The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
VASO: Formally Verifiable Self-Evolving Skills for Physical AI Agents
Open accessAbstract
Reusable robot skills are becoming the basic units through which embodied agents turn open-ended instructions into long-horizon physical behavior. We argue that, while foundation models have collapsed the cost of creating these skills, the cost of trusting them has not. Existing skill-evolution loops refine skills through execution feedback, unit tests, environment reward, or LLM self-critique, but these signals provide only trace-level evidence: they show that a skill worked on sampled executions, not that skill-induced plans satisfy temporal safety contracts under untested conditions. We introduce VASO, a framework for verification-guided self-evolution of LLM-generated robot skill contracts. In VASO, each skill is represented as a semantic contract with two coupled interfaces: a formal interface that aligns robot states, observations, and control commands with logical propositions for model checking, and a planner-facing interface that guides executable behavior generation. A model checker first filters logically inconsistent skill contracts, then verifies plans induced by the skill against global and local temporal specifications. When verification fails, VASO translates the counterexample trace into a textual gradient that updates the reusable skill contract while keeping foundation-model weights frozen. On Clearpath Jackal and PX4 quadcopter tasks, VASO reaches 97.2% formal-specification compliance using fewer than 100 optimization samples, outperforming execution-feedback, prompt-optimization, and fine-tuning baselines. To our knowledge, VASO is the first framework that closes the loop between formal verification and self-evolving LLM-generated skills for physical AI agents: formal counterexamples become optimization feedback for reusable robot skill contracts, rather than merely verifying one-off plans, tuning planner prompts, or fine-tuning model weights.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Formal verifiers such as proof checkers and type systems are sound by construction, so self-play theorem proving and verified skill evolution can iterate indefinitely without accepting a false improvement.
“At the top sit formal verifiers - proof checkers, type systems which are sound by construction: self-play theorem proving and verified skill evolution can iterate indefinitely without accepting a false improvement [118, 82].”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [82]
The generalization frontier is not model capability but signal engineering-physics residuals, formal skill verification-modality by modality.
“The generalization frontier is therefore not model capability but signal engineering - physics residuals [50], formal skill verification [82] - modality by modality.”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [82]
Citations
Cites
ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models
Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., & Cao, Y. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03629 · Cited by 608
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
“At the top sit formal verifiers — proof checkers, type systems — which are sound by construction: self-play theorem proving and verified skill evolution can iterate indefinitely without accepting a false improvement [118, 81].”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, Y., Bhatt, N. P., Wang, K., Tetteh, S., Wang, Z., & Topcu, U.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2606.05395
- OpenAlex
- W7163686649
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Keywords
- formal verification, model checking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review