Act with Intent

Distilling Behavior Intent for Vision-Language-Action Models

Sangoh Lee, Sangwoo Mo*, Wook-Shin Han*

* Equal advising

Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH)

From behavior cloning to intent distillation: (a) behavior cloning supervises actions only, (b) future-based supervision adds representations of future states or motion, (c) INDI distills behavior-level intent from a teacher VLM into the action decoder, (d) success-rate gains on SimplerEnv-Bridge and RoboCasa-Kitchen.
Figure 1: From behavior cloning to intent distillation. Behavior cloning supervises which motion to reproduce, and future-based supervision adds particular realizations of what may happen. INDI (Intention Distillation) instead distills the local objective of the demonstrated behavior from a frozen teacher VLM into the action decoder. The deployed policy recovers it from standard VLA inputs, with no teacher at deployment.

+20.4pp SimplerEnv-Bridge · +6.2pp RoboCasa Kitchen · +6.7pp real world · 0 teacher modules at deployment

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 π0.5 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.

Real-World Rollouts

Autonomous rollouts of GR00T-N1.7 + INDI on a bimanual SO-101 platform, one episode per task. Each clip shows an external third-person view on top. The bottom strip shows the robot’s three synchronized onboard cameras (head, left wrist, right wrist), which are the only visual observations the policy receives. All clips are at 1× speed.

Task 1, Threading: “Put the ring on the pole.”
Task 2, Basket Nesting: “Put the small basket in the large basket.”
Task 3, Cross-Bin Stacking: “Stack the cube from the right bin on the cube from the left bin.”
Task 4, Drawer Storage: “Put the cube in the upper drawer.”

Method

INDI defines intent as the local objective that the forthcoming behavior should achieve under the instruction, and makes it an explicit supervision target for the action decoder. It has three components:

  1. Intent from executed behavior. A frozen teacher VLM reads the current observation, instruction, a coarse action summary, and the execution video of a demonstrated segment, and states the functional purpose the segment serves. Its hidden states from this interpretation become the intent target, complemented by a textual-purpose grounding and an endpoint visual feature.
  2. Intent recovery inside the decoder. Learnable intent queries must reconstruct the teacher’s intent representation at an intermediate decoder layer, from standard VLA inputs only. The remaining layers then complete action, visual, and textual grounding predictions on top of the recovered intent.
  3. Intent-aware decoding. Asymmetric attention and an intent-mismatch margin make the recovered intent a functional intermediate state that downstream prediction genuinely depends on, rather than an auxiliary readout that could be ignored.
INDI overview: a training-only teacher VLM derives multimodal intent and textual-purpose targets from executed behavior; the VLA decoder recovers intent at an intermediate layer via learnable intent queries and jointly predicts actions with visual and textual groundings.
Figure 2: Overview of INDI. A training-only teacher interprets executed behavior, and the decoder learns to recover the result and act on it. Dashed paths exist only during training. At deployment the teacher, cached targets, and alignment heads are all removed. The policy receives ordinary VLA inputs and forms intent internally (+0.04B parameters, ~5 ms per policy query on GR00T-N1.7).

Results

We evaluate on two backbones (GR00T-N1.7 and π0.5), two simulation benchmarks, and four real-world tasks. Every comparison uses the same demonstrations, optimization budget, and evaluation protocol as its baseline. The only change is behavior-intent supervision.

Grouped bar chart of average success rates, base policy versus base plus INDI: SimplerEnv-Bridge with GR00T-N1.7 64.3 to 84.7, with pi-0.5 52.3 to 58.8, RoboCasa Kitchen with GR00T-N1.7 64.1 to 70.3, with pi-0.5 34.9 to 41.4, and real-world average 62.0 to 68.7.
Figure 3: Average success rate, base policy vs. + INDI. Simulation numbers are means over three evaluation runs. Real-world numbers average 50 trials per task over three conditions.

SimplerEnv-Bridge

MethodSpoonCarrotStackEP-BasketAvg.
GR00T-N1.784.779.357.336.064.3
+ future supervision81.373.356.760.768.0
+ INDI (ours)88.784.769.396.084.7
π0.578.072.732.026.752.3
+ INDI (ours)81.376.039.338.758.8

Success rate (%), mean over three evaluation runs. INDI improves every task on both backbones. Future-based supervision reaches 68.0% where INDI reaches 84.7%, so the gain comes from behavior-level intent supervision rather than extra signal alone. On EP-Basket, success rises from 36.0% to 96.0%.

RoboCasa Kitchen (24 tasks)

MethodPick-and-PlaceOpen-or-CloseOthersAvg.
GR00T-N1.7 (100 demos/task)39.475.976.764.1
+ future supervision47.080.372.165.8
+ INDI (ours)49.882.879.170.3
π0.5 (100 demos/task)14.055.139.534.9
+ INDI (ours)15.356.153.541.4

With 100 demonstrations per task, GR00T-N1.7 + INDI reaches 70.3%, within 0.5 pp of the reported GR00T-N1.7 checkpoint trained on 3,000 demonstrations per task (70.8%), and the highest average among reported RoboCasa results.

Real-world tasks

Task ID clean Held-out Distractors
Base+ INDI Base+ INDI Base+ INDI
Threading92.096.086.084.070.082.0
Basket Nesting94.092.084.090.076.084.0
Cross-Bin Stacking74.080.062.072.058.064.0
Drawer Storage24.036.016.026.08.018.0
Average71.076.062.068.053.062.0

Success rate (%) over 50 trials, GR00T-N1.7 backbone. The gains concentrate on the longer-horizon tasks (Cross-Bin Stacking +7.3 pp, Drawer Storage +10.7 pp averaged across conditions) and persist as the scene shifts from training conditions: +6.0 pp on held-out objects and +9.0 pp under distractors.

Inside the Recovered Intent

Supervision controls first rule out a capacity story: with the same architecture, a free latent (57.0%) and groundings-only supervision (60.0%) stay below the action-only baseline (61.5%), while intent supervision alone reaches 76.0% and full INDI 85.5% on a fixed SimplerEnv-Bridge evaluation run. The recovered state itself is structured like an intent. It encodes what the behavior is for and how far along it is:

Task-discriminative projection of recovered intents: rollouts separate into four clusters by behavior objective, consistent across real demonstrations and simulation rollouts.
Figure 4a: Recovered intents separate by behavior objective, consistently across real demonstrations and simulation rollouts.
Phase-discriminative projection of recovered intents: intents from different tasks organize by early, middle, and late execution stage.
Figure 4b: The same representation organizes by execution stage, shared across tasks.
Centered cosine similarity between tasks in recovered-intent space: Spoon and Carrot form the closest pair, while Eggplant-in-basket is most separated from the others.
Figure 4c: Task relatedness in intent space: Spoon and Carrot are closest, EP-Basket most separated.

This structure is about the objective, not motion statistics. Operationalizing skill as the executed action sequence:

Three panels: (a) intent space separates 14 behavior objectives on held-out episodes; (b) a matched projection of local action snippets shows weak objective separation; (c) scatter of intent similarity versus skill similarity, where same-objective pairs with dissimilar motions remain more similar in intent space than different-objective pairs with similar motions.
Figure 5: Intent captures objective beyond action-sequence realization. (a) Teacher intent targets separate 14 behavior objectives on held-out episodes, (b) while a matched projection of local action snippets separates them only weakly. (c) On progress-matched episode pairs, the same objective realized by dissimilar action sequences stays more similar in intent space than different objectives realized by similar sequences (dark points mark contrast sets, diamonds their means). The representation preserves what the behavior is meant to accomplish across changes in how it is executed.

The state can even be read out directly. Lightweight decoders map the intent recovered inside the action decoder back to an endpoint image and a purpose statement:

For each example: current observation, ground-truth endpoint, decoder reconstruction of the target, and images decoded from the recovered intent, zero intent, and a cross-task donor intent, together with the corresponding decoded purpose statements. Decoded content follows whatever intent is injected.
Figure 6: Reading the recovered intent out in pixels and words (SimplerEnv-Bridge). With the policy’s own recovered intent (green) the decoded endpoint and purpose track the instruction. Injecting zero intent (red) or a donor intent from another task (orange) makes both follow the injected content instead. Two of five examples shown, the rest are in the paper.

And the content is causal. Swapping the task-discriminative component of the recovered intent between objectives drops closed-loop success from 84.5% (same-objective edits) to 45.2% (cross-objective) and 1.0% (Gaussian corruption). Forcing early- or late-stage phase content collapses success to 7.3% and 5.5%, while producing coherent, stage-consistent behavior:

Stage-forced intervention on the Stack task: the phase-matched control grasps the green block and stacks it on the yellow block; forcing early-stage intent leaves the policy hovering at the block with no stacking transition; forcing late-stage intent produces brief contact, then the arm departs as if the task were done.
Figure 7: Stage-forced intervention on Stack. With phase-matched intent the policy stacks normally. Early-forced intent leaves it hovering at the block without ever transitioning to stacking. Late-forced intent produces brief contact before departing as if the task were already done. The decoder does not merely carry the recovered intent. It acts on it.

BibTeX

@misc{lee2026actintentdistillingbehavior,
      title={Act with Intent: Distilling Behavior Intent for Vision-Language-Action Models},
      author={Sangoh Lee and Sangwoo Mo and Wook-Shin Han},
      year={2026},
      eprint={2608.23478},
      archivePrefix={arXiv},
      primaryClass={cs.RO},
      url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23478},
}