Aligning Multi-Trajectory Supervision with Policy Optimization for VLA Driving

Vision-language-action (VLA) driving methods increasingly combine multi-trajectory imitation learning with group-relative policy optimization (GRPO), making trajectory selection critical to final performance. However, some high-scoring trajectories that improve imitation can degrade subsequent GRPO by inducing advantage estimates misaligned with the current policy's feasible behavior distribution, driving updates away from safe and compliant behaviors. To address this, we propose a novel framework that aligns multi-trajectory supervision with policy optimization. To address the policy gradient bias induced by infeasible noisy trajectories outside the feasible region, augmented trajectories are constrained to a neighboring manifold of the ground-truth feasible region, and a Pareto-optimality criterion is adopted in place of the conventional aggregate score, retaining only non-dominated candidates and thereby filtering out conflicting samples at the source. To ensure that expanded trajectory supervision is effectively absorbed during policy optimization, we introduce two complementary mechanisms: feasibility-first advantage assignment and dynamic distillation. The former adapts Pareto credit to the feasibility composition of each rollout group and guides fully infeasible groups toward safe references. The latter updates teacher trajectories across refinement rounds to continually transfer useful supervision. Together, they progressively translate the benefits of expanded supervision into policy improvement. On NAVSIM v1 and v2, our method achieves 91.4 PDMS and 89.1 EPDMS, respectively, under single-trajectory inference, and recovers 440 of 658 initially failed scenes, 11.1\% higher than the original GRPO baseline.

Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them

An agent system's execution traces record how it fails, and procedures that improve such a system without changing model weights (trajectory selection, prompt and workflow optimization, runtime monitoring) read these traces for feedback. Yet raw traces are a poor medium for accumulating that feedback: long, instance-specific, and lacking a stable vocabulary for recurring failures. We argue that an agent system should instead maintain an explicit representation of how it fails, induced from its own behavior and reusable wherever failure feedback is needed. AdaMAST builds this representation by converting a target system's traces into a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy: named failure codes organized along three fixed axes (system-level, role-specific, and domain-specific), with every name, definition, and evidence pattern induced from the traces; no code is hand-authored, no trace human-annotated. The taxonomy is not merely a post-hoc diagnostic but a shared feedback interface, improving agents in three ways. In agent-system search, taxonomy-coded diagnoses of failed candidates outperform free-form reflection on all five benchmarks we test. At runtime, taxonomy feedback raises SWE-agent's resolution on SWE-bench Verified Mini from 60% with free-text reflection to 70%, and improves Claude Code from 64.0% to 70.7% as a runtime skill. In trajectory selection, AdaMAST-Judge, a verifier built on the induced codes, improves best-of-5 accuracy on Terminal-Bench 2.0 by 8-15 points over Pass@1. The vocabulary itself is compact (an order-of-magnitude compression that preserves trace distinctions), human-faithful (matching expert failure annotations more closely than a hand-crafted reference vocabulary), and adaptive (taxonomies induced for different domains share few codes). Adaptive failure taxonomies close the loop between the traces agents produce and the procedures that improve them.