As robots and intelligent systems increasingly interact with humans, they must anticipate long sequences of future actions from only brief observations. While purely neural models typically require extensive observations to predict future actions and remain difficult to interpret and adjust, symbolic priors offer a structured alternative. To this end, we introduce SymAnt, a novel neuro-symbolic approach that unifies the expressiveness of neural networks with the structured reasoning of scene and knowledge graphs. Given a short video, SymAnt performs a joint-search over both graphs to construct a symbolic context, enabling unified reasoning over spatial relationships, object attributes, affordances, and associated actions. This symbolic context serves as a prior for an iterative refinement process that progressively generates and improves the sequence of future actions. By grounding predictions in symbolic context, SymAnt anticipates long-horizon actions from short observation windows in a parameter-efficient manner, while enabling users to directly edit the underlying knowledge to adjust predictions without further training. Through our experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of SymAnt, particularly when only short observation contexts are available, across five diverse datasets: Breakfast, 50 Salads, EPIC-KITCHENS, EGTEA Gaze+, and Assembly101.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SymAnt architecture: Utilizing a short video of prior observations, we extract a relevant scene graph and utilize a knowledge graph as additional context to predict a sequence of future actions. We propose a joint-graph search to capture additional context, utilizing it as a prior for an iterative action refinement.
Breakfast ( α=0.05 )
Breakfast ( α=0.1 )
50 Salads ( α=0.05 )
50 Salads ( α=0.1 )
Method
β=0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
KG [ 8 ]
5.44
4.95
4.22
3.98
6.02
5.15
4.86
4.51
6.92
6.21
6.01
5.58
7.13
6.48
6.07
5.78
RNN [ 2 ]
6.16
5.60
5.53
4.96
7.67
6.73
6.15
5.22
7.98
6.90
6.48
6.42
8.78
7.92
7.57
7.26
DS-r1 [ 36 ]
5.34
8.25
5.00
6.23
7.41
10.20
7.06
8.09
6.67
5.36
4.04
2.80
10.20
6.92
4.95
3.30
FUTR [ 32 ]
9.54
7.24
6.42
5.58
14.70
12.55
12.10
11.71
8.90
7.46
7.29
8.63
15.17
11.34
11.31
11.36
GPT-o1 [ 61 ]
7.61
6.67
7.89
5.15
−
−
−
−
15.64
13.12
13.38
11.18
15.18
15.07
13.47
12.29
Table 1: Comparison of anticipation performance with short observations ( α=0.05,0.1 ) on Breakfast and 50 Salads datasets. SymAnt is best in every setting, by 3.2% on average over NeSCA. Cells marked − for the LLM baselines were not evaluated under our inference budget. The last row reports the standard deviation of our results over the official splits.
Breakfast ( α=0.2 )
Breakfast ( α=0.3 )
50 Salads ( α=0.2 )
50 Salads ( α=0.3 )
Method
β=0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
DS-r1 [ 36 ]
15.77
11.94
10.61
6.60
16.40
13.13
9.87
6.08
7.83
5.87
3.76
2.30
6.00
4.99
3.56
2.39
RNN [ 2 ]
18.11
17.20
15.94
15.81
21.64
20.02
19.73
19.21
30.06
25.43
18.74
13.49
30.77
17.19
14.79
09.77
GPT-o1 [ 61 ]
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
21.60
21.75
17.86
12.93
28.38
25.08
20.44
15.99
UAAA [ 1 ]
16.71
15.40
14.47
14.20
20.73
18.27
18.42
16.86
24.86
22.37
19.88
12.82
29.10
20.50
15.28
12.31
TimeCond. [ 44 ]
18.41
17.21
16.42
15.84
22.75
20.44
19.64
19.75
32.51
27.61
21.26
15.99
35.12
27.05
22.05
15.59
Table 2: Comparison of long-term anticipation performance with observation horizons α=0.2,0.3 on the Breakfast and 50 Salads datasets. Results show that SymAnt excels at longer prediction horizons ( β=0.5 ), with largest margins on 50 Salads.
Figure 2: Qualitative evaluation of scene and knowledge graph integration in a real-world kitchen scenario. Observed video and actions on the left, with predicted actions on the right, demonstrating the relevant portions of the expanded graphs (SG in green, KG in blue).
Method
Params
EPIC-KITCHENS
EGTEA Gaze+
All
Freq.
Rare
All
Freq.
Rare
I3D [ 14 ]
NA
37.7
53.5
23.0
72.1
79.3
53.3
ActionVLAD [ 31 ]
NA
29.2
53.5
18.6
73.3
79.0
58.6
TimeCeption [ 40 ]
NA
35.6
55.9
26.1
74.1
79.7
59.7
VideoGraph [ 41 ]
NA
22.5
49.4
14.0
67.7
77.1
47.2
EGO-TOPO [ 59 ]
NA
38.0
56.9
29.2
73.5
80.7
54.7
Table 3: Performance (mAP) on EPIC-KITCHENS-55 and EGTEA Gaze+ across all, frequent, and rare splits. Parameter counts are approximated and report trainable parameters only; for SymAnt, the frozen object detector, ViT node encoder, and I3D backbone are excluded.
