OpenVLA-OFT is an optimization and fine-tuning recipe that changes action decoding and representation for OpenVLA, with a separately documented bimanual extension.
Parallel decoding, action chunking and a continuous L1 objective form the core recipe. The OFT+ extension adds feature modulation for the ALOHA setting; it is not the identical configuration behind every LIBERO row.
Moo Jin Kim, Chelsea Finn and Percy Liang · Published 2025-02-27 · Source accessed 2026-09-28
Table I final row and evaluation protocol inspected. Factual per-suite results only; no leaderboard copied.
Integration and evaluation
The imported LIBERO suite results use the final Table I configuration with wrist images and proprioception. Each suite is fine-tuned independently, so the results are not zero-shot generalization.
moojink · Publication date not disclosed · Source accessed 2026-09-28
Official README inspected live. Repository code terms do not automatically cover model weights, data, or third-party assets.
License
Not publicly disclosed
Inputs, outputs & embodiment
Inputs
Not publicly disclosed
Outputs
Not publicly disclosed
Embodiment
Not publicly disclosed
Implementation & training
Compute
Not publicly disclosed
Training-data disclosures
Not publicly disclosed
Integrations
Not publicly disclosed
Reported benchmark results
Context before scores. Results from different benchmarks are not directly comparable. A simulation result does not establish real-world reliability, safety or commercial availability.
Model / revision
Benchmark / metric
Reported result
Environment
Evidence & scope
OpenVLA-OFTOpenVLA-OFT, arXiv:2502.19645v1 Table I final row; wrist camera + proprioception
Moo Jin Kim, Chelsea Finn and Percy Liang · Published 2025-02-27 · Source accessed 2026-09-28
Table I final row and evaluation protocol inspected. Factual per-suite results only; no leaderboard copied.
Methodology & comparability
Per-suite fine-tuning; best checkpoint selected from periodic evaluations; 500 trials per suite. Author-reported simulation, not an independent reproduction or physical reliability estimate.
Moo Jin Kim, Chelsea Finn and Percy Liang · Published 2025-02-27 · Source accessed 2026-09-28
Table I final row and evaluation protocol inspected. Factual per-suite results only; no leaderboard copied.
Methodology & comparability
Per-suite fine-tuning; best checkpoint selected from periodic evaluations; 500 trials per suite. Author-reported simulation, not an independent reproduction or physical reliability estimate.
Moo Jin Kim, Chelsea Finn and Percy Liang · Published 2025-02-27 · Source accessed 2026-09-28
Table I final row and evaluation protocol inspected. Factual per-suite results only; no leaderboard copied.
Methodology & comparability
Per-suite fine-tuning; best checkpoint selected from periodic evaluations; 500 trials per suite. Author-reported simulation, not an independent reproduction or physical reliability estimate.
Moo Jin Kim, Chelsea Finn and Percy Liang · Published 2025-02-27 · Source accessed 2026-09-28
Table I final row and evaluation protocol inspected. Factual per-suite results only; no leaderboard copied.
Methodology & comparability
Per-suite fine-tuning; best checkpoint selected from periodic evaluations; 500 trials per suite. Author-reported simulation, not an independent reproduction or physical reliability estimate.
Related reading is an editorial crosslink. Sourced connections describe relationships reported in the cited material. A link to a versioned profile does not establish compatibility with that version unless the connection note explicitly identifies it.