Weights or Skills? A Survey of Robot-Learning Techniques: from Action-Predicting Weights to Robots that Write their Own Skills

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Power for Solar editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为光伏效率、钙钛矿太阳能电池、储能技术、太阳能热利用、BIPV、并网技术等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Robot learning is splitting into two bets: policies that bake competence into frozen weights (vision-language-action, or VLA, models), and agents that write and refine their own executable skills as code. This survey organises the field around that axis of weights versus skills. Its central analytical contribution is a deep-dive that arranges code-as-policy methods by their degree of self-improvement, from zero-shot program synthesis, through closed-loop self-repair and persistent skill memory, to the sparsely populated cell in which execution feedback, skill memory, and evolutionary search combine into one open-ended loop; only a few very recent systems (for example ASPIRE, ENPIRE, and RoboClaw) occupy that cell. We map the complementary "skills" pole, from unsupervised reinforcement-learning skill discovery to large-language-model skill libraries, and show that the word "skill" is used in at least five distinct senses, of which only the code sense self-improves without gradient updates. We then connect the taxonomy to the emerging skill economy: commercial robot-skill marketplaces now distribute one-tap skills across robots but ship only static playback, which surfaces open problems of adaptation, cross-embodiment portability, provenance, safety verification, composition, and standardisation. This is a deliberately focused survey. Rather than cataloguing the field exhaustively, it examines 77 representative systems across six technique families through one taxonomy and a set of contrast tables, and it supplies operational definitions of the self-improvement mechanisms together with a statement of what each family cannot do.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments