Existing robot policy memories typically evolve with observation sequences, implicitly treating each update as the same amount of physical time. Yet identical observation histories can span different durations and require different actions, exposing physical time as a missing dimension of policy memory. We introduce Temporal Flow Policy (TFP), which learns memory dynamics to retain past events and evolve the memory state over measured time intervals. Observations and prior memory determine the content and time scales of each transition; elapsed time determines how far the state advances. TFP conditions diffusion and flow-matching policies through this memory state and is trained with their native imitation objectives. We evaluate TFP with Diffusion Policy and π0.5 through controlled comparisons of memory designs. These experiments show that successful timing depends on both measured intervals and retained history. TFP achieves higher average success than the recurrent and state-space memories we equip with the same intervals and than a variant that feeds the interval to a learned gate. Memory readouts recover the time since an event and motion information after occlusion. Changing the supplied intervals systematically delays or advances actions, linking time inputs to behavior. Real-robot tasks requiring timing or memory, together with LIBERO evaluations, demonstrate benefits in physical and general manipulation. These results suggest viewing robot memory not as stored observation history, but as a state that retains past events and evolves with physical time.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Physical time gives remembered observations meaning for action. (a) The same tea-steeping history and next image require waiting or lifting depending on elapsed time. (b) The same displacement over different intervals implies different velocities, which must be remembered for interception after occlusion. TFP uses measured intervals to evolve memory and guide action. Dashed paths indicate hidden motion; timings, trajectories, and memory states are schematic.
Figure 2: Memory evolution and action generation in TFP. Observation features and previous memory determine candidate content and adaptive time scales. The measured interval controls how far memory moves toward the candidate. The updated state conditions the backbone’s action generator alongside its current context. Repeated previous-memory symbols denote the same state. Retention curves and command traces are schematic.
Figure 3: Task overview. Five real-robot tasks, three controlled simulation tasks, and two LIBERO ( Liu et al., 2023 ) tasks selected for illustration. LIBERO evaluation covers all 40 tasks across the four suites in Table 4 . Appendix F shows demonstration frames.
Button Press
Passage
Interception
Memory
10 Hz
5 Hz
Jit.
Drop.
10 Hz
5 Hz
Jit.
Drop.
10 Hz
5 Hz
Jit.
Drop.
Diffusion Policy
Reactive
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
5.3
3.3
8.7
10.3
11.7
11.7
History
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
2.7
2.7
2.0
30.0
34.3
29.0
23.0
GRU
42.7
4.7
28.0
3.3
92.0
4.0
50.0
5.3
40.3
10.3
32.3
18.3
GRU+ Δt
44.0
5.3
30.0
4.7
90.0
5.3
50.0
6.0
41.3
11.0
33.0
19.0
Table 1: Temporal control across observation schedules. Mean success over three training seeds (%, ↑ ). Fixed- Δt uses 0.1 s at inference. Bold: column maxima by backbone, including ties.
Figure 4: Scaling the supplied clock shifts action timing. Median physical durations under jitter versus supplied interval multiplier α (inputs αΔn ); weights and physical query schedules stay fixed. Shading marks the required timing windows. Button measures contact until release; Passage measures first attempted entry since cue onset. Medians use observed events: DP Button n=20/38/36 of 50 paired trials for α=0.5/1/2 ; all other points n=50 .
Diffusion Policy
π0.5
Variant
Button
Passage
Intercept.
Button
Passage
Intercept.
Full TFP (ours)
81.2
97.3
53.9
93.5
86.7
39.7
Candidate w/o history
42.7 [-1pt] (−38.5)
8.0 [-1pt] (−89.3)
44.2 [-1pt] (−9.7)
12.0 [-1pt] (−81.5)
65.7 [-1pt] (−21.0)
31.7 [-1pt] (−8.0)
Static time constants
58.5 [-1pt] (−22.7)
82.7 [-1pt] (−14.6)
44.8 [-1pt] (−9.1)
64.3 [-1pt] (−29.2)
13.3 [-1pt] (−73.4)
31.4 [-1pt] (−8.3)
Learned Δt gate
14.5 [-1pt] (−66.7)
15.0 [-1pt] (−82.3)
30.5 [-1pt] (−23.4)
27.0 [-1pt] (−66.5)
37.0 [-1pt] (−49.7)
30.1 [-1pt] (−9.6)
Table 2: Which memory components matter? Mean success over three training seeds (%, ↑ ), averaged equally over four schedules. Parentheses show changes from Full TFP (pp).
