How Many Demonstrations Does a VLA Need? On the Sample Efficiency of VLA Finetuning
How Many Demonstrations Does a VLA Need? On the Sample Efficiency of VLA Finetuning
This research investigates the data requirements for adapting pretrained vision language action (VLA) models to new tasks. By evaluating six models across four LIBERO suites with varying demonstration counts and training steps, the study finds that sample efficiency varies significantly even among models with similar zero-shot performance. Specifically, the model pi_0.5 requires 2-5 times fewer demonstrations than pi_0, and freezing the vision language model during fine-tuning has a detrimental effect on certain architectures but minimal impact on GR00T models.
Source: arXiv Robotics — research abstracts · Read original article ↗
Loading article text…
What the source reports
Publisher-reported claims, with original evidence. These results have not been independently verified by RoboSignal.
Reported numbers
demonstrations
50 episodes
View original evidence
dy adaptation efficiency for six VLAs ($\pi_0$, $\pi_{0.5}$, and GR00T N1-N1.7) on four LIBERO suites, varying both demonstrations and training steps. This reveals differences hidden by full-data fine-tuning: models which are within two points on the full LIBERO-Spatial dataset differ by up to 3$\times$ in success with 50 demonstrations. $\pi_{0.5}$ needs 2-5$\times$ fewer demonstrations than $\pi_0$ and is the most
Open source S3training steps
0
View original evidence
dy adaptation efficiency for six VLAs ($\pi_0$, $\pi_{0.5}$, and GR00T N1-N1.7) on four LIBERO suites, varying both demonstrations and training steps. This reveals differences hidden by full-data fine-tuning: models which are within two points on the full LIBERO-Spatial dataset differ by up to 3$\times$ in success with 50 demonstrations. $\pi_{0.5}$ needs 2-5$\times$ fewer demonstrations than $\pi_0$ and is the most
Open source S3suite count
4
View original evidence
dy adaptation efficiency for six VLAs ($\pi_0$, $\pi_{0.5}$, and GR00T N1-N1.7) on four LIBERO suites, varying both demonstrations and training steps. This reveals differences hidden by full-data fine-tuning: models which are within two points on the full LIBERO-Spatial dataset differ by up to 3$\times$ in success with 50 demonstrations. $\pi_{0.5}$ needs 2-5$\times$ fewer demonstrations than $\pi_0$ and is the most
Open source S3suites
3
View original evidence
sample-efficient model at every budget, with the largest gap on the long-horizon suite. Within GR00T, N1.5 adapts more efficiently than N1.6 and N1.7 on three of four suites, despite their stronger zero-shot performance. We also study one pretraining factor behind these differences by freezing the VLM during finetuning: this severely degrades the $\pi$ models whose VLM is jointly trained with the action expert during
Open source S4
- paper: not_reported
Source excerpts and review record
Automatically extracted; no manual editorial approval recorded.
dy adaptation efficiency for six VLAs ($\pi_0$, $\pi_{0.5}$, and GR00T N1-N1.7) on four LIBERO suites, varying both demonstrations and training steps. This reveals differences hidden by full-data fine-tuning: models which are within two points on the full LIBERO-Spatial dataset differ by up to 3$\times$ in success with 50 demonstrations. $\pi_{0.5}$ needs 2-5$\times$ fewer demonstrations than $\pi_0$ and is the most
Open source S3
sample-efficient model at every budget, with the largest gap on the long-horizon suite. Within GR00T, N1.5 adapts more efficiently than N1.6 and N1.7 on three of four suites, despite their stronger zero-shot performance. We also study one pretraining factor behind these differences by freezing the VLM during finetuning: this severely degrades the $\pi$ models whose VLM is jointly trained with the action expert during
Open source S4
Source：arXiv Robotics — research abstracts · arxiv.org