SparkVLA: Stop-Aware Hierarchical VLA with Adaptive Action Chunking for Long-Horizon Manipulation

Hierarchical architectures for robotic manipulation separate high-level planning from low-level execution to tackle long-horizon tasks (25; 27; 13; 6; 24; 7). Representative systems pass latent features (27), subtask-level language commands (13), multi-scale memory (24), or task-phase classifiers (7) across the interface. MEM (24) combines short-term video with long-term language memory, enabling tasks spanning up to fifteen minutes; PALM (19) integrates affordance reasoning and continuous progress signals for subtask-aware execution. A systematic study (25) unifies these designs under an options-framework loop and identifies the termination condition as the highest-leverage interface mechanism. Despite this variety, all existing systems treat subtask termination as an isolated binary decision—judging whether to stop without access to the upcoming action plan or the execution horizon it implies. SparkVLA instead places termination inside a unified ranking over the proposed chunk, enabling joint assessment with execution length.

Action chunking—predicting and committing to a short action sequence before replanning—is standard in modern visuomotor policies (28; 8), but a fixed execution horizon creates a fundamental tradeoff between smoothness and reactivity. DEHP (29) trains a lightweight RL head to predict execution length while keeping the base policy frozen. ACH (21) and AQC (10) estimate Q-values for all candidate lengths in one forward pass, selecting the highest-value horizon without requiring online interaction. AAC (16) uses action entropy as a training-free cue for adaptive chunk-size selection at inference time. These methods improve over fixed horizons but cannot signal subtask completion. SparkVLA bridges both lines by scoring Stop and all action-prefix lengths under a shared head, trained from offline ordinal preferences without online RL.

We formulate SparkVLA as a hierarchical VLA with a high-level VLM planner and a low-level VLA executor. At a decision boundary $t$, defined as a re-observation point at which a new execution decision is made, the robot receives camera observations $I_{t}^{(1)},\ldots,I_{t}^{(C)}$ from $C$ cameras and proprioceptive state $s_{t}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_{s}}$, including the end-effector pose and gripper width. At the beginning of each subtask, the planner autoregressively generates a natural-language subtask command $c_{k}$, whose complete inputs are specified below. Conditioned on $c_{k}$, the current camera observations, and proprioceptive state, the executor produces an action chunk $A_{t}=(a_{t},\ldots,a_{t+H-1})\in\mathbb{R}^{H\times d_{a}}$.

We define a unified candidate set $\mathcal{C}=\{0,1,\ldots,H\}$, where candidate $0$ is Stop and each candidate $n\geq 1$ denotes the action-prefix consisting of the first $n$ actions in $A_{t}$. The selector ranks these candidates from the action chunk and two context representations, $\alpha_{k}$ and $m_{t}$, described next:

Selecting an action-prefix executes its $n$ actions before re-observing, whereas selecting Stop completes the current subtask and triggers autoregressive generation of the next subtask command. The following subsections describe the closed-loop architecture, context construction, and candidate scoring, respectively.

SparkVLA derives two separately parameterized branches from the pre-trained $\pi_{0.5}$ VLA. The high-level branch is built from the VLM backbone of $\pi_{0.5}$ and serves as the autoregressive subtask generator, whereas the low-level branch uses the complete $\pi_{0.5}$ VLA, including its action expert, to propose action chunks. The action-prefix selector is implemented on the high-level planner branch and is invoked at every decision boundary.

At the beginning of subtask $k$, the planner autoregressively generates $c_{k}$ from the global instruction, the ordered semantic history $\mathcal{H}_{k}=(c_{1},\ldots,c_{k-1})$, and the current observations and state. This history records previously completed subtask commands as an explicit semantic memory. Conditioned on $c_{k}$, the executor proposes $A_{t}$ at each decision boundary. If the selector chooses an action-prefix, its actions are executed before the robot re-observes and reaches the next decision boundary. If it chooses Stop, $c_{k}$ is completed and appended to the history, $\mathcal{H}_{k+1}=(\mathcal{H}_{k},c_{k})$, after which the planner generates $c_{k+1}$ from the updated history, current camera observations, and proprioceptive state.

The selector context is constructed in three stages: extracting a history-aware subtask anchor $\alpha_{k}$, pruning visual tokens under anchor guidance, and computing the high-level hidden feature $m_{t}$.

At each decision boundary the selector receives the action chunk $A_{t}$ proposed by the low-level executor, the cached subtask anchor $\alpha_{k}$, and the current high-level hidden feature $m_{t}$. It maps these inputs to scores over the unified candidate set and selects either Stop or the highest-scoring action-prefix to execute before re-observing:

We ablate chunk-selection method, unified stop integration, context encoding with selector placement, and inference scheduling. All variants use the same RoboCerebra protocol.

