Act with Intent: Distilling Behavior Intent for Vision-Language-Action Models
Organizations: GSAI, POSTECH · IME, POSTECH
Abstract
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models can turn multimodal context into robot actions, but their action decoders are still trained largely by behavior cloning. This supervises which motor command was demonstrated while leaving implicit the local objective served by the behavior under the instruction. Future-based supervision enriches action learning with frames, latent observations, trajectories, or motion representations, but these signals capture particular realizations of what may happen rather than the shared semantic objective of the forthcoming behavior. We propose Intention Distillation (INDI), which distills behavior-level intent into the action decoder. During training, a frozen teacher VLM interprets a demonstrated segment from the current observation, instruction, coarse action summary, and corresponding execution video. From its standard inputs, the deployed VLA recovers the resulting multimodal intent representation at an intermediate decoder layer and uses it to organize action prediction together with representations of how the behavior unfolds and what it achieves. On SimplerEnv-Bridge, INDI improves GR00T-N1.7 from 64.3% to 84.7%, and on RoboCasa Kitchen it improves the controlled GR00T-N1.7 baseline from 64.1% to 70.3%, with consistent gains on across both benchmarks. In real-world tasks, INDI improves average success from 62.0% to 68.7%, with gains of up to 12.0 pp on longer-horizon tasks. Further analyses show that the recovered latent is used by the decoder, captures behavior objective and execution progress, and organizes downstream predictions in an objective-dependent manner. These results show that action decoders benefit from explicitly modeling the semantic objective of the behavior they generate.
Figures & tables
| Method | Spoon | Carrot | Stack | EP-Basket | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General-purpose VLA policies | |||||
| Octo-base ( Octo Model Team et al., 2024 ) | 12.5 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 43.1 | 16.0 |
| Octo-small ( Octo Model Team et al., 2024 ) | 47.2 | 9.7 | 4.2 | 56.9 | 29.5 |
| OpenVLA ( Kim et al., 2025 ) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.1 | 1.0 |
| RoboVLMs ( Li et al., 2026b ) | 29.2 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 58.3 | 31.3 |
| SpatialVLA ( Qu et al., 2025 ) | 16.7 | 25.0 | 29.2 | 100.0 | 42.7 |
| Method | Pick-and Place | Open-or Close | Others | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GR00T-N1.6 ( NVIDIA, 2025b ) ( ) | 43.2 | 81.0 | 75.8 | 66.2 |
| GR00T-N1.7 ( NVIDIA, 2026 ) ( ) | 53.0 | 80.8 | 79.0 | 70.8 |
| GR00T-N1.7 ( ) | ||||
| GR00T-N1.7 + future supervision ( ) | ||||
| GR00T-N1.7 + Indi ( , Ours) | ||||
| (Ours baseline) |
| Method | Demos/task | Avg. |
| Base VLA policies | ||
| GR00T-N1 ( NVIDIA et al., 2025 ) | 300 | 49.6 |
| ( Black et al., 2025b ) | 300 | 62.5 |
| -FAST ( Pertsch et al., 2025 ) | 300 | 63.6 |
| GR00T-N1.5 ( NVIDIA GEAR Team, 2025 ) | 300 | 65.7 |
| Future and video-based methods | ||
| ID clean | Held-out | Distractors | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task | Base | + Indi | Base | + Indi | Base | + Indi |
| Threading | 92.0 | 96.0 | 86.0 | 84.0 | 70.0 | 82.0 |
| Basket Nesting | 94.0 | 92.0 | 84.0 | 90.0 | 76.0 | 84.0 |
| Cross-Bin Stacking | 74.0 | 80.0 | 62.0 | 72.0 | 58.0 | 64.0 |
| Drawer Storage | 24.0 | 36.0 | 16.0 | 26.0 | 8.0 | 18.0 |
| Average | 71.0 | 76.0 | 62.0 | 68.0 | 53.0 | 62.0 |
| Task | Stage | Base | + Indi |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threading | Pole centered | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Ring grasped | 96.0 | 100.0 | |
| Inserted | 92.0 | 96.0 | |
| Basket Nest. | Lifted | 100.0 | 96.0 |
| Nested | 94.0 | 92.0 | |
| Cross-Bin | Base retrieved | 96.0 | 96.0 |
Appendix figures & tables25 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Method | Parameters | Inference time (ms) | Bridge training (h) | RoboCasa training (h) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GR00T-N1.7 | 3.455B | 56.1 | 17 | 17 |
| + Indi | 3.502B | 61.5 | 19 | 19 |
| 3.617B | 24.4 | 23 | 23 | |
| + Indi | 3.640B | 29.7 | 29 | 26 |
| Variant | Latent target | V/R groundings | Latent queries |
|---|---|---|---|
| Groundings only | – | Yes | No |
| Future supervision | Endpoint visual | Yes | Yes |
| Free latent | – | Yes | Yes |
| Intent only | Teacher intent | No | Yes |
| Indi | Teacher intent | Yes | Yes |
| Variant | Spoon | Carrot | Stack | EP-Basket | Avg. | ||
| GR00T-N1.7 | – | – | 82.0 | 68.0 | 66.0 | 30.0 | 61.5 |
| + Groundings only | ✓ | ✓ | 88.0 | 82.0 | 38.0 | 32.0 | 60.0 |
| + Future supervision | ✓ | ✓ | 84.0 | 70.0 | 56.0 | 62.0 | 68.0 |
| + Free latent | ✓ | ✓ | 78.0 | 76.0 | 48.0 | 26.0 | 57.0 |
| + Intent only | – | – | 86.0 | 84.0 | 70.0 | 64.0 | 76.0 |
| + Intent, | ✓ | – | 90.0 | 88.0 | 72.0 | 74.0 | 81.0 |
| Variant | Spoon | Carrot | Stack | EP-Basket | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indi | 90.0 | 78.0 | 74.0 | 100.0 | 85.5 |
| w/o context bottleneck | 88.0 | 76.0 | 60.0 | 56.0 | 70.0 |
| w/o | 92.0 | 80.0 | 30.0 | 94.0 | 74.0 |
| w/o both | 86.0 | 72.0 | 58.0 | 46.0 | 65.5 |
| Intent state | Spoon | Carrot | Stack | EP-Basket | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recovered intent | 90.0 | 78.0 | 74.0 | 100.0 | 85.5 |
| Zero intent | 58.0 | 44.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 45.5 |
| Property | Evaluation | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Behavior objective | ||
| Objective identity | Raw-space task 1-NN purity | 92.0% |
| Objective generalization | Episode-disjoint task LDA | 86.2% |
| Supervision control | Same probe, free latent (no ) | 55.7% |
| Cross-domain transfer | Train on real, test on simulation | 63.9–80.7% |
| Objective retention | Task purity in early/middle/late phases | 94.0/90.0/90.0% |
| Decoder rows | Blocks – | Blocks – |
|---|---|---|
| Intent | ||
| Visual grounding | Near chance | Up to |
| Textual grounding | Near chance | Up to |
| Action and state | Near chance | Near chance |
| Readout | Correct cosine | Shuffled cosine | Margin | Top-1 | Top-10 | Median rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.650 | 0.003 | 0.647 | 72.6% | 95.3% | 0 | |
| 0.158 | 0.161 | 1.5% | 5.0% | 1211 |
| Intent condition | Centered margin | Top-1 retrieval |
|---|---|---|
| Recovered intent | 0.647 | 72.6% |
| Zero intent | 0.513 | 59.1% |
| Cross-task intent | 0.393 | 41.8% |
| Readout representation | Object F1 | Verb F1 | ROUGE-L |
|---|---|---|---|
| (oracle target) | 0.998 | 1.000 | 0.933 |
| 0.314 | 0.195 | 0.255 | |
| 0.693 | 0.432 | 0.380 |
| Teacher | Spoon | Carrot | Stack | EP-Basket | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No intent distillation | 82.0 | 68.0 | 66.0 | 30.0 | 61.5 |
| Qwen3.5-9B | 84.0 | 78.0 | 40.0 | 16.0 | 54.5 |
| Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct | 90.0 | 98.0 | 34.0 | 72.0 | 73.5 |
| Cosmos-Reason2-8B | 90.0 | 78.0 | 74.0 | 100.0 | 85.5 |
| Teacher | Angular budget | Eff. rank | Within-ep. share | Bridge Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen3.5-9B | 0.0027 | 139.4 | 0.308 | 54.5 |
| Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct | 0.0098 | 7.2 | 0.693 | 73.5 |
| Cosmos-Reason2-8B | 0.0327 | 3.4 | 0.723 | 85.5 |
| Intent target | Spoon | Carrot | Stack | EP-Basket | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence-side input span | 90.0 | 78.0 | 74.0 | 100.0 | 85.5 |
| Generated-response span | 76.0 | 86.0 | 76.0 | 80.0 | 79.5 |
| GR00T | |||||||
| Task | N1.6 | N1.7 | N1.7 | N1.7 + future supervision | N1.7 + Indi | Baseline | + Indi |
| Pick-and-Place | |||||||
| PnP from Cab to Counter | 41.0 | 65.0 | |||||
| PnP from Counter to Cab | 47.5 | 60.0 | |||||
| PnP from Counter to Microwave | 19.0 | 30.0 | |||||
| PnP from Counter to Sink | 46.0 | 60.0 | |||||
Vision-Language-Action Models
Vision-language-action models turn visual observations and natural-language instructions into actions for robots and other embodied agents.
See all 1,154 papersNot All Features Are Created Equal: A Mechanistic Study of Vision-Language-Action Models
Offline Semantic Guidance for Efficient Vision-Language-Action Policy Distillation
libero\_goal. Additional analysis indicates that phase-level supervision and multi-frame directional cues make the student less sensitive to noisy teacher actions, such as erroneous high-frequency gripper changes. Overall, VLA-AD demonstrates that offline semantic guidance from VLMs can substantially improve the efficiency, robustness, and deployability of VLA policy distillation.