Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This survey categorizes robot learning techniques into two primary approaches: those that utilize fixed weights for competence and those that enable robots to write and refine their own skills as executable code. It provides a comprehensive analysis of various methods, detailing their self-improvement capabilities and mapping them against the emerging landscape of robot-skill marketplaces. The findings highlight the distinct meanings of "skill" in this context and identify a limited number of systems that effectively integrate execution feedback and evolutionary search for open-ended learning.
Only a handful of recent systems combine execution feedback and evolutionary search, revealing a critical gap in the robot learning landscape.
Robot learning is splitting into two bets: policies that bake competence into frozen weights (vision-language-action, or VLA, models), and agents that write and refine their own executable skills as code. This survey organises the field around that axis of weights versus skills. Its central analytical contribution is a deep-dive that arranges code-as-policy methods by their degree of self-improvement, from zero-shot program synthesis, through closed-loop self-repair and persistent skill memory, to the sparsely populated cell in which execution feedback, skill memory, and evolutionary search combine into one open-ended loop; only a few very recent systems (for example ASPIRE, ENPIRE, and RoboClaw) occupy that cell. We map the complementary"skills"pole, from unsupervised reinforcement-learning skill discovery to large-language-model skill libraries, and show that the word"skill"is used in at least five distinct senses, of which only the code sense self-improves without gradient updates. We then connect the taxonomy to the emerging skill economy: commercial robot-skill marketplaces now distribute one-tap skills across robots but ship only static playback, which surfaces open problems of adaptation, cross-embodiment portability, provenance, safety verification, composition, and standardisation. This is a deliberately focused survey. Rather than cataloguing the field exhaustively, it examines 77 representative systems across six technique families through one taxonomy and a set of contrast tables, and it supplies operational definitions of the self-improvement mechanisms together with a statement of what each family cannot do.
