Weights or Skills? A Survey of Robot-Learning Techniques: from Action-Predicting Weights to Robots that Write their Own Skills

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.

FactorJEPA: Factorizing Monolithic Futures into Layout-Agent-Interaction Channels for Crowded and Chaotic Global South Urban Worlds

World models have attracted significant attention for their ability to capture and predict the structure and dynamics of the physical world. In this emerging landscape, Joint Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPA) offer a particularly compelling direction. We study a largely unexplored regime: populous, crowded, and chaotic Global South urban environments, which we call DENSEWORLD. Unlike the lower-density, lane-structured settings that dominate existing evaluations, these scenes exhibit soft spatial boundaries, extreme agent heterogeneity, persistent occlusion, and rapid social negotiation under mixed traffic. We introduce the first large-scale dataset for this regime: 1,000 hours of drive-through, walk-through, and aerial video across 22 cities. Existing JEPA formulations struggle to preserve dense interaction dynamics under heterogeneity and partial observability. We introduce FactorJEPA, which makes world structure a first-class predictive primitive. Rather than encoding the future in a monolithic latent, it composes layout, entities, and interactions, using a visibility gate and separated subspaces to preserve partially observed agents and discourage cross-factor shortcuts. FactorJEPA improves (i) future-latent accuracy (Future-frame L1), (ii) intervention-sensitive prediction (Causal L1), and (iii) robustness to reduced visual evidence (Mask-ratio slope), while exposing (iv) a reproducible motion-information trade-off (Motion cosine). Method rankings replicate across 2B and 1B V-JEPA 2.1 backbones, with rho = 0.895 to 0.978. We publicly release the DENSEWORLD-115k dataset (https://huggingface.co/datasets/anonymousML123/denseworld-115k) and the surgery-trained FactorJEPA checkpoints (https://huggingface.co/datasets/anonymousML123/factorjepa-outputs/tree/main/outputs/full/vjepa_2_1_vitg_1B/train/m09c_surgery_3stage_DI_diheavy_encoder).

Pessimism's Paradox: Conservative Offline Training Amplifies Reward Hacking During Online Adaptation in Reasoning Models

Conservative offline training is widely advocated as a safe foundation for subsequent online adaptation: if a policy stays close to well-supported behaviour, the argument goes, it is less likely to exploit imperfections in a learned reward model. We challenge this intuition empirically and mechanistically. We train a Qwen3-14B policy under Direct Preference Optimisation (DPO) with three levels of conservatism ($β\in \{β_{\mathrm{lo}}, β_{\mathrm{mid}}, β_{\mathrm{hi}}\}$ derived from empirical log-ratio percentiles), then adapt each checkpoint online against a learned reward ensemble (3\,$\times$\,Qwen3-1.7B) while measuring true performance on GSM8K exact-answer accuracy. We find that \emph{higher offline conservatism monotonically increases reward-hacking damage}, measured by the Goodhart gap and its area under the curve (AUGC), with Spearman $ρ= 1.0$ across all three conditions. Mechanistic analysis reveals a three-link causal chain: (i) high-$β$ DPO compresses policy entropy, (ii) Low-entropy policies generate responses with reduced diversity, concentrating in a narrow region of the reward model's training distribution (lower pairwise cosine distance), and (iii) despite this proximity, ensemble disagreement (epistemic uncertainty) increases with $β$ and is exploited faster during online optimisation. We further fit a power-law curve to the $(β, \augc)$ data and identify a practical optimal conservatism level $β^{\star}$ that balances alignment fidelity against hacking vulnerability. Our results suggest that the field needs \emph{calibrated}, not \emph{maximal}, conservatism.

RECOM: A Validity Discrimination Tradeoff in Automatic Metrics for Open Ended Reddit Question Answering

Automatic metrics are the default for evaluating LLM-generated text, yet a metric is quietly asked to do two jobs: tell genuine content alignment from surface coincidence (validity), and tell a better system from a worse one (discriminative power). On open-ended, opinion-driven question answering, the two are in tension. We introduce RECOM (Reddit Evaluation for Correspondence of Models), a contamination-free evaluation dataset of 15,000 r/AskReddit questions (September 2025), each paired with its authentic community replies, which postdate every evaluated model's training cutoff. Scoring five open-source LLMs (7--10B) against every reply each metric paired with a random-derangement noise floor we find that no metric does both jobs well. Cosine similarity separates real from random answers (Cohen's $d \approx 2$) but cannot rank the five models ($|d| < 0.1$); BERTScore precision appears to rank the models (raw $|d|$ up to 0.63), but once response length is controlled this collapses to $|d| = 0.09$ and its validity is weak ($d \approx 0.8$, versus cosine's $\approx 2$). Because every metric scores the same outputs, this validity--discrimination tradeoff is a property of the metrics, not the models, and we argue it stems from representation design. Three independent LLM judges reproduce the validity gap and likewise separate the five models only weakly. We recommend reporting metrics on both axes, with an explicit random-baseline floor. RECOM is publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/recom-D4B0

