analiza aiqbench
This research proposes a rigorous audit framework for "demonstration unlearning" in robotic imitation learning, addressing the high costs of full retraining when human data must be removed. By introducing dual axes that measure both behavioral consistency and statistical evidence of training data presence, the study offers a practical method to verify that edited policies truly forget specific demonstrations without degrading overall performance. This work advances machine unlearning standards specifically for closed-loop robotic systems where traditional metrics are insufficient.
Rethinking Demonstration Unlearning in Imitation Learning for Robotics
arXiv:2608.20784v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Imitation learning for robotics depends on human demonstrations, some of which people may later ask to remove. Retraining without them is the natural reference, but its cost grows with policy and dataset scale, motivating cheaper operators that edit a trained policy. Metrics inherited from machine unlearning, such as forgetting loss or a single membership attack, do not establish what an edit removed from a policy acting in closed loop. We therefore introduce a retrain-calibrated audit that reads demonstration unlearning along two axes: behavior, whether the edited policy acts like one retrained without the removed demonstrations, and evidence, whether an auditor can still detect it was trained on them. The behavior axis measures action divergence to that retrain at matched states, calibrated by a floor built from independent retrains, so a policy at the floor is as close to a retrain as retrains are to each other. The evidence axis applies a per-demonstration membership attack against a retrain null, reporting both its rank and its absolute member-loss level, since rank alone accepts operators that inflate member losses past the null. A conformal test then combines both axes into one hypothesis of joint retrain consistency, against a fleet of independent retrains large enough to reject at conventional significance. Across five preregistered conditions on three real-robot policy classes and two simulation suites, the axes dissociate in both directions on one checkpoint, as an edit may repair task behavior while leaving evidence unchanged, or reduce evidence while moving behavior away from retraining. On the ACT arm, a redirect edit restores blind-scored robot success to 18 of 20 trials.
Abstract:Imitation learning for robotics depends on human demonstrations, some of which people may later ask to remove. Retraining without them is the natural reference, but its cost grows with policy and dataset scale, motivating cheaper operators that edit a trained policy. Metrics inherited from machine unlearning, such as forgetting loss or a single membership attack, do not establish what an edit removed from a policy acting in closed loop. We therefore introduce a retrain-calibrated audit that reads demonstration unlearning along two axes: behavior, whether the edited policy acts like one retrained without the removed demonstrations, and evidence, whether an auditor can still detect it was trained on them. The behavior axis measures action divergence to that retrain at matched states, calibrated by a floor built from independent retrains, so a policy at the floor is as close to a retrain as retrains are to each other. The evidence axis applies a per-demonstration membership attack against a retrain null, reporting both its rank and its absolute member-loss level, since rank alone accepts operators that inflate member losses past the null. A conformal test then combines both axes into one hypothesis of joint retrain consistency, against a fleet of independent retrains large enough to reject at conventional significance. Across five preregistered conditions on three real-robot policy classes and two simulation suites, the axes dissociate in both directions on one checkpoint, as an edit may repair task behavior while leaving evidence unchanged, or reduce evidence while moving behavior away from retraining. On the ACT arm, a redirect edit restores blind-scored robot success to 18 of 20 trials.
Robotics (cs.RO); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
I.2.9; I.2.6; K.4.1
arXiv:2608.20784 [cs.RO]
(or arXiv:2608.20784v1 [cs.RO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.20784 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 363 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Mind the Gap: Rethinking I/O Design for Contact-Rich Visuomotor Policy Learning
arXiv · 16 sept. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026
Diversity You Can Actually Measure: A Fast, Model-Free Diversity Metric for Robotics Datasets
arXiv · 14 oct. 2026
Experience-Based Feasibility-Aware Generative Adversarial Imitation from Observation under Embodiment Mismatch
arXiv · 2 oct. 2026