Organizations: New York University Tandon School of Engineering, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA · NYUAD Center for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) and Embodied AI and Robotics (AIR) Lab, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi 129188, UAE
In-context imitation learning (ICIL) adapts robot policies through test-time demonstrations, but long multimodal trajectories constrain how many examples fit in context. We ask what a compressed demonstration should preserve. We propose JEDI, which compresses demonstrations into latent slots trained to predict the query episode's next-stage keyframe in a frozen video-JEPA space. Task and process counterfactuals help the slots preserve execution details, while the predictor selects demonstrations from a bank. Post-training with keypoint tokens enables human-hand conditioning on robots. Experiments on LIBERO and real robots show that JEDI supports many-shot context; LIBERO objective controls show improved success and demonstration following over action-only compression. These findings support query-future prediction as a training objective for preserving execution-relevant information in compressed demonstrations.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Overview of JEDI. (1) A compressor maps each demonstration to k latent slots, which are cached in a demonstration bank. (2) The slots are trained to predict the next keyframe of the query episode in the embedding space of a frozen V-JEPA 2.1 encoder, with task and process negatives. (3) The predictor ranks the demonstrations in the bank, and only the policy runs in the control loop. (4) Post-training on 10 tasks uses equal shares of human-hand and dual-arm robot demonstrations with the same objective; unseen tasks are executed from human-hand context without test-time weight updates.
Method
LIBERO (%, ↑ )
RLBench (%, ↑ )
Spatial
Object
Goal
ICRT ( Fu et al., 2025 )
58.5 ±3.4
44.6 ±4.6
24.6 ±2.1
49.3 ±3.8
RoboSSM ( Yoo et al., 2026 )
66.8 ±3.1
54.3 ±4.3
37.3 ±3.6
54.4 ±2.8
Instant Policy ( Vosylius and Johns, 2025 )
83.1 ±3.2
69.1 ±2.9
47.1 ±2.8
77.1 ±3.3
ContextFlow ( Ding et al., 2026 )
85.6 ±2.8
76.4 ±3.2
56.5 ±2.2
73.6 ±1.3
JEDI (ours)
92.7 ±1.6
83.6 ±2.9
63.0 ±2.3
82.1 ±2.0
Table 1: Success rate on unseen manipulation configurations in LIBERO-Spatial, LIBERO-Object, LIBERO-Goal and RLBench. The first five rows use one demonstration ( N=1 ); input adapters are distinguished in Appendix E . Values are mean ± standard deviation (%) over 3 training seeds. Each LIBERO seed uses 4 held-out tasks and 100 rollouts per task (1,200 trials per suite across seeds; Appendix F ). The best N=1 mean in each column is in bold.
Figure 3
SR ↑
Order
Height
Compressor objective
N=1
N=8
CFR ↑
match ↑
DDtask↑
DDproc↑
err. ↓
Action-only (matched)
67.1
64.2
34.1
52.2
–
–
4.1
+ LJEPA
73.4
78.1
46.3
56.2
1.11
1.02
2.5
+ LJEPA + Lcf (task negatives)
72.2
76.6
69.7
57.4
2.06
1.09
2.6
Label contrast (no predictor)
68.7
68.7
51.5
73.5
–
–
3.5
JEDI (task + process negatives)
79.8
80.2
74.9
84.1
2.21
1.49
2.0
Table 3: Core compressor-objective ablations (same backbone, data and schedule). SR, CFR and order-match are in %; height error is in cm. SR uses instructions and averages the three LIBERO suites of Table 1 ; DDtask / DDproc average the last 200 training steps. The final line tests height transfer with order-only negative labels. Best in bold; further controls are in Table 9 .
Method
Canonical
Paraphrase
Conflict
JEDI
70.0
71.7
78.8
Action-only
60.0
70.0
45.0
Instruction-only
65.0
55.0
–
Table 4: Instructions stating the object order on LIBERO-Order (success, %; N=8 ; 20/60/80 trials per column). Conflict: opposite-order context. Instruction-only: context masked. See Appendix I .