To validate whether the adaptive prefix selection and stop-aware termination transfer to physical hardware, we deploy SparkVLA on an AirbotPlay dual-arm platform with two wrist and one head RGB cameras across three tasks (Figure 4): (1) Shelf Arrangement (6 subtasks), repeated pick-and-place requiring persistent spatial binding; (2) Drawer Restocking (6 subtasks), articulated-object interaction with drawer-state tracking; and (3) Tea Preparation (12 subtasks), combining exploration, observation-based confirmation, constrained pouring, and long-horizon chaining. We collect 50 demonstrations per task and evaluate over 50 rollouts with matched initial states. Success requires completing all subtasks and satisfying final-state conditions.

SparkVLA achieves 69.3% average success, outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ by +21.3%(Table 5). The largest margin appears on Tea Preparation (+30.0%), where the 12-subtask horizon magnifies the benefit of explicit subtask memory and stop-aware termination. Across all tasks, adaptive prefixes shorten execution near contact events and extend it during free-space transport—the same behavioral pattern observed in simulation (Figure 3), confirming that the learned policy transfers qualitatively to physical dynamics.

The main paper gives the principles used to supervise the unified candidate set. Here we provide the complete assignment, including trajectory-end masking and failure rollouts. Let $T$ be the number of recorded actions in a training trajectory, and define candidate validity by

For compactness, write $\mathrm{succ}$ and $\mathrm{fail}$ for successful and unsuccessful trajectories. For a successful trajectory, we perturb its annotated completion boundary during training as $\tau^{\prime}=\tau+\Delta$, where $k=2$ and $\Delta$ is sampled uniformly from $\{-2,-1,0,1,2\}$, and set $n^{\star}=\tau^{\prime}-t$. The Stop priority is

For each valid action-prefix candidate $n\in\{1,\ldots,H\}$,

Thus, after completion, Stop outranks every action-prefix. Before a reachable boundary, every covering prefix outranks every non-covering prefix, and lower overshoot is preferred among covering prefixes. If the boundary lies beyond the proposed chunk ($n^{\star}>H$), longer prefixes receive higher priority. In an unsuccessful rollout, all action-prefixes tie above Stop; such samples supervise continuation but do not impose an arbitrary preferred execution length.

Only valid candidates with unequal priorities form a training pair:

The strict upper-triangular construction in Eq. (18) includes each unordered comparison once. Consequently, tied action-prefixes in unsuccessful rollouts do not enter the pairwise loss, whereas their Stop-versus-prefix comparisons remain active. Unsuccessful-rollout ranking samples are assigned a weight of $0.1$. Algorithm 1 gives the complete procedural construction used by the released preprocessing code.

The training objective contains the two terms stated in the main paper: the pairwise relative-ranking loss and the stop-aware binary loss, both applied to the same $H+1$ candidate scores. To counter the sparsity of completion boundaries without changing the inference rule, Stop-positive samples and near-boundary Stop-negative samples receive weight $3.0$; negative samples from unsuccessful rollouts receive weight $1.5$; all remaining samples use unit weight. We set $\lambda_{\mathrm{stop}}=1$ in $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rank}}+\lambda_{\mathrm{stop}}\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{stop}}$. The pairwise term includes every valid Stop–action-prefix comparison with unequal priority and therefore directly supervises the score ordering used at inference. The stop-aware term adds a boundary-focused aggregate contrast over the same scores. At inference, the selector applies the unified comparison rule from the main paper to this score vector, so the auxiliary term strengthens boundary supervision while preserving a single decision pathway. Algorithm 2 expands the minibatch computation. In particular, it does not introduce an additional prediction head or optimization term.

Table 6 lists the selector-specific settings that are omitted from the main paper for space. The SigLIP visual encoder and the base parameters of both $\pi_{0.5}$ branches are frozen during selector training. Trainable parameters comprise the high-level LoRA adapters, anchor projection and history attention, coordinate-prediction module, context projections, and unified scoring head.

Selector training combines 6,660 demonstration records and 5,630 policy-rollout records, from which 2,034,310 decision samples are constructed. The mixed sampler draws 30% demonstration samples and 70% rollout samples. For a successful demonstration segment, $\tau$ is the annotated end of the completed subtask; for a successful policy rollout, it is the recorded completion step. Failed rollouts have no completion boundary and use the last case of Eq. (17). We retain at most 80 frames after a successful boundary and cap failed rollouts at 300 frames. These failure samples expose the selector to off-demonstration states while avoiding false Stop supervision.

The planner and executor are initialized independently from the pre-trained $\pi_{0.5}$ VLA and optimized for subtask-command generation and action-chunk prediction, respectively. The autoregressive subtask-generation phase runs for 2,000 optimizer steps. Starting from that planner, selector training runs for 20,000 optimizer steps in bfloat16 with gradient checkpointing. We use AdamW, a global batch size of 256, weight decay $0.01$, 1,000 linear warmup steps, gradient-norm clipping at $1.0$, and random seed 7. Learning rates are $3\times 10^{-5}$ for LoRA parameters, $3\times 10^{-4}$ for the scoring and projection heads, and $1\times 10^{-4}$ for the visual coordinate module. Checkpoints are saved every 1,000 optimizer steps.

