Robotics paper index

Beyond End-Task Success: How to Audit Visual Experience Retrieval in Robotics

2026-09-22 · arXiv: 2609.26567

One-line summary

A robotics research paper on Beyond End-Task Success: How to Audit Visual Experience Retrieval in Robotics.

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充:本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Robots that store past experiences must select which one to reuse in a new scene. Most systems select by visual similarity, and most evaluations report only the success of the selected experience. That number does not show whether the selection was good: a rule can score well by repeatedly using one broadly transferable experience, or poorly because its preferred experience is weak. Since robots increasingly adapt by reuse rather than retraining, a score that describes the library rather than the rule misleads what the field builds next. We contribute an audit methodology: execute every stored experience in every query scene, over two manipulation tasks, three reuse mechanisms, and libraries of $K=3$, $10$, and $50$. Because every alternative's outcome is known, a score can be traced to per-scene selection or to library quality. The audited rules select by nearest-neighbor distance in five visual embeddings, from raw pixels to CLIP. (1) One fixed experience, chosen with hindsight, captures 30-58% of the gap between random selection and an oracle; per-scene selection competes for the remaining 0.07-0.15 in success rate. (2) At $K\ge10$, visual rules concentrate on one experience 1.5-3 times more than the oracle does, and their scores then follow that experience's quality. (3) Wherever a rule differs significantly from a shuffle that keeps its selection rates but pairs them with scenes at random, the rule is worse, for every learned image policy. (4) Visual distance predicts well whether a given pair will succeed (AUROC up to 0.96), yet ranks the candidates within one scene no better than chance for four of five embeddings at $K=50$ (AUROC 0.45-0.52). Exhaustive execution is usually infeasible, so the audit reduces to two cheap reports any study can give: the distribution of selected experiences, and the success of the best single experience in hindsight.

5.0Engineering value
7.0Research novelty
4.0Business relevance

Links and sources

Need this topic turned into a technical roadmap?

Robot Papers can prepare a custom robotics literature review, code map, dataset map, and B2B technology assessment.

Request B2B research

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts on this paper.
Login or register to leave a comment