VLA-FAIL: Efficient Task Failure Detection for Finetuned Vision-Language-Action Models

Florian Seligmann Emiliyan Gospodinov Enes Ulas Dincer Gerhard Neumann
Autonomous Learning Robots Lab, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
CoRL 2026

Abstract

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.

Framework Overview

Framework Overview

VLA-FAIL performs runtime failure detection for vision-language-action models without requiring failure rollouts. The framework combines last-layer Mahalanobis distance (LLMD), which detects out-of-distribution states from model features, with action chunk consistency (ACC), which detects failures from inconsistent receding-horizon action predictions. These complementary signals provide early and reliable failure detection while adding minimal computational overhead.

Inference Latency

Inference Latency

Inference latency is a major concern for the real-time deployment of large VLAs. Failure detectors must therefore be computationally efficient to be practical in real-world applications. This graph shows the time in milliseconds to sample an action chunk for X-VLA on an NVIDIA RTX 5090 GPU when using various failure detectors. 'Raw' corresponds to the inference latency without failure detection. The numbers behind ACE and Diff indicate the number of action samples. These baseline methods incur significant computational overhead and are therefore not real-time capable. The time for the VLM forward pass (17 ms) is excluded as it is identical across methods.

Real-World Failure Detection

We introduce two complementary failure detectors for VLAs: LLMD (feature-based) and ACC (action-based). Both can reliably detect task failure across diverse real-world tasks.

The red line shows the detector score for either method. As soon as it crosses the white dashed threshold line, a likely failure is detected.

Task: Blocks

Language Description: "Stack the green block on the yellow block."

π0.5 ACC

π0.5 LLMD

X-VLA ACC

X-VLA LLMD

Task: Cups

Language Description: "Pick up one cup and stack it into another."

π0.5 ACC

π0.5 LLMD

X-VLA ACC

X-VLA LLMD

Task: Kitchen

Language Description: "Remove the pot lid, move the carrot from pan to pot, replace the lid, and place the pan in the sink."

π0.5 ACC

π0.5 LLMD

X-VLA ACC

X-VLA LLMD

Task: Stack T

Language Description: "Stack both t objects on top of each other."

π0.5 ACC

π0.5 LLMD

X-VLA ACC

X-VLA LLMD

LLMD and ACC are Complementary

On average, LLMD (feature-based) detects failures earlier than ACC...

Task: Blocks

Language Description: "Stack the green block on the yellow block."

π0.5 ACC

π0.5 LLMD

...while ACC (action-based) detects failures more reliably, but generally later during an episode.

Task: Drawer

Language Description: "Put all red blocks in the top drawer."

X-VLA ACC

X-VLA LLMD

Still, there are failures that neither method can detect within a reasonable time frame.

Task: Stack T

Language Description: "Stack both t objects on top of each other."

π0.5 ACC

π0.5 LLMD

Real-World Successful Episodes with No Failure Detected

Task: Blocks

Language Description: "Stack the green block on the blue block."

π0.5 ACC

π0.5 LLMD

X-VLA ACC

X-VLA LLMD

Task: Drawer

Language Description: "Put all red blocks in the top drawer."

π0.5 ACC

π0.5 LLMD

X-VLA ACC

X-VLA LLMD

Task: Cups

Language Description: "Pick up one cup and stack it into another."

π0.5 ACC

π0.5 LLMD

X-VLA ACC

X-VLA LLMD

Task: Kitchen

Language Description: "Remove the pot lid, move the carrot from pan to pot, replace the lid, and place the pan in the sink."

π0.5 ACC

π0.5 LLMD

X-VLA ACC

X-VLA LLMD

Task: Stack T

Language Description: "Stack both t objects on top of each other."

π0.5 ACC

π0.5 LLMD

X-VLA ACC

X-VLA LLMD