The reported selector run uses four NVIDIA A100 GPUs with 80 GB memory each and an Intel Xeon Platinum 8470Q host under Ubuntu 24.04. The software environment uses Python 3.11, PyTorch 2.1.2, and CUDA 11.8; the effective global batch is distributed with NCCL. The complete package-level dependency versions are recorded in the Code and Data Supplement.

The following procedure makes explicit when each high- and low-level operation is invoked. It is a procedural restatement of the model interface, not an additional inference module.

1. 1.

   Initialize the ordered semantic history as $\mathcal{H}_{1}=()$ and acquire the current camera observations and proprioceptive state.

2. 2.

   At the onset of subtask $k$, autoregressively generate command $c_{k}$ from the global instruction, $\mathcal{H}_{k}$, and the current robot observation. Extract and cache the history-aware anchor $\alpha_{k}$.

3. 3.

   At decision boundary $t$, query the low-level executor for action chunk $A_{t}$ and recompute the anchor-conditioned high-level hidden feature $m_{t}$.

4. 4.

   Score $[\textsc{Stop},1,\ldots,H]$ jointly. If an action-prefix $n$ is selected, execute its first $n$ actions, re-observe, and return to Step 3.

5. 5.

   When a Stop decision is committed, append $c_{k}$ to the history, set $\mathcal{H}_{k+1}=(\mathcal{H}_{k},c_{k})$, and return to Step 2 for the next subtask, unless the configured global termination condition ends the episode.

The selector is invoked only at decision boundaries; neither the planner nor selector interrupts an action-prefix between two such boundaries. This scheduling preserves a closed-loop observation after every selected prefix while amortizing high-level computation. Algorithm 3 summarizes the full execution loop and makes explicit that semantic and anchor histories are updated only after Stop is selected.

The real-world evaluation uses a fixed tabletop manipulation platform with RGB observation streams and proprioceptive feedback. A common local deployment stack provides perception, model inference, and robot control for every compared method. Thus, sensing and control conditions remain fixed while only the evaluated policy changes. Action commands are streamed at approximately 20 Hz, corresponding to 50 ms per action step. Model-side planning and selection support approximately 4.14 boundary updates per second, as reported in the main paper; the realized selector invocation rate is lower and varies with the selected action-prefix length because the selector runs only at decision boundaries. All compared methods use the same action-command rate.

The physical evaluation contains three ordered long-horizon tasks. Shelf Arrangement contains six subtasks: pick up the cola and place it in the left shelf compartment; pick up the cup and place it in the center compartment; then pick up the small block and place it in the right compartment. Drawer Restocking contains six subtasks: open the top drawer, store the block, close the top drawer, open the middle drawer, store the cup, and close the middle drawer. Tea Preparation contains twelve subtasks: open the top drawer, verify that it is empty, close it, open the middle drawer, retrieve the tea bag, place it in the cup, close the middle drawer, pick up the water bottle, pour the bottle contents into the cup, set down the bottle, pick up the prepared cup, and place it on the serving tray. These ordered sequences define the subtask histories and completion events used in data segmentation and evaluation. The task-level language retains the semantic terms water bottle and pour water. In the physical setup, however, the bottle contains white plastic beads, which serve as a safe and repeatable dry surrogate for water. The substitution preserves the manipulation sequence relevant to this task: grasping and transporting the bottle, aligning it above the cup, controlling its orientation during transfer, returning it upright, and placing it back on the table. The same bottle contents and task setup are used for all compared methods.

Demonstrations are collected with the global instructions and predefined subtask sequences used by the corresponding tasks. Each trajectory is segmented at subtask-completion events, and the resulting boundary labels are used only for offline supervision. Each rollout begins from a matched task-specific initial state; object poses are randomized only within the corresponding evaluation range. A rollout is reset after success, violation of a safety bound, loss of an object from the workspace, or expiration of the task horizon. Operator intervention terminates the trial and is counted as a failure.

For Shelf Arrangement, success requires the cola, cup, and block to be stable in the left, center, and right shelf compartments, respectively, without a drop or placement beyond a compartment edge. For Drawer Restocking, the block and cup must be fully contained in the top and middle drawers, respectively, and both drawers must finish with less than 2 cm residual opening. For Tea Preparation, the system must verify the empty top drawer, retrieve the tea bag from the middle drawer, place it in the cup, transfer the prescribed amount of white plastic beads from the bottle into the cup without substantial scattering outside the cup, return the bottle to the table, and leave the prepared cup stably on the serving tray. The transfer outcome is checked against the same predefined target level in every trial.

No liquid is used in the physical evaluation. The pouring task uses a small quantity of white plastic beads. This dry surrogate avoids liquid contact with the equipment and permits consistent resets while retaining the target-directed transfer operation. A shallow containment tray collects any scattered beads. Robot speed and gripper force are capped, and drawers have mechanical travel limits. A physical emergency stop remains accessible; any intervention terminates and fails the rollout. The safety mechanisms operate independently of SparkVLA’s task-state estimation.