β ( α=0.2 )
β ( α=0.3 )
Method
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
Tri-gram [ 1 ]
2.8
2.2
1.9
1.5
3.5
2.7
2.3
1.8
UAAA ∗ [ 1 ]
2.7
2.1
1.8
1.6
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.7
FUTR ∗ [ 32 ]
7.5
5.5
4.7
4.1
7.8
6.0
5.2
4.0
GTDA [ 78 ]
6.4
4.5
3.5
2.8
5.9
4.2
3.5
2.9
MANTA [ 79 ]
6.7
5.3
4.2
3.5
6.6
4.7
4.2
3.5
Table 4: Long-term dense anticipation on Assembly101 (MoC). ∗ : retrained on Assembly101 [ 78 ] .
Breakfast
50 Salads
β ( α=0.2 )
β ( α=0.2 )
Enc.
Dec.
KG
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
T
T
−
27.03 ±1.4
20.82 ±0.3
36.77 ±5.3
20.12 ±6.9
M
T
−
26.70 ±1.6
20.25 ±0.8
36.20 ±8.3
21.60 ±2.7
M
R
−
27.20 ±1.1
23.60 ±0.4
37.20 ±4.2
27.70 ±5.6
−
R
I
17.81 ±1.6
11.86 ±0.7
25.20 ±7.3
12.41 ±5.6
Table 5: Ablation on model configurations. Enc. : M (Mamba), T (Transformer). Dec. : R (Iterative Refinement), D (Diffusion), S (DDIM sampling [ 68 ] ). KG (symbolic context): I (init. from joint SG+KG search), C (cond. on joint SG+KG search), K (init. from KG-only search, scene graph disabled), O (init. from max-pooled CLIP embeddings, no graph), A (init. from a GAT, no graph search), G (init. from a Visual Genome KG [ 46 ] ).
Figure 3: Quantitative analysis of anticipation with manual graph edits: accuracy drops on deactivation and is 100% on activation.
Inference Time
Performance
(ms)
β ( α=0.2 )
β ( α=0.3 )
Enc.
Dec.
Enc.
Dec.
Cont.
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
T
T
1.5
1.6
0.9
39.48
23.60
34.65
19.50
M
T
1.1
1.6
0.9
39.16
23.84
34.72
19.46
M
R(10)
1.1
14.5
0.9
40.78
28.19
35.23
25.50
M
R(10) †
1.1
14.5
0.9
40.41
27.55
35.13
25.01
Table 6: Module-wise inference time (ms) on 50 Salads; all rows use KG initialization (I). Cont.: symbolic context aggregation. † : SG built with Faster R-CNN.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
EPIC Kitchens
EGTEA Gaze+
Enc.
Dec.
KG
All
Frequent
Rare
All
Frequent
Rare
T
T
−
37.9
55.3
29.3
72.1
75.4
59.2
M
T
−
38.6
56.1
29.7
72.1
76.8
59.4
M
D
C
38.5
55.3
29.8
73.6
78.4
61.6
M
R
−
39.7
56.4
31.8
74.4
79.7
63.8
M
R
I
42.4
59.3
32.2
78.7
84.9
65.5
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of anticipation accuracy across different model configurations for EPIC Kitchens and EGTEA Gaze+ dataset. Enc. (Encoder): M (Mamba), T (Transformer). Dec. (Decoder): R (Iterative Refinement), T (Transformer), D (Diffusion model with explicit forward process [ 86 , 33 ] ). KG (Knowledge Graph Integration): I (Initialization), C (Conditioning), − (None).
Figure 4: Analysis of intermediate refinement steps. We report mean accuracy and std. deviation over intermediate inference steps for a model trained for 10 steps.
Figure 5: MoC accuracy vs. number of steps in the refinement process on the Breakfast dataset, showing that accuracy at 50 and 100 steps does not significantly improve compared to 10 steps.
Breakfast
50 Salads
β ( α=0.2 )
β ( α=0.3 )
β ( α=0.2 )
β ( α=0.3 )
AR
Rec.
Init.
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
✓
23.75
19.21
26.64
23.28
32.19
22.05
30.61
17.52
✓
✓
24.02
19.44
26.21
23.75
32.78
22.70
31.74
17.26
✓
✓
28.07
25.81
34.12
29.51
40.69
27.98
35.51
25.31
✓
✓
✓
28.22
25.67
34.22
30.11
40.78
28.19
35.23
25.50
Appendix
Table 8: Results for different loss terms on the Breakfast and 50 Salads datasets, highlighting the significant impact of the recognition loss on model performance.
