arXiv:2606.00089v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Can learned state-action proposals exist in the physical world? To filter infeasible commands before execution, policies are often wrapped in a runtime monitor. However, aggregating diverse diagnostic signals obscures whether a proposal violates dynamic transitions or merely departs from recorded behavior. We formalize this prediction-control interface and prove that the all-pairs displacement term is redundant within a max-aggregated composite. We evaluate these monitors on 700 nominal and 5,250 synthetically perturbed 32-transition PushT windows, monitoring only planar pusher positions and goals. A simple transition-RMSE baseline (AUC 0.982) outperforms a heterogeneous max-aggregated monitor (AUC 0.957). We conclude that physical transition checks must be strictly separated from empirical logs.
Abstract: Can learned state-action proposals exist in the physical world? To filter infeasible commands before execution, policies are often wrapped in a runtime monitor. However, aggregating diverse diagnostic signals obscures whether a proposal violates dynamic transitions or merely departs from recorded behavior. We formalize this prediction-control interface and prove that the all-pairs displacement term is redundant within a max-aggregated composite. We evaluate these monitors on 700 nominal and 5,250 synthetically perturbed 32-transition PushT windows, monitoring only planar pusher positions and goals. A simple transition-RMSE baseline (AUC 0.982) outperforms a heterogeneous max-aggregated monitor (AUC 0.957). We conclude that physical transition checks must be strictly separated from empirical logs.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: