SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2608.14952

Evidence of Absence: Cross-Modal Abductive Risk Perception to Sustain World Models When Vision Fails

Abstract

A structured world-state (entities, relations, context, and predictive cues) is designed to preserve prediction-critical content when perception degrades, but it presumes observations to populate it; when the primary visual modality is occluded or degraded, those observations may be missing. We address how to sustain the world model from a complementary modality by treating the absence of expected co-evidence as evidence of a hidden cause. The abductive framework is modality-agnostic; this article instantiates it acoustically. A microphone-array front-end estimates the bearing of engine and tire sources and extracts approach-rate evidence (Doppler when a stable tone exists, a broadband looming readout otherwise); the event "signature present, visual co-evidence absent" then triggers abductive inference of a hidden road user, emitting a calibrated risk advisory rather than a control command. Recoverability of the hidden state is analyzed as an identifiability question separating shared from modality-unique information, and cueing is cast as Neyman-Pearson detection under an explicit false-alarm budget. On real occluded-approach recordings at blind junctions, the method warns a mean 1.7 seconds before line-of-sight entry, matches the sustained-window variant of the published acoustic baseline's detection rate with 42% fewer false alarms, localizes to 3.4 degrees median once in view, is well calibrated (expected calibration error 0.034), and keeps hazard awareness above 0.87 under staged vision degradation that collapses a vision-only channel to 0.03. We also measure the method's limits: calibration transfers to an unseen junction almost losslessly, the signature classifier does not, and moving-ego noise is the binding deployment constraint.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Cong Xu, Ravi Sankar. 2026-08-15. Evidence of Absence: Cross-Modal Abductive Risk Perception to Sustain World Models When Vision Fails. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14952

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO