In-Context Learning for Robots: Methods and Applications

Methods and Applications

Haojian Huang1,2Zexi Li1,3Junhao Guo1Yehang Zhang1,2Wenxuan Peng1,4Bohan Zhou1,3Weilin Ruan1,3Leyi Wu1,2Chenxu Wang1,5Jianchong Su1,2Binghui Xie1,3Wosong Chen1,2Yingjie Xu1,2Tianhao Zhou1,2Suzeyu Chen1,2Pukun Zhao1Jiaqi He1Xinyi Li1,3Runze Li7Peiran Dong1,3Shaoxiang Dang1Jing Huang1Yingbing Chen1Yifan Chang1Tianyi Zhang1Shiyuan Deng1Haozhi Wang1Yangkai Wei1Wenqian Li1Han Yang1Kaiwen Zhou1Huaping Liu5James Cheng3Rui Shao6Donglin Wang7Yaochu Jin7Jianye Hao8Ying-Cong Chen1,2,*Yinchuan Li1,*
1Knowin AI2HKUST(GZ)3The Chinese University of Hong Kong4Tongji University5Tsinghua University6Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen7Westlake University8Tianjin University

* Corresponding authors

huanghaojian · lizexi @ knowin.ai

From evidence to action

Robots you can teach.

Adapt to new tasks through context.

From demonstrations to action.

Understand how robots use context to act, transfer, and learn from experience.

Four pathways from context to control: context-conditioned policies infer actions; geometric demonstration transfer aligns motion references; world-model-based control predicts robot futures; skill- and agent-based execution composes executable skills.
Explore the four method families

arXiv:2609.36012

General-purpose robots must infer what a new task requires and translate that understanding into appropriate physical action. In-context learning (ICL) for robots supports this process by using demonstrations and interaction to direct existing competence with neural parameters held fixed during deployment. We organize this literature review around the interfaces connecting contextual evidence to execution, distinguishing four families: context-conditioned policies, geometric demonstration transfer, world-model-based control, and skill- and agent-based execution. Comparing these interfaces clarifies their transfer assumptions and the roles of training, correspondence, and memory in making context useful. Across manipulation and navigation, we examine how these mechanisms preserve taught requirements as objects, environments, and execution conditions change. This analysis links method design to evaluation practices that distinguish responsiveness to teaching, physical transfer, and benefits from retained experience. The agenda connects compositional transfer to active coaching and physical recursive self-improvement, where targeted teaching and verified lessons improve acquisition of subsequent tasks.

Understanding Robot ICL

Learn from context.

Demonstrations, instructions, and feedback guide a new task. Neural parameters stay fixed; contextual evidence directs the robot’s existing skills.

Foundations · Section 2 ↗

Adapt without fine-tuning.

Fine-tuning changes neural weights. Robot ICL changes the evidence available at inference: demonstrations, memory, motion references, or executable procedures.

Adaptation regimes · Section 2 ↗

Measure what transfers.

Vary teaching to test what was learned. Vary objects and scenes to test transfer. Compare later attempts to measure the benefit of retained experience.

Evaluation · Section 7 ↗

How context shapes action.

Context-conditioned policies

Action inference

Demonstrations and history condition action inference. Transfer depends on preserving task requirements and mapping them to the robot’s controls.

Geometric demonstration transfer

Motion references

Spatial correspondence turns a demonstration into motion references. A controller tracks them; perception and contact changes determine transfer quality.

World-model-based control

Predicted futures

Context predicts future observations or trajectories. Planning converts those predictions into actions that must remain physically achievable.

Skill- and agent-based execution

Executable procedures

Context composes skills, programs, and tools. Execution feedback checks progress and guides recovery when a step fails.

Learn. Transfer. Improve.

From learning a task to transferring it—and using experience to learn the next one better.

A new task.

Identify which order, relation, or procedure is learned from teaching, and which motor skills were already available.

A new situation.

Preserve the taught requirement while adapting its physical realization to different objects, scenes, bodies, or dynamics.

The next task.

Test whether retained experience improves subsequent learning. Distinguish contextual reuse, revised procedures, and neural updates.

Physical recursive self-improvement Browse the collection

Citation & resources

Haojian Huang et al.arXiv:2609.360122026

@article{huang2026roboticl,
  title = {In-Context Learning for Robots: Methods and Applications},
  author = {Huang, Haojian and
            Li, Zexi and
            Guo, Junhao and
            Zhang, Yehang and
            Peng, Wenxuan and
            Zhou, Bohan and
            Ruan, Weilin and
            Wu, Leyi and
            Wang, Chenxu and
            Su, Jianchong and
            Xie, Binghui and
            Chen, Wosong and
            Xu, Yingjie and
            Zhou, Tianhao and
            Chen, Suzeyu and
            Zhao, Pukun and
            He, Jiaqi and
            Li, Xinyi and
            Li, Runze and
            Dong, Peiran and
            Dang, Shaoxiang and
            Huang, Jing and
            Chen, Yingbing and
            Chang, Yifan and
            Zhang, Tianyi and
            Deng, Shiyuan and
            Wang, Haozhi and
            Wei, Yangkai and
            Li, Wenqian and
            Yang, Han and
            Zhou, Kaiwen and
            Liu, Huaping and
            Cheng, James and
            Shao, Rui and
            Wang, Donglin and
            Jin, Yaochu and
            Hao, Jianye and
            Chen, Ying-Cong and
            Li, Yinchuan},
  journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2609.36012},
  year = {2026},
  eprint = {2609.36012},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  primaryClass = {cs.RO},
  url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.36012}
}