← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.09376 · v1
Can LLMs Debug Robots by Editing Their Weights?
首次提交 2026-11-06 20:16
版本更新 2026-11-06 20:16
雷达观测 2026-11-09 11:19
摘要
A language model can repair a robot policy's lexical instruction grounding by editing just 65 token-embedding rows. We bring weight-space programming to robot foundation policies: GPT-6 Astra reads weights and uses a CPU workspace and budgeted simulator feedback, without gradient updates or new demonstrations. Three independent sessions on $π_{0.5}$ all improve success on 765 held-out paraphrases; the best raises success from 86.3\% to 92.0\% (48 repairs, four regressions; exact paired $p=1.31\times10^{-10}$). Among the 335 instructions containing edited tokens, success rises from 74.3\% to 87.5\%; the other 430 episodes have zero outcome changes. Matched random-direction edits do not help. Full replacement using the editor's own lexicon explains much of the gain but produces more regressions; its direct difference from the editor is not significant at 0.05. Across 13 further robot sessions, the editor declines 12 candidates; the sole retained edit does not show a significant held-out gain. Separately, benchmark metadata lowers FastWAM success from 70.0\% to 48.6\%, while the evaluated VLA's aggregate rate is unchanged. The evidence supports precise lexical repair, not general acquisition of missing robot capabilities.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-06 20:16 · 最新观测版本
Can LLMs Debug Robots by Editing Their Weights?
A language model can repair a robot policy's lexical instruction grounding by editing just 65 token-embedding rows. We bring weight-space programming to robot foundation policies: GPT-6 Astra reads weights and uses a CPU workspace and budgeted simulator feedback, without gradient updates or new demonstrations. Three independent sessions on $π_{0.5}$ all improve success on 765 held-out paraphrases; the best raises success from 86.3\% to 92.0\% (48 repairs, four regressions; exact paired $p=1.31\times10^{-10}$). Among the 335 instructions containing edited tokens, success rises from 74.3\% to 87.5\%; the other 430 episodes have zero outcome changes. Matched random-direction edits do not help. Full replacement using the editor's own lexicon explains much of the gain but produces more regressions; its direct difference from the editor is not significant at 0.05. Across 13 further robot sessions, the editor declines 12 candidates; the sole retained edit does not show a significant held-out gain. Separately, benchmark metadata lowers FastWAM success from 70.0\% to 48.6\%, while the evaluated VLA's aggregate rate is unchanged. The evidence supports precise lexical repair, not general acquisition of missing robot capabilities.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