Figure 5: Memory dynamics during Delayed Passage. Observations, channel-wise write gains, and two channel time constants share a physical time axis. Heatmap cells and step traces start at their query timestamps. Shading marks the cue and permitted crossing window. A demonstration is replayed through frozen π0.5 with TFP; Appendix D.6 details channel and trajectory selection.
Method
Object swapping
Counting pick-place
Water pouring
Tea steeping
Staged heating
Avg.
Diffusion Policy
Reactive
10.0
30.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
17.0
TFP (ours)
60.0
75.0
60.0
65.0
60.0
64.0
Gain (pp)
+50.0
+45.0
+40.0
+50.0
+50.0
+47.0
π0.5
Reactive
15.0
40.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
26.0
Table 3: Real-robot manipulation on Galaxea A1. Success (%, ↑ ); Avg. weights all five tasks equally. Reactive denotes the standard backbone policy without persistent memory. Gains are TFP minus Reactive, in percentage points (pp).
Policy
LIBERO
LIBERO-plus
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long-10
Avg.
Noise
Light
Backgr.
Avg.
Published results
Reactive π0.5 (OpenPI)
98.8
98.2
98.0
92.4
96.9
–
–
–
–
HAMLET (3B)
99.0
100.0
99.2
92.2
97.6
–
–
–
–
AVA-VLA ( Xiao et al., 2026 ) (7.3B)
97.4
99.4
97.4
97.6
98.0
78.0
95.5
88.9
87.5
MemoryVLA (7.3B)
98.4
98.4
96.4
93.4
96.7
–
–
–
–
Table 4: General manipulation and visual robustness. Success (%, ↑ ); reproduced variants report means over three training seeds. Bold marks column maxima across listed methods, including ties. Gains compare TFP with the corresponding reactive π0.5 baseline (pp).
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
Diffusion Policy
π0.5
RGB resolution
96×96
224×224
Observation summary dx
2×128 (vision, state)
3×256 (vision, state, text)
Memory width dh
128
256
Input to each memory head
384=256+128
1024=768+256
Candidate head
Linear + tanh
Linear + RMS norm + tanh
Time-constant head
Linear + softplus + 10−6
Linear + bounded sigmoid
Appendix
Table 5: TFP architecture and sampling settings for the controlled timing tasks.
Variant
Button
Passage
Full TFP
81.2±1.2
97.3±1.0
τ : observation
68.3±1.5
88.5±1.0
τ : memory
49.3±1.5
94.0±1.0
τ : static
58.5±1.3
82.7±1.3
No memory condition
0.5±0.5
3.7±0.8
Reset each observation
0.3±0.6
6.2±0.8
Appendix
Table 6: Additional Diffusion Policy ablations. Success (%, ↑ ), reported as mean ± sample SD over three training seeds. Each seed’s result averages the four observation schedules equally.
Button Press
Passage
Interception
Backbone
Memory
Normal
Fixed
Normal
Fixed
Normal
Fixed
(a) Fixed time input: Δt→0.1 s
DP
TFP
81.2
25.5
97.3
32.8
53.9
31.9
π0.5
TFP
93.5
27.3
86.7
35.7
39.7
32.2
(b) Scaled time input: Δt→αΔt
Backbone
Memory
1.0
0.5/2.0
1.0
0.5/2.0
1.0
0.5/2.0
Appendix
Table 7: Time-input and memory-reset interventions. Success (%, ↑ ). Each intervention uses the same trained weights as its corresponding unmodified policy. Fixed-input results average four query schedules; clock scaling uses jitter; memory resets use 10 Hz.
(a) Event duration (s)
Features
Button
Passage
Current observation
0.3336
1.3073
Episode clock
0.6178
0.8334
TFP memory
0.0140
0.0373
Appendix
Table 8: Event time and motion in memory. Linear-probe MAE ( ↓ ) from frozen Diffusion Policy.
(a) DP: duration MAE (s) ↓
Features
Button
Passage
Observation + memory
0.0121
0.0355
Episode clock
0.6178
0.8334
Appendix
Table 9: Additional linear-readout comparisons using frozen policy representations, supplementing Table 8 . MAE and RMSE are reported separately; direction is classification accuracy.
Figure 6: Memory dynamics during Timed Button Press. Simulation frames, write gains, and memory channel 106 are aligned in physical time for a successful sequence. Shading marks contact from 3.09 to 6.33 s. The displayed channel rises during the hold and drops around release.
Figure 7: Memory evolution under occlusion with a stationary robot. The target moves at 0.16 m/s and becomes invisible to the policy at 0.35 s; shading marks the hidden interval. The robot remains stationary throughout this 1.3 s observation sequence. Channels 1 and 115 evolve after occlusion while the visible observation remains unchanged. The Interception task-evaluation protocol is specified in Appendix D.1 .
Figure 8: Memory updates during LIBERO manipulation. Observations (top), channel-wise write gains (middle), and gain summaries (bottom) show changes around grasping, release, and door interaction in a successful rollout. The horizontal axis indexes policy queries (denoted t in the plot labels). Gains depend on both measured intervals and predicted time constants.
Diffusion Policy
π0.5
Memory
Button
Passage
Intercept.
Button
Passage
Intercept.
Reactive
0.0±0.0
2.3±0.3
10.6±0.1
0.0±0.0
9.3±0.6
18.3±0.3
History
0.0±0.0
2.2±0.3
29.1±0.5
5.5±0.0
2.8±0.6
35.1±0.2
GRU
19.7±1.3
37.8±0.3
25.3±1.5
10.5±1.5
36.8±1.5
27.1±1.5
GRU+ Δt
21.0±0.0
37.8±0.3
26.1±0.6
11.7±0.3
37.3±0.3
27.8±1.1
S4D
25.7±2.1
40.5±1.8
24.8±1.5
32.0±2.0
24.7±2.3
18.8±1.5
Appendix
Table 10: Variation across training seeds. Task-average success (%), reported as mean ± sample SD over three independent training seeds.
LTC+ Δt : results by observation schedule
Diffusion Policy
π0.5
Task
Schedule
Mean ± SD
95% CI
Mean ± SD
95% CI
Button
10 Hz
18.7±3.1
[13.2,25.7]
23.3±3.1
[17.3,30.7]
5 Hz
13.3±3.1
[8.8,19.7]
18.7±3.1
[13.2,25.7]
Jitter
20.7±3.1
[15.0,27.8]
22.7±3.1
[16.7,30.0]
Dropout
11.3±3.1
[7.2,17.4]
16.0±2.0
[11.0,22.7]
Appendix
Table 11: Variation across training seeds (continued). LTC+ Δt results by observation schedule, with mean ± sample SD and rollout 95% confidence intervals.
LIBERO
Policy
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long-10
Avg.
GRU
99.0±0.2
98.4±0.2
95.8±0.3
89.1±0.4
95.6±0.1
S4D
98.5±0.1
98.4±0.2
97.0±0.2
92.5±0.3
96.6±0.0
TFP (ours)
99.5±0.1
99.0±0.2
99.3±0.1
96.9±0.3
98.7±0.2
TFP 95% CI
[99.0,99.8]
[98.4,99.4]
[98.8,99.6]
[95.9,97.7]
–
Appendix
Table 12: LIBERO and LIBERO-plus success (%): mean ± sample SD across three training seeds. The TFP CI row reports rollout 95% confidence intervals on standard LIBERO.
