Rethinking Self-Repair in Code-as-Policy Agents: What Drives Retry Success?

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Code-as-policy agents often use execution feedback to retry failed programs. Additional sampling and task guidance can also improve success, leaving the contribution of failure-specific feedback unclear. We study this question in simulated robot manipulation. A fixed lookup selects feedback templates using failure labels and the API variant. A frozen code model generates a fresh program after each scene reset. On the same 252 initial failures, Qwen2.5-Coder-7B recovers 85.3% within five retries, compared with 68.3% for resampling with the same retry cap. The advantage persists under fixed total-token budgets. Feedback from other episodes and fixed task guidance yield similar recovery point estimates, with no detected benefit from matching the coarse failure label. In a separate study, a fixed guided prompt used from the first attempt achieves an observed overall success rate similar to that of template-based feedback. Template-based feedback also lowers recovery on a nut-insertion task requiring a rim grasp, consistent with an incompatible center-grasp instruction. Evaluations of robot self-repair should include resampling, mismatched feedback, and concise, task-compatible static guidance as baselines.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments