Pretraining Knows What, Simulation Teaches How: A Robot Agent Trained Without Real Robot Data

A robot policy has to answer two different questions. The first is semantic: given this scene and this sentence, what is being asked? The second is procedural: what joint commands actually accomplish it here? Large vision-language models are already good at the first and poor at the second, while vision-language-action policies trained on robot data are the reverse. ZAP is an argument that the two can be separated cleanly, and that the second can be learned almost entirely in simulation.

The usual objection to simulation is the reality gap. ZAP’s bet is that the gap matters far less when the simulated training only has to teach motor procedure, while world understanding and reasoning arrive pretrained and are never fine-tuned away.

Core innovation

A small generalist, not a robot foundation model. ZAP starts from a pretrained 27B vision-language model and keeps it as the whole controller. There is no separate action head trained on robot trajectories and no real-robot corpus.

A tool harness instead of end-to-end action regression. The model controls the robot by calling tools rather than by emitting low-level actions directly. This keeps the interface narrow and lets the pretrained reasoning survive training, which is what makes the model’s semantic competence usable at control time.

Two-stage post-training, entirely in simulation. Supervised fine-tuning and GRPO on simple simulated tasks teach the model how to move. That is the only place motor skill comes from.

Results

• 96.7% success on real-world tasks with zero real robot data in training.
• In the same harness, this matches GPT-6 Astra and far exceeds the MolmoAct2 VLA at 33.3%, while running about 3x faster and 17x cheaper.
• Compositional generalization to goals and manipulation types absent from training: seating a test tube in a rack and choosing a different hole when prompted, handing a test tube between arms mid-air, drawing an X on a tic-tac-toe board, and playing chess.
• Transfer to an unseen embodiment: 55.9% on RoboLab-120 with a single-arm Franka, 4.9 percentage points above the leading VLA/WAM baseline.

The chess and tic-tac-toe results are the interesting ones editorially. They are not new objects in a familiar task; they are new task structures, solved without any demonstrations of them.

Limitations

The headline 96.7% is measured on the authors’ own real-world task set, whose size and difficulty are not stated in the abstract, so it should not be read as a general success rate. The model is 27B parameters: cheap relative to a frontier agent, but heavy for an on-robot loop, and the latency comparison is against that agent rather than against a compact VLA. Simulated training tasks are described as simple, which invites the question of how far the procedure generalizes once contact dynamics and deformable objects enter. The unseen-embodiment result, 55.9%, is respectable but shows a clear drop from in-domain performance. Nothing is reported about failure modes or safety under adversarial instructions.

Industry implications

The economic claim is the one worth taking seriously. If motor competence can be acquired in simulation and semantics can be rented from a pretrained model, the expensive middle layer — large-scale real-robot demonstration collection — shrinks dramatically, and a team can iterate on a new embodiment without a data factory. The tool harness also changes the integration surface: instead of certifying an end-to-end network, a vendor exposes a small set of robot primitives and lets a general model compose them, which is easier to bound and audit. The catch is that the 27B model must run somewhere, so deployments will initially look like a nearby compute node supervising a robot rather than intelligence on the edge. For tasks where the bottleneck is variety rather than cycle time, that trade is likely worth it.