Papers
arxiv:2610.27917

EventSync: Event-Driven Memory Updates for History-Dependent Manipulation

Published on Oct 20
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

EventSync improves robotic manipulation by using event-driven memory updates guided by vision-language reasoning and trajectory monitoring to reliably track completed subgoals.

History-dependent robotic manipulation requires task context and interaction history, as the current observation alone is insufficient to determine the next action. Hierarchical frameworks use task memory for high-level subgoal reasoning and low-level policies for execution. However, memory updates require accurate completion assessment: similar observations may correspond to different execution phases, and prematurely recording completion can mislead subsequent subgoal reasoning. We present EventSync, a hierarchical framework that coordinates task reasoning and action execution through event-driven memory updates. A vision-language model generates subgoals from task plans and interaction history, while a vision-language-action model executes them. A lightweight Event Monitor combines visual observations with end-effector trajectories to determine whether the current subgoal is complete. The framework records the current subgoal in its completed-subgoal history and triggers subsequent reasoning only after obtaining completion evidence. With visual history in the executor, EventSync achieves 64.5% overall success on RoboMME, exceeding the best baseline reported in the benchmark by 20.0 percentage points. Further analysis shows that this update mechanism helps build a reliable completed-subgoal history. Experiments on four real-robot tasks with different memory requirements validate the framework's effectiveness in real-world robotic manipulation.

Community

Thank you for sharing your work. EventSync advances subgoal history only after visual and motion evidence confirms completion. With visual history in the executor, it reaches 64.5% success on RoboMME, with further real-robot tests supporting the update mechanism.

We would like to discuss your work in Section 3.5 (“Shared mechanisms: correspondence and memory”) of our survey, In-Context Learning for Robots: Methods and Applications, to discuss when a task memory should advance to the next stage, relating the completion mechanism to comparisons with different update schedules and model-call costs.

If our discussion of how robot policies use memory is helpful for your research, we would appreciate your considering the survey as a reference.

Sign up or log in to comment

Models citing this paper 4

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.27917 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.27917 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.