跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2609.22299 · v2

When Does Test-Time Physical Diagnosis Pay?

首次提交 2026-09-14 23:52
版本更新 2026-10-27 06:52
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:35
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

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. In our controlled environments the frozen policy chooses correctly on every decision, but which evidence it buys is fixed by how the panels assign decisions to evidence strata. On three mechanisms absent from training, the frozen decoder fails its registered transfer gate. On all 96 decisions of the transfer panel, its full-trace input lies far outside its training range, and on such inputs it returns one answer whatever the trace contains. All 15 of its errors fall in the 30 decisions from which cheaper evidence was removed by design, a split hidden by aggregate accuracy. None of three primary public tasks passes its registered qualification gates. Before attributing a failure to how a frozen model uses evidence, evaluation should therefore check whether its deployment inputs lie inside its training range.

作者备注:12 pages, 4 figures

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-10-27 06:52 · 最新观测版本

When Does Test-Time Physical Diagnosis Pay?

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. In our controlled environments the frozen policy chooses correctly on every decision, but which evidence it buys is fixed by how the panels assign decisions to evidence strata. On three mechanisms absent from training, the frozen decoder fails its registered transfer gate. On all 96 decisions of the transfer panel, its full-trace input lies far outside its training range, and on such inputs it returns one answer whatever the trace contains. All 15 of its errors fall in the 30 decisions from which cheaper evidence was removed by design, a split hidden by aggregate accuracy. None of three primary public tasks passes its registered qualification gates. Before attributing a failure to how a frozen model uses evidence, evaluation should therefore check whether its deployment inputs lie inside its training range.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