Revisiting Open-Loop… | arXiv Physical AI Research Summary

MIT & UC Berkeley | Zeng, Agarwal, Bati, Lee, Ancha, Tedrake | arXiv 2026

1. Key Themes

The Real Reason Action Chunking Works — And It's Not What Everyone Thinks

The dominant assumption across the robotics industry is that "action chunking" (executing sequences of predicted actions before re-querying the policy) works because it reduces compounding errors. This paper systematically dismantles that explanation. The actual driver is something different: human demonstrators are inherently non-Markovian — they rely on implicit memory, prior context, and unrecorded information that the robot can't observe from 1-2 frames of history. Long open-loop execution is a band-aid that compensates for this mismatch, not a fundamental control principle.

"The central claim in this work is that long execution horizons primarily compensate for policies' limited context lengths when trained to imitate non-Markovian experts." (Section 1, Introduction)

Practically: if your data pipeline relies on human teleoperation demos (which virtually every robotics company does), your policy's need for long open-loop execution is partly an artifact of your demonstrators' human cognition — not a property of the task itself.

Expert Non-Markovianity Dominates Compounding Errors as a Cause

The paper runs controlled experiments where the only variable changed is whether the expert is Markovian or not. With a fully Markovian expert, the optimal execution horizon collapses to T*exec = 1 — meaning full closed-loop reactivity is best. With non-Markovian human data, the familiar inverted-U-shape curve returns. This held across four simulation tasks (FurnitureSimOneLeg, Push-T, GearInsertion, Kitchen) and two real-world dexterous tasks.

"All policies trained on Markovian expert data exhibit optimal execution horizon of T*exec = 1 and near-monotonic decrease in success rate with Texec. Given that the expert demonstrator was the only factor varied between the two sets of experiments, we determine that the nature of the Markovian expert's data is the driver of the shift in success-horizon curve in each benchmark task." (Section 4.1.2)

The compounding errors hypothesis only held meaningfully in the severely data-limited regime (under 100 demos). At 200+ demonstrations — the scale relevant for deployment — its influence was modest compared to expert non-Markovianity.

"From 200 to 1,000 demonstrations, however, additional data produces only a slight tilt toward shorter execution horizons, indicating that compounding errors have comparatively modest influence once moderate state coverage is reached." (Section 4.2, Intervention 1)

Long Context Lengths Are the Principled Fix — Enabling Reactive, Higher-Performing Policies

If non-Markovianity is the problem, the principled solution is giving the policy more history. The paper demonstrates that increasing context length from 2 frames to 8-20 frames progressively eliminates the need for long open-loop execution — and at sufficient data scale, long-context reactive policies outperform short-context long-execution-horizon policies.

"With 1000 demonstrations, the highest performing policies use long context length To of 12–20 and short execution horizon Texec < 4 and achieve 93.2% success, outperforming the best short-context (To = 2) policy at Texec = 6 with 90.6% success." (Section 5.2, Figure 8)

On real hardware (SinglePillDispense task), increasing context from To = 2 to To = 8 boosted success from 75% (at Texec = 8) to 90% (at Texec = 2) — both improving performance and recovering reactivity simultaneously.

"Increasing context length from To = 2 to To = 8 shifts the optimal execution horizon from Texec = 8 to Texec = 2 while improving absolute performance." (Section 5.2, Table 1)

Reactivity Is Universally Beneficial — Even in Quasi-Static Tasks

A persistent assumption in manipulation robotics is that slow, quasi-static tasks don't require reactive control. The paper disproves this: even in tabletop tasks with no dynamic surprises, Markovian-expert-trained policies perform best at Texec = 1 (maximum reactivity). Execution noise, contact uncertainty, and learned model imperfections make rapid replanning valuable everywhere.

"None of our tasks are inherently dynamic or unpredictable. Nevertheless, across all tasks, policies trained on Markovian expert data perform best at or near Texec = 1, when they are most reactive... even in seemingly static tasks, errors in execution and in the learned dynamics are nearly unavoidable, making reactive feedback broadly beneficial in manipulation, not only in inherently dynamic settings." (Section 4.1.2)

The implication for humanoid and dexterous manipulation companies is direct: the industry's move toward faster, contact-rich tasks will make the reactivity penalty of long open-loop execution increasingly costly.

A New Architectural Heuristic: The Double Encoder

As a practical contribution, the paper introduces a "double encoder" architecture for long-context Diffusion Policies — one encoder specialized for immediate control (recent 2 frames), another for long-range temporal context. Dropout on the short-range pathway prevents the policy from ignoring long-range features. This stabilized long-context training across experiments.

"The double encoder allows the policy to learn separate representations for immediate control versus long-range planning and inferring expert hidden state... we find that it stabilizes the performance of the long-context policies, enables effective recall of semantic information even with very long context lengths, and gives more predictable performance results." (Section 5.1)

2. Contrarian Perspectives

The Industry's Core Design Choice — Short Context + Long Chunks — Is Backwards

The overwhelming majority of deployed robotics systems, including products from Physical Intelligence (π0, π0.5), Figure AI (Helix), NVIDIA (GR00T N1), and Toyota Research Institute, use short context lengths of 1-2 frames combined with long execution horizons. This paper argues that paradigm is not principled — it's a historically-contingent workaround for a solvable problem.