β ( α=0.2 )
β ( α=0.3 )
Method
Params
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.5
Ours
400k
23.88
22.87
28.60
25.00
Ours
800k
24.54
21.58
30.61
27.63
FUTR
1M
24.55
22.04
29.88
25.87
Ours
1.2M
27.54
25.05
31.56
29.78
Ours
3M
27.55
25.67
32.06
30.11
Appendix
Table 9: Parameter efficiency on the Breakfast dataset across different model size variants, showing high performance even with <1M parameters. Counts are trainable parameters of the anticipation model; the frozen I3D backbone (shared across all baselines) and the swappable SG detector (see the main paper) are excluded as common input pipeline.
Figure 6: Qualitative anticipation results on 50 Salads with symbolic edits applied at inference. For each example we show the observed segment with two sample frames (left), and the ground-truth future (GT), our prediction (Pred.), and the prediction after editing the tomato nodes of the expanded joint-graph (Edited). (a) the tomato is occluded during the observation and missed by the detector, and activating the nodes recovers the cut tomato actions; (b) deactivating them removes cut tomato actions; (c) a case where the prediction persists despite deactivation, i.e. the visual stream overrides the symbolic prior.
Assistive autonomous systems must anticipate human goals before an observed behavior is complete. This article formulates anticipation as goal inference from a partially observed multimodal episode together with structured prediction of the remaining behavior, rather than exact motor forecasting. A compact Hierarchical Planning Decoder (HPD) is attached to a frozen neuro-symbolic recognition encoder and predicts, at four ontological levels, the next actions, the remaining activities and low-level intentions, and the episode high-level intention(HLI). The decoder is trained with soft neuro-symbolic regularization combining transition-coherence and hierarchical continuity losses, and is decoded with hard reachability masks that enforce ontological validity at inference. On a compositional four-level benchmark of 15,002 multimodal episodes built over NTU RGB+D 120 features, three headline properties are observed together. The advantage over the strongest sequential baseline grows with the anticipation horizon, from +1.7 points at step 1 to +7.3 points at step 3 (top-5). Under compositional generalization, where one parent association per multi-parent low level intention is held out, this advantage widens to +4.9 points at step 1. At the episode level, 96.8% of anticipated trajectories satisfy the joint logic constraints, above the 88.1% strongest-baseline value and the 73.9% ground-truth floor; soft logic terms alone account for a 59.8 to 71.1% relative reduction of HLI-reachability violations, and the hard masks then eliminate them entirely. Neural generation supplies predictive ranking, symbolic constraints supply onto logical validity, and their combination yields coherent hierarchical anticipation while exposing remaining challenges in compositional goal generalization and unordered set prediction.
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have demonstrated promising capabilities in robotic manipulation by integrating visual perception, language understanding, and action generation. Recent advances have further incorporated future prediction to enhance the understanding of environmental dynamics and task progression. However, existing methods often model short-term dynamics and long-term task objectives separately, while directly incorporating predicted futures into action policies without sufficiently considering their relevance to current action requirements. To address these limitations, we propose HiFOR, a hierarchical foresight framework with action-guided world retrieval. Specifically, Hierarchical Foresight Prediction jointly predicts short-term state evolution, semantic milestones, and final goal states through a Hierarchical Dependency Mask (HDM), establishing dependencies across temporal horizons. Building upon these predictions, Structure-Aware Latent World Modeling organizes future latent representations along the horizon, view, and spatial dimensions to facilitate fine-grained retrieval. Furthermore, Action-Guided Factorized World Retrieval adaptively retrieves relevant future information from the structured latent world based on evolving action representations during denoising, providing targeted guidance for action generation. Extensive experiments on two simulation benchmarks and six real-world robotic manipulation tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.
Rongxing Ding, Hongyu Qu, Kehong Wu +4
Nanjing University of Science and Technology · National University of Singapore · Shenyang Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences +1
Long-term action anticipation (LTA) aims to predict an ordered sequence of future verb-noun actions from a partially observed video. While this task serves as the foundation for embodied intelligence, anticipating physically feasible long-term actions remains a critical challenge. Existing methods, which operate in an open-loop manner, often hallucinate non-existent objects, violate object affordances, or disregard object states, as they lack explicit mechanisms to verify action feasibility against the physical environment. To address this, we propose FactCheck, a novel multi-agent collaboration framework that improves feasibility through a closed-loop "Observe-Plan-Verify" mechanism. FactCheck decomposes the complex LTA task into specialized roles: an Observer that recognizes historical actions from video observations and constructs a dual-form structured memory, comprising a History Action Abstract that captures high-level human intentions and environmental status, and a History Action Graph that encodes object states and temporal dependencies; a Planner that generates draft future actions conditioned on both low-level historical actions and high-level History Action Abstract; and a Verifier that rigorously validates the draft against the History Action Graph and refines infeasible actions. Extensive experiments on the EPIC-Kitchens-55 and EGTEA Gaze+ benchmarks demonstrate that FactCheck consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Our work establishes a new paradigm for feasibility-aware long-term action anticipation, effectively closing the loop of action recognition, action prediction and action verification.
Rui Cao, Jiannong Cao, Bo Yuan +2
Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China · JIUTIAN Research, China Mobile, Beijing, China