Papers for

automation system engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Self improving language agents learn better by choosing tasks carefully

GEPA-Curator: Curated Learning for Self Improving Agents

Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in multi-turn agentic workloads that require sustained interaction with complex environments. Existing reflective prompt optimizers such as GEPA learn from failed rollouts, but agentic failures can also come from prompt weaknesses, harness limitations, stochastic execution, or noisy judges. We argue that such failures may not provide useful learning signal, and may even be harmful; and thus it is essential to curate which tasks are provided to the prompt optimizer for better performance. We introduce GEPA-Curator, a framework that augments the prompt optimizer to select which agent experiences should shape prompt optimization. In particular, GEPA-Curator consists of two components: task curation, which filters out tasks that are likely to provide noisy or unreliable learning signals, and prior success retrieval, which selectively retrieves past successful trajectories for a task and provides them as additional context to the prompt optimizer. We evaluate GEPA-Curator on GoBrowse, ALFWorld, AppWorld, and $τ$-bench, using both Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 5 as optimizer models. GEPA-Curator matches or exceeds the mean performance of both baselines, with gains of up to 20.7% over GEPA and 21.2% over ACE.

Tue 27 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Large language models can act as agents that try to complete multiple connected tasks, but sometimes they fail in ways that don't help them learn. The authors show that not all failure experiences are useful for improving these agents, so their system, GEPA-Curator, picks which tasks and past successes to use for learning. By selecting better examples, the agents get smarter and perform tasks more successfully. They tested this approach on several language-based tasks and found it improves results by up to about 20%.
Open → 2610.37651v1

Goal image quality does not predict robot manipulation success

Goal Images Are Control Targets: Spatially-Grounded Goal-Image Synthesis for Robotic Manipulation

Abstract: Goal-conditioned manipulation policies are steered by a goal image, a picture of the desired post-manipulation scene synthesized from the current observation and a language instruction. The prevailing assumption is that better image-editing quality yields better goals, so goal generators are built and compared using general image-editing metrics. We show this assumption is false. Across two independent goal-conditioned policies on CALVIN, the image editors that top aggregate editing-quality leaderboards (Gemini 3 Pro Image and GPT Image 1.5) produce worse control targets than our proposed far smaller finetuned open models, and the gap widens sharply for the multi-step (long-horizon) tasks robots actually face. A per-dimension analysis explains why. Downstream policy success is governed almost entirely by manipulation adherence (selecting the right object and the right final state; Spearman $ρ\approx 0.9$ with success), while photorealism and aesthetic fidelity, precisely where large proprietary editors excel, are uncorrelated with success ($ρ\approx 0$). This dissociation holds on both CALVIN and the real-world-aligned SIMPLER-Bridge benchmark. We then present SGE-Goal, a spatially-grounded decomposed editing framework that predicts initial and final 2D edit-region masks before goal-image synthesis. SGE-Goal turns open base models (FLUX.1 Kontext, FLUX.2 klein) into the strongest goal generators we evaluate on CALVIN, and second only to Gemini 3 Pro Image on SIMPLER-Bridge. Base models fine-tuned with SGE-Goal also hold up under chaining far better than the best proprietary editor, sustaining roughly seven times the success rate at the longest (five-step) chains. We release code, datasets, checkpoints, and a human-aligned diagnostic evaluator. Our results argue that goal generators must be selected by downstream utility, not by editing-quality leaderboards.

Sat 17 OctComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
This paper shows that making goal images look better does not help robots do tasks better. The authors found that the usual way of judging image quality like making photos look nice doesn’t actually improve how well a robot can follow its goal. Instead, what matters is whether the image correctly shows the right object in the right place. They created a new method called SGE-Goal that focuses on spatial editing to make better goal images, improving robot task success, especially on longer, multi-step tasks.
Open → 2610.24885v1

Wave zero improves robot manipulation by predicting future actions

WAVE-0: Bridging VLA Policies and WAMs with Lightweight Latent Future Prediction

Abstract: Vision-language-action (VLA) policies excel at generalist robotic manipulation but generate actions without explicitly modeling their environmental consequences. World action models (WAMs) incorporate future prediction, yet most rely on costly video generation, while latent alternatives either use predicted futures only as auxiliary targets or infer latent actions from suboptimal visual transitions through costly large-scale video pretraining. We introduce WAVE-0 (World-model-Augmented VLA Execution), a framework that bridges VLAs and WAMs through a lightweight latent world model. By connecting the semantic understanding of pretrained VLAs with explicit future prediction, WAVE-0 allows anticipated action consequences to directly guide action generation. Built on a pretrained VLA, its 257M world model translates VLM-generated latent action plans into predicted future representations that condition the action expert, unifying latent planning, future prediction, and action generation. The world model is trained directly on ground-truth robot actions with a counterfactual ranking objective, requiring neither pixel reconstruction nor large-scale video pretraining. WAVE-0 achieves success rates of 91.47% on RoboTwin 2.0 and 98.7% on LIBERO, along with 88.0%, 61.4%, and 75.0% on LIBERO-Plus, LIBERO-Pro, and LIBERO-Para, respectively. On real-world tasks, it improves the success rate of $π_{0.5}$ from 38.3% to 73.3%. These results demonstrate strong manipulation performance and generalization across diverse distribution shifts.

Tue 13 OctRobotics
The gist
Robots that move and act based on vision and language often don't plan ahead to see what will happen next. The authors created Wave-0, a system that helps robots predict the future effects of their actions in a simple way without needing expensive video training. This prediction helps the robot choose better actions to successfully complete tasks. Wave-0 shows strong performance on several robot manipulation tests and even improves success when used in real-world settings.
Open → 2610.18568v1

Robot learns best camera views to inspect assembly parts automatically

INSPECT: Learning Robot View Selection from Assistant Use

Abstract: Robots inspecting an assembly must determine which parts are present and whether they are correctly installed. During egocentric assembly assistance, head motion and workpiece handling reveal evidence for these checks, while spoken state confirmations link observations to procedural outcomes. We introduce INSPECT, which learns robot view preferences from records of a smart-glasses assistant that answers part queries and provides next-step guidance. Presence-Invariant TwinSwap (PI-TwinSwap) calibrates object evidence through paired identity interventions. Claim-indexed supervision separates evidence requirements from camera-reproducible observation changes. Object-centered calibration adapts relative view preferences to robot poses, while clause-level screening checks predicted evidence. The robot selects views using only its current observation and known poses, without candidate images. Evaluation uses annotated assistant-video replay to simulate state feedback, without target-domain view labels for policy training. On images of physical gearbox assemblies, INSPECT achieves the highest view utility among the compared non-oracle policies and raises human-rated full verifiability from 34.8% to 41.7% compared with keeping the current view. On commercial angle-grinder recordings in IMPACT, the transferred relative-view selector increases the correct decision rate from 50.6% to 54.3% with a frozen perception head. The source code is available at https://github.com/Kratos-Wen/INSPECT.

Thu 17 SeptRoboticsComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Robots inspecting assembled parts need to see the right angles to check if everything is present and correctly installed. The authors developed INSPECT, a system that learns which views a robot should select by studying how a smart-glasses assistant helps humans during assembly tasks. INSPECT uses special techniques to understand which views provide the most useful evidence without needing example labels from the target robot. Tests with physical gearboxes and other equipment showed INSPECT improves the robot’s ability to verify parts and helps it make better inspection decisions.
Open → 2609.20615v1

Safe self-evolution strategies improve AI tool updates with limits

Safe Harness Self-Evolution: A Theoretical Analysis of Feasibility and Limits

Abstract: Harness self-evolution is the process by which an agent modifies its prompts, tools, code, or orchestration in response to task feedback while keeping the underlying language model frozen, with changes persisting across subsequent tasks. We provide a systematic theoretical analysis of the feasibility and limits of safe harness self-evolution, connecting modification generation, finite-data certification and selection, safe adoption, and behavior after an update. Under a fixed user-task distribution, we establish conditions guaranteeing overall expected-reward improvement while controlling changes on retained tasks, characterize the probability of generating qualified modifications, and derive finite-data bounds for safe selection and adoption. Our analysis shows that generation and certification impose distinct constraints: current task performance does not determine the probability of generating qualified modifications, and generating more candidates need not improve the guarantee of a successful update when evaluation is limiting. Stagnation may therefore arise even when improvement opportunities remain. We further show that worst-case evaluation cost for recognizing genuine improvements diverges as expected reward approaches its upper bound. Across successive updates, certified improvement guarantees accumulate over a finite run, but a successful update does not by itself guarantee that further improvement remains possible. These results provide a basis for diagnosing bottlenecks and designing safer self-evolution mechanisms.

Tue 8 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Some AI systems can change their own instructions or code to do tasks better over time, without changing their base brain model. This paper studies the math behind when and how such safe self-changes can actually improve performance without causing problems. It explains conditions for safe improvements, shows why simply creating more new ideas isn't always better, and highlights that it gets harder to find improvements as the system gets better. These insights help diagnose issues and guide safer design of self-updating AI tools.
Open → 2609.08175v1