"The prevailing approach to policy training — combining short context lengths with long open-loop execution horizons — is poorly aligned with both human behavior and the desired operation regime of responsive robotic systems." (Section 6)

The contrarian claim: companies that invested architectural effort in managing long chunks (temporal smoothing, chunk blending, variable-length chunk selection) may have been solving the wrong problem. The right investment is long-context learning infrastructure.

Adding More Data Won't Save Short-Context Policies

The intuitive operator response to poor performance is "collect more data." But this paper shows that above ~200 demonstrations, additional data has diminishing returns for fixing the execution-horizon problem when the root cause is non-Markovian expert data.

"From 200 to 1,000 demonstrations, however, additional data produces only a slight tilt toward shorter execution horizons, indicating that compounding errors have comparatively modest influence once moderate state coverage is reached." (Section 4.2, Intervention 1)

Similarly, HG-DAgger — an active data collection method specifically designed to fix compounding errors — showed no significant improvement for policies trained on non-Markovian expert data.

"We find no significant shift over the 3 HG-DAgger iterations for the policy trained on non-Markovian expert data... HG-DAgger does not eliminate failures caused by cyclic or idle behaviors." (Section 4.2, Figure 6)

The implication: if you're burning data collection budget trying to fix a chunking problem, you may be treating a symptom rather than the cause.

Long-Context Memory Research Has Been Solving the Wrong Problem

Recent work on memory-augmented VLAs and long-context imitation learning has focused on "global" semantic memory — remembering which object to pick, counting repetitions, tracking hidden objects. This paper argues there is a more subtle and underexplored dimension: raw visual context for disambiguating local motor behavior.

"Our results highlight a more subtle role of context that such summaries may not fully capture: by resolving hidden-state aliasing and enabling shorter execution horizons, raw, visual context is critical for reactive, coherent, 'local' control... A method of encoding context that effectively recalls locations of hidden objects but does not enable effective manipulation with an execution horizon of 1, we argue, is missing an important dimension of temporal understanding." (Section 6)

3. Companies Identified

Physical Intelligence (π AI) Leading VLA company behind π0 and π0.5 models. Directly cited as a practitioner of short-context, long-execution-horizon policies — the exact paradigm this paper challenges.

"State-of-the-art works use open-loop execution horizons as long as 0.5–1 seconds." (Section 1); π0 and π0.5 cited as references [9] and [10] using short context lengths of 1-2 frames.

Figure AI Developer of the Helix logistics robot system. Cited as an industrial practitioner of action chunking with long execution horizons.

Referenced in Section 1 as an industry deployment using long execution horizons [11].

NVIDIA Developer of GR00T N1 foundation model for humanoid robots. Cited as another large-scale practitioner of the short-context architecture.

GR00T N1 cited in Section 1 [12] as a generalist robot policy using long execution horizons.

Toyota Research Institute (TRI) Cited through their Large Behavior Model (LBM) work on multitask dexterous manipulation, also using short context lengths.

TRI LBM Team cited [14] as a practitioner of short-context policies, and Russ Tedrake (a co-author of this paper) is affiliated with TRI's work.

Mundane Systems Inc. A robotics company that provided hardware support for the real-world experiments in this paper.

"Hardware experiments for this project were supported by Mundane Systems Inc." (Acknowledgments). Ajay Bati (co-author) is affiliated with Mundane Systems.

Sunday Robotics Referenced for their ACT-2 system as a practitioner working on reliability in action chunking.

Cited in references [75] as a practitioner of chunked execution policies.

Generalist AI Referenced for their Gen-0 embodied foundation model.

Cited in references [74] as a practitioner in the space of generalist robot policies using action chunking.

4. People Identified

Russ Tedrake MIT / Toyota Research Institute. One of the most prominent figures in robotics and control theory. Senior author on this paper, creator of the Drake simulator used in experiments, and contributor to Diffusion Policy. His endorsement of long-context reactive policies as the "more principled paradigm" carries significant weight for the field.

"We therefore encourage practitioners to train policies with longer contexts — even modestly longer with 4–8 frames — and evaluate correspondingly shorter execution horizons." (Section 6)

Michael Zeng MIT (corresponding author). Lead researcher on this paper. Conducted the systematic empirical investigation across six tasks (four simulation, two real-world) establishing the non-Markovianity hypothesis.

Contact: michaelszeng@gmail.com (Paper header)

Siddharth Ancha UC Berkeley. Co-author contributing cross-institutional perspective to the analysis.

Affiliation listed as University of California, Berkeley (Paper header)

Abhinav Agarwal MIT. Co-author and also first author on the companion paper "Training and Evaluating Diffusion Policies with Long Context Lengths" [36], which provides the architectural foundation this paper builds on.