Linear Probes Detect Task Format, Not Reasoning Mode in Language Model Hidden States

Linear probing of large language model (LLM) hidden states is widely used to claim that models learn distinct representations for different reasoning types. We test this by probing Qwen3-14B on three benchmarks spanning the classical trichotomy: LogiQA 2.0 (deductive), ARC-Challenge (inductive), and $α$NLI (abductive). At layer 32 of 40, linear probes achieve 100\% cross-validated accuracy with well-separated geometry (intrinsic dimensionalities: 20.6, 28.5, 33.6; convex hull contamination $\leq$1.5\%). However, this separation is entirely driven by format confounds. Residualizing source identity, option count, and response length reduces accuracy to chance. Trace-anchor similarity indicates largely shared reasoning across tasks (42.5\% agreement vs.\ 33.3\% chance), and causal steering with random controls ($n=20$) shows no functional link between geometry and reasoning mode ($p=0.286$). Thus, high probe accuracy reflects task format rather than computational structure, motivating routine format deconfounding in mechanistic interpretability.

MENTIS: What Belief Changes Under Alignment? Measuring Multi-Scale Latent Torsion in Language Models

Preference alignment has substantially improved the observable behavior of large language models, yet it remains unclear what alignment changes internally. Aligned systems still fail under jailbreaks, prompt injection, and retrieval-time corruption, suggesting behavior-level evaluation alone is incomplete. Post-training should leave measurable traces in internal computation. We ask: when an instruction-tuned (IT) model becomes a preference-aligned (PA) model, what geometric structure changes, where do those changes concentrate, and how selectively do they vary across concepts, prompts, and model families? We introduce MENTIS, a geometry-first framework for measuring alignment-induced internal reorganization in paired checkpoints. MENTIS compares IT and PA models using a primary layerwise covariance-based torsion norm (T1), a secondary spectral torsion diagnostic (T2), and an Energy-Radiance-Activation measure (ERA) for depth localization. Across four 7-8B model pairs on LITMUS, our study reveals that alignment-induced change is selective rather than uniform: normative concepts exhibit larger torsion shifts than factual concepts on average; torsion is negatively correlated with contextual entropy; and peak effects localize to architecture-specific mid-to-late layers. The same pattern appears across word-level, prompt-level, and model-level analyses. These results suggest preference alignment leaves structured, depth-localized geometric signatures in internal computation beyond what behavior-level evaluation alone can reveal.

MAAT: Multi-phase Adapter-Aware Targeted Unlearning

Machine unlearning evaluation is structurally skewed: Why-type questions, which probe causal and relational knowledge, comprise less than 0.06% of CounterFact, 0.6% of ZSRE, and less than 1.3% of TOFU, MUSE, and WMDP-Cyber. This near-zero representation means that methods that fail on causal knowledge can score highly in aggregate, and this failure is undetectable without balanced evaluation. We present 5WBENCH, a balanced 5,000-sample benchmark with 1,000 examples per 5W category (Who, What, When, Where, Why), making causal unlearning failures quantifiable for the first time. Using 5WBENCH, we show that no existing baseline simultaneously achieves high forgetting and high retention on Why-type questions: aggressive forgetting degrades retained knowledge, while conservative methods fail to forget causal facts. Why-type difficulty stems from multi-hop reasoning chains (44% of Why entries vs. less than or equal to 2% for others) and gradient dilution over 40.1-token answer spans. We present MAAT (Multi-phase Adapter-Aware Targeted Unlearning), a three-phase framework operating on LoRA adapter weights, combining gradient-projected ascent, SVD rank-dimension pruning, task vector negation, and hybrid KL-hidden-state retain repair. MAAT is the first method to simultaneously achieve high forgetting and high retention on Why-type causal knowledge, reaching a new operating point on the forget-retain Pareto frontier. We make our code publicly available.

