0—18.0——12.0—14.0——
RATs—61.0—63.0——29.0—31.0——
OpenVLA98.00.098.00.00.097.00.077.00.089.045.9
FIT-MAC (Ours)99.093.498.887.248.897.240.286.837.897.878.7

Success rate (%). Obj. = object identity; Pos. = object position; Sem. = semantic binding; Task = task instruction; Env. = environment. — indicates unreported results. The overall average is shown only for methods evaluated on all ten settings.

Across VLA backbones

Average success rate over five perturbation types per suite (Figure 4).

Backbone onlyWith FIT-MAC

Gains are differences between success rates expressed in %, not relative percentage increases.

Cross-backbone success rates and gains
Figure 4. Success rates (left) and absolute gains (right) for OpenVLA, π₀, and π₀.₅. All backbone parameters remain frozen. View original PDF ↗
Runtime intervention and recovery · Table 2
TABLE 2

When does FIT-MAC intervene?

When does FIT-MAC intervene?
PerturbationLIBERO-ObjectLIBERO-Spatial
SR (%)IR (%)RSR (%)SR (%)IR (%)RSR (%)
Obj.99.099.899.397.237.897.9
Pos.93.499.593.840.287.641.3
Sem.98.898.999.686.842.898.6
Task87.2100.087.137.890.635.5
Env.48.850.497.597.821.299.1

SR: success among all evaluated episodes. IR: fraction of episodes with at least one intervention. RSR: success among intervened episodes. Values are transcribed as reported in Table 2.

07 / ABLATIONS

Which components matter?

Controlled ablations with the OpenVLA backbone reveal the contribution of each recovery component.

TABLE 3

Module ablation

Module ablation
ConfigurationSuccess rate (%)ΔSR (%)
ObjectSpatialAvg.ObjectSpatial
FIT-MAC85.472.078.70.00.0
w/o target correction77.269.873.5-8.2-2.2
w/o execution correction47.062.454.7-38.4-9.6
w/o hard pick50.270.060.1-35.2-2.0
w/o hard place63.264.063.6-22.2-8.0

Success rate (%) and absolute differences from full FIT-MAC (ΔSR), computed by subtracting success rates expressed in %. Object and Spatial are averages over five perturbation types.

Removing execution correction lowers average success from 78.7% to 54.7%. Target correction, hard-pick recovery, and hard-place recovery also contribute to performance.

Hyperparameter sensitivity · Table 4
TABLE 4

Sensitivity to intervention and execution settings

Sensitivity to intervention and execution settings
ParameterValuesObject (%)Spatial (%)Avg. (%)
Failure threshold2 / 3 / 485.4 / 85.4 / 85.470.8 / 70.6 / 70.678.1 / 78.0 / 78.0
Confidence threshold0.10 / 0.12 / 0.1885.4 / 85.4 / 85.471.0 / 70.6 / 71.078.2 / 78.0 / 78.2
Minimum rescue step8 / 12 / 1685.4 / 85.4 / 85.471.2 / 70.6 / 71.078.3 / 78.0 / 78.2
Execution horizon1 / 2 / 368.0 / 85.4 / 87.472.0 / 70.0 / 69.870.0 / 77.7 / 78.6

Values appear in the same order across each row. Bold parameter values are the default settings. Each row reproduces its own reported evaluation setting.