Referenced as [36] throughout Section 5 as the foundational long-context training work.

Tony Z. Zhao Cited researcher, creator of ACT (Action Chunked Transformers) — the paper that popularized action chunking. This paper's findings directly challenge and recontextualize Zhao's original justifications for long execution horizons.

"Action chunking... was popularized in modern robotic imitation learning by ACT [1]" — reference [1] is Zhao et al. 2023.

Tiffany T. Zhang et al. (Zhang, Pfrommer, Pan, Matni, Simchowitz) Authors of the competing explanation for action chunking (compounding errors as primary driver). This paper directly tests and largely rejects their hypothesis in the moderate-to-high data regime.

"Zhang et al. [13] argue that the primary function of long execution horizons is to mitigate compounding errors. We test this hypothesis directly." (Section 4.2)

5. Operating Insights

Stop Defaulting to Long Execution Horizons — Start Extending Context

The paper's most direct operational recommendation: if you are deploying diffusion-based or ACT-style policies with To = 1 or 2 and Texec = 8-15, you are likely leaving significant performance on the table. Even a modest context extension to 4-8 frames can shift the optimal execution horizon substantially, improving both task success and system reactivity. This does not require architectural overhauls — the paper demonstrates the effect across multiple architectures.

"We therefore encourage practitioners to train policies with longer contexts — even modestly longer with 4–8 frames — and evaluate correspondingly shorter execution horizons." (Section 6)

Crucially, this is not free — longer context increases sample complexity, so you need commensurate data. The paper shows the transition pays off clearly at 200+ demonstrations, and scales favorably with dataset size.

Validate Your Execution Horizon as an Explicit Hyperparameter — It Can Move Success by Tens of Points

Most robotics teams treat execution horizon as a fixed architectural choice. This paper demonstrates it should be swept and validated like any other hyperparameter. The difference between optimal and suboptimal Texec can be 20-30 percentage points in absolute success rate.

"While ablating Texec is not common in prior work, selecting the best Texec can yield substantial improvements of tens of percentage points in absolute success rates." (Section 4.1.2)

For CTOs and heads of engineering: add execution horizon sweeps to your standard evaluation protocol. The cost is additional rollouts; the upside is finding performance gains that are invisible if you lock Texec based on convention or prior paper settings.

Understand Your Data Scale Before Drawing Conclusions About Policy Architecture

The paper establishes that below ~100 demonstrations, compounding errors dominate and long execution horizons are genuinely needed regardless of expert type. Above 200 demonstrations, the dynamics change. Research results from low-data regimes (still common in academia) may not transfer to your deployment setting.

"Because datasets of 50–100 demonstrations remain common in robotics research, we encourage evaluating results across dataset sizes to ensure results hold at scale." (Section 6)

If your team is evaluating a policy architecture based on published benchmarks run on 50-100 demos, be cautious about generalizing those findings to your production pipeline running on hundreds or thousands of demonstrations.

6. Overlooked Insights

The Failure Mode Is Cyclic Behavior, Not Catastrophic Drift — And It's Systematically Misdiagnosed

When short-context policies fail under short execution horizons, the dominant failure pattern is not that the robot crashes or makes a catastrophic error — it's that the robot enters a cycle of locally valid behaviors and times out. The robot hovers and re-approaches repeatedly, or oscillates between two plausible actions, never committing. This is distinct from compounding error failure (where the robot drifts progressively off-distribution) and has a different fix.

"In FurnitureSimOneLeg, we observe many failures around aligning to pick up the table leg or aligning before insertion; the robot hovers and repeats valid approach maneuvers as demonstrated by the expert, but never commits to the pick or insertion." (Section 4.1.2, Figure 4)

This is operationally important because cyclic failure is often misread as a generalization or robustness problem, leading teams to collect more diverse data or add noise injection — neither of which fixes the root cause. The actual fix is context length. Teams debugging "the robot gets stuck in loops" should immediately investigate their context length relative to the timescale of their human demonstrators' behavioral patterns.

The Optimal Context Length Has a Sweet Spot — And Exceeding It Hurts Performance

The paper finds that context length exhibits diminishing and eventually negative returns: too much context increases sample complexity faster than it provides useful information, degrading performance. The sweet spot depends on dataset size and task structure, and the paper explicitly flags that finding this optimum is unsolved.

"Performance declines at To = 12 in both SinglePillDispense and SlipIntoBaggie, reflecting a broader pattern across our experiments: once the benefits of additional history saturate, the increased sample complexity of longer context lengths degrades performance... determining the optimal tradeoff, and how it scales with data, remains future work." (Section 5.2)

For engineering teams: this means blindly maximizing context length is not a safe default. You need empirical sweeps of context length against your actual dataset size. The paper's results suggest To = 8 was near-optimal for real-world tasks at ~500-540 demonstrations — a useful anchor, but not a universal rule.