Findings of the Counter Turing Test: AI-Generated Image Detection

The rapid advancements in generative AI technologies, such as Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, and Midjourney, have significantly transformed the creation of synthetic visual content. While these models enable innovation across industries, they also pose serious challenges, including misinformation, disinformation, and biased content generation. The increasing realism of AI-generated images makes their detection a pressing concern for researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders. In this paper, we present the findings of the Defactify 4.0 workshop, which introduced the Counter Turing Test (CT2) for AI-Generated Image Detection. The competition consisted of two key tasks: (1) binary classification of images as either AI-generated or real and (2) identification of the specific generative model responsible for an AI-generated image. To facilitate this, we developed the MS COCOAI dataset, consisting of 50,000 synthetic images from multiple generative models alongside real-world images from the MS COCO dataset. Participants employed diverse detection strategies, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs), Vision Transformers (ViTs), frequency-based analysis, contrastive learning, and multimodal techniques. The results demonstrated that while AI-generated images can be detected with high accuracy (F1-score > 0.83), identifying the exact model used remains significantly more challenging (highest F1-score: 0.4986). These findings highlight the need for improved model fingerprinting, adversarial robustness, and real-time detection mechanisms.

SleepWalk: A Three-Tier Benchmark for Stress-Testing Instruction-Guided Vision-Language Navigation

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have advanced rapidly in multimodal perception and language understanding, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably ground language into spatially coherent, plausibly executable actions in 3D digital environments. We introduce SleepWalk, a benchmark for evaluating instruction-grounded trajectory prediction in single-scene 3D worlds generated from textual scene descriptions and filtered for navigability. Unlike prior navigation benchmarks centered on long-range exploration across rooms, SleepWalk targets localized, interaction-centric embodied reasoning: given rendered visual observations and a natural-language instruction, a model must predict a trajectory that respects scene geometry, avoids collisions, and terminates at an action-compatible location. The benchmark covers diverse indoor and outdoor environments and organizes tasks into three tiers of spatial and temporal difficulty, enabling fine-grained analysis of grounding under increasing compositional complexity. Using a standardized pointwise judge-based evaluation protocol, we evaluate three frontier VLMs on 2,472 curated 3D environments with nine instructions per scene. Results reveal systematic failures in grounded spatial reasoning, especially under occlusion, interaction constraints, and multi-step instructions: performance drops as the difficulty level of the tasks increase. In general, current VLMs can somewhat produce trajectories that are simultaneously spatially coherent, plausibly executable, and aligned with intended actions. By exposing failures in a controlled yet scalable setting, SleepWalk provides a critical benchmark for advancing grounded multimodal reasoning, embodied planning, vision-language navigation, and action-capable agents in 3D environments.

Moral Sensitivity in LLMs: A Tiered Evaluation of Contextual Bias via Behavioral Profiling and Mechanistic Interpretability

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings that require nuanced ethical reasoning, yet existing bias evaluations treat model outputs as simply "biased" or "unbiased." This binary framing misses the gradual, context-sensitive way bias actually emerges. We address this gap in two stages: behavioral profiling and mechanistic validation. In the behavioral stage, we introduce the Moral Sensitivity Index (MSI), a metric that quantifies the probability of biased output across a graduated, seven-tier stress test ranging from abstract numerical problems to scenarios rooted in historical and socioeconomic injustice. Evaluating four leading models (Claude 3.5, Qwen 3.5, Llama 3, and Gemini 1.5), we identify distinct behavioral signatures shaped by alignment design: for instance, Gemini 1.5 reaches 72.7% MSI by Tier 5 under socioeconomic framing, while Claude exhibits sharp suppression consistent with identity-based safety training. We then verify these behavioral patterns mechanistically. We select criminal-bias scenarios, which produced the highest MSI scores across models, as probes and apply logit lens, attention analysis, activation patching, and semantic probing to a controlled set of six models spanning three capability tiers: small language models (SLMs), instruction-tuned base models, and reasoning-distilled variants. Circuit-level analysis reveals a U-curve of bias: SLMs exhibit strong criminal bias; scaling to instruction-tuned models eliminates it; reasoning distillation reintroduces bias to SLM-like levels despite identical parameter counts, suggesting distillation compresses reasoning traces in ways that reactivate shallow statistical associations. Critically, the socially loaded cues that drive high MSI scores activate the same bias-driving circuits identified mechanistically, providing cross-stage validation.