Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchSiguranță AI

analiza aiqbench

This research addresses the safety of AI-driven robotic policies by formalizing a prediction-control interface to filter infeasible commands before physical execution. The study demonstrates that separating dynamic transition checks from empirical logs yields superior performance compared to aggregated monitoring approaches, offering a clearer path for validating learned state-action proposals in real-world environments.
Surse care acoperăarXiv, Quantum Frontiers, Quantum Zeitgeist, The Verge
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Can Predicted Dynamics Exist in the Physical World?

arXiv2 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2606.00089v2 Announce Type: replace 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.

Title:Can Predicted Dynamics Exist in the Physical World?

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.

Robotics (cs.RO); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2606.00089 [cs.RO]

(or arXiv:2606.00089v2 [cs.RO] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.00089 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

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.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 208 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe