Refined Policy Distillation: From VLA Generalists to RL Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vision-Language-Action Models (VLAs) have demonstrated remarkable generalization capabilities in real-world experiments. However, their success rates are often not on par with expert policies, and they require fine-tuning when the setup changes. In this work, we introduce Refined Policy Distillation (RPD), a novel Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based policy refinement method that bridges this performance gap through a combination of on-policy RL with behavioral cloning. The core idea of RPD is to distill and refine VLAs into compact, high-performing expert policies by guiding the student policy during RL exploration using the actions of a teacher VLA, resulting in increased sample efficiency and faster convergence. We complement our method by fine-tuned versions of Octo and OpenVLA for ManiSkill3 to evaluate RPD in simulation. While this is a key requirement for applying RL, it also yields new insights beyond existing studies on VLA performance in real-world settings. Our experimental results across various manipulation tasks show that RPD enables the RL student to learn expert policies that outperform the VLA teacher in both dense and sparse reward settings, while also achieving faster convergence than the RL baseline. Our approach is even robust to changes in camera perspective and can generalize to task variations that the underlying VLA cannot solve. Our code, dataset, VLA checkpoints, and videos are available at https://refined-policy-distillation.github.io
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".