When Does Test-Time Physical Diagnosis Pay? A Frozen Policy Buys Evidence It Never Reads

arXiv:2609.22299v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a robot faces unfamiliar physical conditions, a common approach is to collect evidence about what changed and adapt. For such diagnosis to improve behavior, six ordered empirical conditions must hold: a meaningful reference, identifiability of the physical condition, use of the acquired evidence, decision value, selection value over a fixed alternative, and safe realization. We test this chain in controlled and public environments. It holds end to end in our controlled environments. After transfer to unseen mechanisms, however, it breaks at evidence use. On decisions requiring the full trace, the frozen decoder does not change its choice. A linear model using only trace increments recovers the correct choice on mechanisms excluded from fitting, showing that the trace is informative but unused. The failure is concentrated at the richest evidence level: those decisions fall to chance, while decisions settled with lower-cost evidence remain correct, a split hidden by aggregate accuracy. The same chain can fail at other links in public environments. Successful physical identification therefore guarantees neither evidence use nor useful adaptation; evaluation should identify where the chain breaks rather than rely on recovery accuracy or aggregate performance alone.

Title:When Does Test-Time Physical Diagnosis Pay? A Frozen Policy Buys Evidence It Never Reads

Abstract:When a robot faces unfamiliar physical conditions, a common approach is to collect evidence about what changed and adapt. For such diagnosis to improve behavior, six ordered empirical conditions must hold: a meaningful reference, identifiability of the physical condition, use of the acquired evidence, decision value, selection value over a fixed alternative, and safe realization. We test this chain in controlled and public environments. It holds end to end in our controlled environments. After transfer to unseen mechanisms, however, it breaks at evidence use. On decisions requiring the full trace, the frozen decoder does not change its choice. A linear model using only trace increments recovers the correct choice on mechanisms excluded from fitting, showing that the trace is informative but unused. The failure is concentrated at the richest evidence level: those decisions fall to chance, while decisions settled with lower-cost evidence remain correct, a split hidden by aggregate accuracy. The same chain can fail at other links in public environments. Successful physical identification therefore guarantees neither evidence use nor useful adaptation; evaluation should identify where the chain breaks rather than rely on recovery accuracy or aggregate performance alone.

Robotics (cs.RO); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2609.22299 [cs.RO]

(or arXiv:2609.22299v1 [cs.RO] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.22299 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

When Does Test-Time Physical Diagnosis Pay? A Frozen Policy Buys Evidence It Never Reads

Related coverage