论文

SEAR 框架让语言模型智能体自己写代码进化机器人技能

SEAR: Self-Evolving Agentic Robotics

精选理由

一篇 arXiv 论文,让模型智能体自己写机器人控制代码并验证是否真的在学,还区分了运气和真本事,做机器人方向的值得看实验设计。

arXiv 论文提出 SEAR(Self-Evolving Agentic Robotics),一个让语言模型智能体自主为机器人编写控制代码、测试并积累技能与记忆的框架和基准。基准设计了对照组,把真正的经验留存与重复尝试、更大预算、运气区分开。实验覆盖 7 个前沿语言模型、330 个仿真任务和 5 个物理任务,累计超过四年智能体运行时长。三个发现:难任务上更长会话更划算而简单任务重试短尝试同样有效;控制代码和共享例程能跨任务、跨仿真器迁移而任务特定方案不能;纯文本模型能与同级别多模态模型保持接近的表现。

原文 · arXiv cs.AI

SEAR: Self-Evolving Agentic Robotics

Frontier language-model agents can now improve robots on their own: they write control code, test it, and keep what works as skills and memories for the next task. We introduce SEAR (Self-Evolving Agentic Robotics), a framework and benchmark built around two questions. Is the agent really learning, or just trying more often? And does what it learns still help on new tasks, in a new simulator, and on a real robot? The framework runs an agent in three modes: it writes code that becomes the policy (code-as-policy), acts live in the control loop (agent-as-policy), or works as a researcher that fine-tunes a vision-language-action model (auto-research). The benchmark adds controls that separate retained experience from repeated attempts, familiar tasks, privileged simulator state, larger budgets, and luck. Across seven frontier language models, 330 simulated and five physical tasks, and over four years of agent runtime, we highlight three findings. First, the learning curve of a robotic agent depends both on the overall time budget and the task difficulty relative to model capability. Harder tasks make longer sessions worthwhile; on easier tasks, re-rolling short attempts does just as well. Second, control code and shared routines transfer across tasks and simulators, while task-specific solutions do not. On a real robot, we observe a performance gap between agent-designed practice and novel human-designed scenes. Third, different models evolve more effectively in different ways. Some do best acting live, others writing code first. And a text-only model keeps pace with a comparable multimodal one: perception helps with error assessment, but agentic reasoning and tool use can matter more. We release the benchmark and codebase to support future research.