arXiv:2611.11894 · v1
Distilling Instructions into Weights: Closed-Form Edits Fix a Robot Policy's Misreading
摘要
Generalist robot policies often fail at one step of a task they can otherwise perform. We ask whether such a failure can be repaired by editing the policy's weights directly, without gradients, training data, or a change to the instruction. Told to put the cube then the banana in the bowl, a zero-shot $π_{0.5}$ vision-language-action policy in RoboLab releases the cube before it reaches the bowl. Replaying 21 of these decisions under rewordings shows that it binds "in the bowl" to the wrong object. Closed-form instruction distillation copies the per-layer effect of an explicit rewording into the language model's MLP weights. On 128 held-out seeds, success rises from 27 to 106 episodes, with 81 fixed and 2 broken ($p=7\times10^{-22}$), while an update of the same size in random directions leaves success unchanged. The edit also lifts two other tasks without detectable harm on the remaining 13, and a variant that stores 0.16% of the parameter count keeps most of its effect. Placed in the action expert or action head instead, the same distillation helps less or not at all. Our released tool reproduced the fix end to end on new held-out seeds, from 8/64 to 36/64. Edits aimed at perception, a missing grasp, contact physics, or the gripper threshold did not help, and of seven blind Claude Opus editors, only the one given the misread instruction produced an edit that passed held-out scoring. These results suggest that weight edits work best when a known-good input already exists to distil. Because reruns with unchanged weights flip about a third of paired outcomes, evaluations should pair seeds, rerun the unedited policy, and confirm gains on held-out seeds.
作者备注：23 pages, 7 figures. Project page with videos: https://ali-adeeb.com/weightsmith/ ; code and benchmark: https://github.com/adeeb10abbas/weightsmith