Embodied Turing Machines: Stateful Code for Robot Recursive Self-Improvement

Embodied Turing Machines: Stateful Code for Robot Recursive Self-Improvement

Kairui Hu, Siyuan Hu, Fangzhou Hong, Zhaoxi Chen, Ziwei Liu · N/A · 2026

Framework

N/A

License

N/A

Stars

N/A

Summary

Most robot policies keep a model in the control loop: a VLA maps observations to actions, and an Agent Harness, such as Agent-as-Policy or Harness VLA queries a VLM for decision making at run time.

Abstract Summary

Most robot policies keep a model in the control loop: a VLA maps observations to actions, and an Agent Harness, such as Agent-as-Policy or Harness VLA queries a VLM for decision making at run time. We propose a different view: the embodied world is an Embodied Turing Machine, whose tape is the robot and environment state and rules are the policy. If this state can be represented accurately, the decision making can be written entirely in code. We therefore propose Code-Only-as-Policy (COAP): code measures and tracks the robot, environment, and task state from camera images and proprioception, and makes every decision from it. The same code applies across episodes, and different tasks share one library without a VLM or VLA in the loop. Compared with VLAs and Agent Harnesses, we analyze three advantages of COAP: (i) Explicit State: the state can be stored in code; (ii) Execution: code makes decision making controllable, recovers from failures flexibly, and runs fast and cheaply online; (iii) Extensibility: new tasks reuse, inherit, or extend the shared library, so capabilities can accumulate over tasks. These advantages make COAP a suitable medium for recursive self-improvement (RSI): coding agents develop the library in a closed loop, and each change is explicit and controllable. On RoboDojo's 42 bimanual tasks, the resulting library reaches a success rate of 70.24% without a model at test time. The upper bound of COAP lies in how accurately the state is represented for decision making and how robust the code logic is. We thus propose COAP as a new paradigm for embodied tasks; since it applies across episodes, it can also serve as an efficient data engine for VLAs and Agent Harnesses.

Key Points

  • Most robot policies keep a model in the control loop: a VLA maps observations to actions, and an Agent Harness, such as Agent-as-Policy or Harness VLA queries a VLM for decision making at run time.
  • We propose a different view: the embodied world is an Embodied Turing Machine, whose tape is the robot and environment state and rules are the policy.
  • If this state can be represented accurately, the decision making can be written entirely in code
  • We therefore propose Code-Only-as-Policy (COAP): code measures and tracks the robot, environment, and task state from camera images and proprioception, and makes every decision from it.
  • The same code applies across episodes, and different tasks share one library without a VLM or VLA in the loop.

Embodied Turing Machine: Code-Only-as-Policy

Code-Only-as-Policy implements the Embodied Turing Machine (§ 1 ) as a shared code library, in which code variables hold the state and the source code constitutes the rules. Beyond storing the state, the perception code measures the environment from camera images, and the code updates these measurements as the robot acts. The code is frozen at runtime and improved offline by coding agents (Figure 3 ).

Embodied Turing Machine: Code-Only-as-Policy — Embodied Turing Machines: Stateful Code for Robot Recursive Self-Improvement
Figure 1: Code-Only-as-Policy (COAP). We view the embodied world as an Embodied Turing Machine whose tape is the state of the robot and its environment (top middle). If this state is represented accurately and the code is robust enough, no agent is needed in the control loop (top right). COAP is a shared library: different tasks use the same library, and within a task the code runs across episodes. The policy is therefore code only and reaches a 70.24% success rate on RoboDojo.

Experiments

This section answers three questions: (1) How well does Code-Only-as-Policy (COAP) perform on a hard benchmark (§ 4.1 –§ 4.2 )? (2) What does COAP offer that a VLA or an Agent Harness lacks (§ 4.3 )? (3) Why does COAP suit RSI (§ 4.4 )? RoboDojo [ 7 ] contains 42 bimanual tasks that span five dimensions: Memory, Precision, Open instruction following, Generalization, and Long-Horizon manipulation.

Experiments — Embodied Turing Machines: Stateful Code for Robot Recursive Self-Improvement
Figure 2: Comparison of code-based robot policies. In prior work, a model writes code-as-policy online, turn by turn, as the robot runs (left), or one program takes its state from a learned model or the simulator oracle (middle). Our COAP reuses code across episodes and measures the state by code (right).

Sources and Demonstrations

Figures are reproduced from Hu et al. See the full paper for experimental details and the project page, when the paper links one, for demonstrations and videos.

Share

Related Papers

A Sim-to-Real Integration Pipeline for Training and Deployment of Chunk-Based VLA Manipulation Policies
arXiv preprint

A Sim-to-Real Integration Pipeline for Training and Deployment of Chunk-Based VLA Manipulation Policies

Mathilde Kappel, Clémence Grislain, Mohamed Chetouani et al.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have become a prominent paradigm for mapping multimodal inputs, including semantic instructions, visual observations of the scene, and proprioceptive observations, to robot actions.

manipulation vision vla reinforcement-learning sim-to-real control learning-from-demonstration benchmark
PDF Advanced
Beyond Reconstruction: What Matters in Action Tokenization for Robot Policies?
arXiv preprint

Beyond Reconstruction: What Matters in Action Tokenization for Robot Policies?

Haoran Chen, Jingtian Ji, Samuel Wheeler et al.

Autoregressive action-token policies such as vision-language-action models require action tokenizers to translate discrete token sequences into precise control actions in continuous space. Many action tokenizers learn the mapping between tokens and actions via a reconstruction objective.

manipulation vision vla reinforcement-learning control benchmark
PDF Intermediate
Capability-Aware Arbitration for Semantic Intent-Based Shared Control
arXiv preprint

Capability-Aware Arbitration for Semantic Intent-Based Shared Control

Zhaoda Du, Michael Bowman, Xiaoli Zhang

Shared control often allocates robot authority based on confidence in inferred human intent, assuming reliable autonomous execution. When this assumption fails, high intent confidence can cause over-helping.

manipulation vision vla reinforcement-learning control learning-from-demonstration benchmark
Code PDF Intermediate
GitHub ★ —