SEAR: 自己進化するエージェント型ロボティクス
SEAR: Self-Evolving Agentic Robotics
言語モデルエージェントがロボット制御コードを書き、テストし、スキルや記憶として蓄積する枠組みとベンチマークを提案し、学習の持続性や新タスクへの転移、実機での性能を評価した。
詳しい要約
1. どんなもの？
2. 先行研究と比べてどこがすごい？
3. 技術・手法の肝は？
4. どうやって有効だと検証した？
5. 議論はある？
6. 次に読むべき論文は？
※ AIが要旨から生成した要約です。正確性は原文をご確認ください。
著者: Xinyi Wang, Bangzheng Li, Hanyu Wang, Lin Zhang, Andrea Yaoyun Cui, Zhenggang Tang, Shyamal Buch, Dejia Xu
分類: cs.RO, cs.AI, cs.CL
原文アブストラクト
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.