Method
R1
R2
R3
Retrieval-1
13/25
4/10
—
Action-only, N=1
15/25
4/10
—
JEDI, N=1
15/25
6/10
—
JEDI, N=8
21/25
8/10
10/15
Robot ( N=8 )
23/25
8/10
11/15
Mixed ( N=4+4 )
22/25
8/10
10/15
Table 5: Real-robot success (successes/trials; 5 per task). R1: unseen manipulation (5 tasks); R2: instruction–demonstration ambiguity (2); R3: demonstration–demonstration ambiguity (3). Best in bold. —: R3 needs several demonstrations. Hardware and tasks in Appendix H .
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Item
Setting
Model and optimization
Slots per demonstration k
8
Compressor
joint perceiver, Lc=4 layers
Demonstration subsampling
8 frames; 128 state/action steps
Vision encoder
SigLIP So400m/14 (from π0 )
query side
fine-tuned
Appendix
Table 7: Hyperparameters and benchmarks.
Method (no instruction)
N
Spatial
Object
Goal
Avg.
π0 , no demonstration
0
52.8
15.4
9.1
25.8
Action-only (matched)
1
84.6
55.2
34.1
58.0
Action-only (matched)
16
81.9
46.5
20.8
49.7
JEDI
1
80.3
63.0
74.9
72.7
JEDI
16
87.2
73.8
61.2
74.1
Appendix
Table 8: Success without instructions (%; protocol of Table 1 ). Avg.: mean over suites. Best per column in bold.
SR ↑
Order
Height
Compressor objective
N=1
N=8
CFR ↑
match ↑
DDtask↑
DDproc↑
err. ↓
+ Reconstruction
66.8
63.2
36.4
52.2
–
–
3.8
+ Trace target
71.4
76.1
46.3
60.5
1.31
1.10
2.5
+ Prediction without slots
64.2
66.6
39.7
55.4
–
–
3.3
JEDI, gradient through ot
77.5
83.9
60.1
84.9
2.58
1.54
1.4
Appendix
Table 9: Additional compressor controls under the settings and metrics of Table 3 . SR, CFR and order-match in %; height error in cm. Best per column in bold.
Objective
Labels used
Order
Height
Action-only (matched)
none
52.2
55.1
Label contrast
order only
68.3
52.2
Label contrast
height only
51.8
75.4
Label contrast
order + height
73.5
76.8
JEDI
task only
57.4
63.9
JEDI
order only
76.1
70.5
Appendix
Table 10: Prediction versus label supervision. Order-match and height-match rates (%) on LIBERO-Order using the indicated labels for negatives (JEDI) or contrastive pairs (Label contrast). Off-diagonal entries evaluate variation omitted from those labels; positive support/query pairs remain process-matched. Best in bold.
SR
Variant
N=1
N=8
CFR
JEDI (default)
79.8
80.2
74.9
DINOv2 target
76.4
74.3
62.7
Final-frame target
68.2
76.4
65.2
One slot per demonstration
70.9
66.0
51.3
No instruction dropout
74.3
78.2
45.1
Appendix
Table 11: Key ablations (%). Best per column in bold.
Method
N
Prefill (ms)
Hz
Mem. (GB)
Raw context
1
178
3
12
Raw context
2
425
2
13
ContextFlow
1
26
13
8
JEDI
1
28
13
8
JEDI
4
20
10
8
JEDI
8
44
10
10
Appendix
Table 12: Inference cost on one A100. Prefill: one-time cost of encoding the support set; Hz: control frequency with cached slots. Bank workloads use 8 pseudo-query steps per demonstration, batched across pair/time inputs. The final block gives measured bank-construction times.
Distractors Nd
Method
0
4
8
16
Action-only (matched)
64.2
43.3
42.9
42.8
JEDI
80.2
79.0
78.1
76.1
JEDI, no distractor mixing
80.6
78.2
74.7
74.4
Retrieval-1 (from the mixed pool)
77.5
74.5
74.3
73.1
Attention mass on relevant slots (%)
Appendix
Table 13: Distractor demonstrations. Success (%) with N=8 relevant demonstrations and Nd distractors, and attention on relevant slots. Retrieval-1 selects one demonstration from this pool.
Method
R1 subset
R2 subset
R3 subset
JEDI, N=8
15/20
8/10
5/10
Action-only, N=8
11/20
5/10
2/10
Instruction-only
10/20
4/10
4/10
No keypoint tokens
11/20
5/10
5/10
No predictive loss
9/20
6/10
3/10
Appendix
Table 14: Matched real-robot context and post-training controls (successes/trials; 10 per condition). Subsets use the R1/R2/R3 predicates of Table 5 .
Figure 4: Matched context-size comparison on LIBERO-Object. Identical instructions, two held-out tasks and 20 paired trials per point.
Method
No instruction
Instruction only
JEDI
65.0
25.0
Action-only
60.0
–
ContextFlow
35.0
–
Appendix
Table 15: Input controls on LIBERO-Object (success, %; 20 paired trials per cell). Instruction-only retains the JEDI policy with its demonstration context masked. The order-instruction controls are in Table 4 .
Robotic imitation learning is often treated as reproducing demonstrated actions, but actions are inherently embodiment-specific. When demonstrations come from humans or robots with different morphology, kinematics, or action spaces, this action-centric view requires shared action spaces, heuristic retargeting, or large-scale multi-embodiment co-training. We instead view demonstrations as implicit specifications of future goals: the target agent should infer what state the demonstrator is trying to realize, rather than how the demonstrator executes it. We propose Demo-JEPA, a cross-embodiment imitation framework that decouples demonstration intent from embodiment-specific execution. Built on a JEPA-based world model, Demo-JEPA translates source visual demonstrations into target-compatible future latent trajectories in a shared predictive representation space. The target agent then uses these latent trajectories as subgoals and realizes them through planning under its own learned forward dynamics. Because Demo-JEPA avoids action-level correspondence and requires only visual demonstrations plus the target agent's own interaction experience, it supports flexible imitation across heterogeneous embodiments. Experiments on RLBench and real-world manipulation tasks show that Demo-JEPA matches specialized in-domain planners and generalizes to unseen tasks and embodiment configurations where prior methods fail.
Jingyang He, Guangrun Li, Jieyu Zhang +3
State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University · Beijing Innovation Center of Humanoid Robotics · University of Washington
We study robotic in-context learning (ICL), an emerging paradigm that enables robots to infer and execute tasks from visual demonstrations. Despite its growing promise, the problem itself remains under-defined: a visual demonstration simultaneously conveys action trajectories, object semantics, manipulation affordances, spatial relations, and task goals, making it unclear what information the robot is actually expected to follow. In this work, we first provide a clear problem definition of robot ICL that explicitly defines its learning target and resolves this fundamental prompt ambiguity. Building on this definition, we develop a minimalist and reproducible ICL framework (SimpleICL) with a visual prompt encoder and a low-cost data collection protocol. Without massive pre-training or specialized data infrastructure, our framework achieves strong performance in both simulation and real-world environments. Extensive experiments further reveal several key properties of robot ICL, including semantic discrimination and task-relevant disentanglement. We will fully open-source our data and training pipeline to facilitate systematic and reproducible research on robot ICL. The project page can be found at https://simpleicl.github.io/simpleicl.
Minxing Li, Minghao Han, Weizhi Zhao +10
NLPR, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CASIA) · Amap, Alibaba Group
Although highly effective in vision and language domains, applying in-context learning to robotics remains challenging. Existing autoregressive in-context imitation methods discretize continuous actions and exacerbate the accumulation of early prediction errors through next-token prediction, limiting their generalization on unseen task configurations. Meanwhile, flow-matching policies have been explored for continuous robot control and can help mitigate compounding errors; however, in-context imitation learning within a flow-matching framework remains underexplored. To address these limitations, we introduce ContextFlow, a conditional flow-matching model that learns continuous action distributions for in-context imitation learning. ContextFlow conditions flow-based action prediction on demonstrations and observations, enabling robust generation from noisy action distributions. To better encode multimodal in-context demonstrations, we adapt perceiver-style multimodal context compressors that distill visual, proprioceptive, and action sequences into compact, task-relevant latent representations. On LIBERO, ContextFlow outperforms ICRT by 35 percentage points in average success rate on unseen task configurations, while matching the performance of the task-specific fine-tuned VLA model π0 without any fine-tuning on unseen tasks. On real robots, it generalizes to unseen configurations of both single-arm and bimanual tasks, achieving 40% success on a new pen-uncapping configuration. Project Page: https://dingjiansw101.github.io/contextflow-page/.
Jian Ding, Xianjie Dai, Roei Herzig +5
KAUST, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia · University of California, Berkeley, USA · Zurich, Switzerland