Figure 9: Qualitative task sequences in simulation (a–c) and real-robot demonstrations (d–h, continued on the next page). Frames show action order from left to right. In the Interception expert demonstration (c), the target becomes invisible to the policy before the robot starts moving. Dashed outlines show the hidden target’s true position for visualization only; they are absent from policy inputs. For real-robot tasks, each column pairs Agent view (top) and Wrist camera (bottom), preserving the model’s camera input framing.
Figure 10: Qualitative task sequences (continued). Paired Agent view (top) and Wrist camera (bottom) for Water pouring, Tea steeping, and Staged heating.
Memory-dependent robotic manipulation requires policies to use information that is no longer available in the current observation. Retaining history alone is insufficient: memory must preserve information that supports future actions. One challenge is whether a memory-free foundation model can learn to retain and use historical information from action demonstrations alone, without external memory support. We introduce T2Mem, a framework that develops this capability within a pretrained vision-language-action policy, without external reasoning models or memory-specific annotations. T2Mem uses test-time training to encode observation history into compact fast weights through online self-supervised updates, avoiding repeated processing of the full history. An observation-grounded interface extracts vision-language information for memory formation and supplies retrieved context to the action expert. Action supervision shapes what the memory learns to retain and use, while alternating memory-policy learning gives each component a fixed counterpart during optimization. Across 16 RoboMME tasks, T2Mem improves average success from 17.93% to 56.83% over the memory-free base policy and outperforms the recurrent-memory methods reported in the benchmark, while controlled profiling indicates at least 3x inference speedup over explicit methods. Project website: https://yzliu84.github.io/T2MEM-project/
Yize Liu, Huang Huang, Yining Hong +4
Stanford University · NVIDIA · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Memory is essential for long-horizon robotic manipulation, where successful actions may depend on past events that are no longer recoverable from the current observation. As episodes grow longer, however, retaining the full history becomes increasingly costly, creating a fundamental scalability challenge for memory-augmented policies. Existing approaches address this challenge by either storing selected past observations in a bounded memory bank or compressing interaction history into a fixed-size parametric state through Test-Time Training (TTT). Yet these formulations do not explicitly distinguish between historical information that can already be recovered from the policy's current context and information that must persist beyond it. We introduce TTT-RM, which repurposes TTT as Residual Memory, using fast weights not to generically compress history but to complement a bounded memory bank by preserving task-relevant historical information that cannot be recovered from the policy's current context. Concretely, TTT-RM learns a history decoder that reconstructs historical representations from the current observation and retrieved memory. The resulting reconstruction residual captures what this context fails to explain and serves as the learning target for TTT. The TTT slow weights are optimized against this residual target so that online fast-weight updates learn to encode complementary historical information over time. The fast-weight state is then queried to produce a residual memory representation that conditions action generation. Extensive experiments on memory-intensive simulation benchmarks and real-world tasks show that TTT-RM consistently improves across multiple memory designs, outperforms diverse baselines, and supports sustained execution on a three-minute, eight-stage stowing task.
Robot policies often convert sensing and control into fixed-rate observation-action sequences, leaving physical time implicit in sequence position. This assumption breaks when observation rates or delays vary, or when inference latency changes. We introduce Chronos Policy, which makes physical time explicit by conditioning on observation capture times and desired action execution times. We study two ways to incorporate time into a diffusion transformer: adding timestamp embeddings to token features, or encoding physical time in positional encoding through time-aware rotary positional encodings (time-aware RoPE). We find that time-aware RoPE is more robust, allowing attention to depend directly on physical time while keeping token content unchanged. During training, we temporally randomize which observations are sampled and when the action chunk begins, exposing the policy to a wider range of sensing and execution schedules that may occur during deployments. This also enables learning from asynchronous, multi-rate data without forcing all measurements onto a fixed temporal grid. Across simulation and real-world experiments, Chronos Policy improves performance on dynamic tasks, where observation-to-action timing is critical, and on multisensory tasks, where the relative timing between observations matters. On standard quasi-static tasks, it preserves nominal performance while improving robustness to changes in sensing and inference timing.