ExplorerRoboticsRobotics
Research PaperResearchia:202609.23065

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

Eshika Pathak

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 th...

Submitted: September 23, 2026Subjects: Robotics; Robotics

Description / Details

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=3K=3, 1010, and 5050. 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 K10K\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=50K=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.


Source: arXiv:2609.26567v1 - http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.26567v1 PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.26567v1 Original Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.26567v1

Please sign in to join the discussion.

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!

Access Paper
View Source PDF
Submission Info
Date:
Sep 23, 2026
Topic:
Robotics
Area:
Robotics
Comments:
0
Bookmark