Action chunking improves temporal coherence in visuomotor imitation learning by jointly predicting sequences of future actions. However, many existing policies regenerate entire action chunks even when errors are localized, potentially replacing otherwise valid predictions. We introduce Contextual Masked Action Policy (CMAP), a visuomotor policy that refines continuous action chunks through history-conditioned local regeneration. Specifically, CMAP introduces a history-conditioned action tape that combines executed commands with masked future positions to produce coarse action predictions and per-step uncertainty scores. An uncertainty-guided span regeneration mechanism then selects a high-uncertainty contiguous span and reconstructs it using the executed history and retained future predictions as context. By jointly reconstructing neighboring actions, CMAP models local temporal dependencies while preserving all predictions outside the selected span. Extensive experiments on nine simulated and four real-world manipulation tasks demonstrate that CMAP achieves superior overall performance over several competitive baselines. Ablation studies validate the complementary contributions of its key components, while held-out trajectory analysis shows that local regeneration reduces prediction errors within selected spans.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Whole-chunk prediction versus CMAP’s editable action tape. Conventional policies regenerate or accept the complete chunk as one object. CMAP uses executed history to localize an unreliable contiguous span, regenerate only that span, and preserve reliable surrounding actions.
Fig. 2: Overview of CMAP. (a) HCAT combines executed history and masked future positions on one action tape, using visual and proprioceptive context to predict coarse actions and error-supervised uncertainty scores. UGSR comprises (b) uncertainty-guided selection of a contiguous span R and (c) regeneration and replacement of that span, with all surrounding actions copied unchanged. Only issued commands update the execution history.
Fig. 3: Simulation tasks with six RoboTwin tasks at the top and three ManiSkill tasks at the bottom.
Fig. 4: RoboTwin revision-rule ablation. Axis starts at 20%. The downward marker denotes 11%. The dashed line separates the macro-average.
Method
Handover
Stack Blocks
Microwave
Alarm Clock
Laptop
Empty Cup
Avg.
ACT [ 2 ]
83.0
19.0
65.0
29.0
60.0
45.0
50.2
Diffusion Policy [ 3 ]
53.0
7.0
5.0
61.0
49.0
37.0
35.3
DDP [ 4 ]
93.0
10.0
30.0
18.0
57.0
14.0
37.0
RDT-1B [ 16 ]
90.0
21.0
37.0
61.0
59.0
56.0
54.0
TwinVLA [ 37 ]
84.0
26.0
3.0
33.0
80.0
50.0
46.0
CMAP (Ours)
97.0
26.0
92.0
74.0
85.0
56.0
71.7
TABLE I: RoboTwin success rates (%) on six tasks. RDT-1B and TwinVLA results are taken from their original papers. Column maxima are bolded, with ties highlighted only for CMAP. The CMAP row is shaded.
Method
Push Cube
Stack Cube
Pull Cube
Avg.
ACT [ 2 ]
31.0
13.0
34.0
26.0
OpenVLA [ 39 ] †
4.0
18.0
16.0
12.7
StaMo [ 38 ] †
32.0
16.0
38.0
28.7
CMAP (Ours)
54.0
18.0
88.0
53.3
TABLE II: ManiSkill success rates (%). Bold marks CMAP’s best or tied-best results. † marks published results from StaMo [ 38 ] .
Fig. 5: CMAP sensitivity on three RoboTwin tasks. Bars report macro-average success. Green marks default settings.
Fig. 6: Local regeneration analysis. (a) Cumulative span-error distributions before and after regeneration, with After-minus-Before differences below. (b) Paired chunk-error ratios across selection strategies. Ratios below one indicate improvement.
Fig. 7: Representative physical rollouts on Kuavo 4 Pro and AGIBOT G1. Each column pairs the task context with its final outcome.
Method
AGIBOT
Kuavo
Avg. (%)
Cup Sep.
Bell Press
Dual-item Placement
Sheet Load.
Chess Grasp
Bottle Grasp
ACT
4/10
8/10
5/10
6/10
2/10
50.0
DP
5/10
7/10
3/10
8/10
1/10
48.0
DDP
4/10
6/10
5/10
5/10
2/10
44.0
CMAP
7/10
9/10
8/10
10/10
4/10
76.0
TABLE IV: Real-world success counts (10 trials per task). Avg. is the mean of five success rates.
Fig. 8: Cup separation on AGIBOT G1 and sheet loading on Kuavo 4 Pro. The left column shows successes. The right column shows a failure and a recovered near-failure. Red callouts mark critical contact regions.