arXiv subjects

Aarav Bedi

Publications and source records attributed to Aarav Bedi.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Phase-Localized Curation Does Not Help: A Negative Result on Per-Phase Metric Selection for Demonstration Filtering

Manipulation demonstrations have temporal phase structure, and a natural hypothesis is that demonstration-curation metrics should be applied within phases rather than globally. The idea is to segment each trajectory into phases, score each phase with the metric that is locally most informative, and then aggregate. This follows directly from prior work showing that a single global metric can be the best detector of a defect and yet the worst curator of the resulting policy. We test the per-phase hypothesis on three contact-rich LIBERO pick-and-place tasks with a controlled early-release structural defect, comparing phase-gated curation against the same metrics applied uniformly and against a strong single global metric. Across all three tasks and five random seeds per condition, phase-gated curation is never the best curation strategy, and it is the worst of the three on two of the three tasks (Task 1: 86.0 vs. 92.0 for global; Task 3: 22.7 vs. 48.0 for uniform). We trace the failure to a concrete mechanism. When the defect signal is concentrated in a single phase, rank-aggregating across phases dilutes that signal with uninformative scores from defect-free phases, selecting a worse demonstration subset than simply applying the defect-informative metric everywhere. We further show that the per-phase metric selection does not transfer across tasks, since no phase shares a winning metric between any two tasks, so the selection cannot be reused and must be re-derived per task from a noisy sweep. These results bound a plausible and previously untested method, and they argue that practitioners should prefer identifying a single defect-informative metric over decomposing curation by phase. We release the full pipeline, all metric implementations, and per-seed results.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

What Demonstration Curation Metrics Do to Your Policy

We study whether demonstration-curation metrics that detect defective training episodes also improve the downstream behavior-cloning policy that trains on the curated data. On a contact-rich LIBERO pick-and-place benchmark with a controlled structural defect (early gripper release during the carry phase), we find that the two quantities are sharply decoupled. The metric with the highest defect-detection AUROC (0.804) produces the worst curated policy (13.3% task success), while a metric with a substantially lower AUROC (0.638) produces a policy that nearly matches the oracle trained on ground-truth clean data (90.0% vs. 93.3%). We further show that five of the seven metrics we evaluate exploit episode length as a trivial proxy for the defect label, a confound that inflates reported AUROCs to near-perfect values and disappears once episode length is controlled. Across all conditions, the contaminated baseline succeeds on only 3.3% of rollouts, and the two best curation methods close this to within 3 percentage points of the 93.3% oracle ceiling. Our results argue that curation methods should be evaluated by the policy they produce, not the defects they flag, and that any curation benchmark must control for episode length before reporting detection accuracy. We release the testbed, all metric implementations, and the evaluation pipeline.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2026

Auditing Demonstration Curation Metrics: Action-Only Scorers Fail on the Structural Defects That Degrade Imitation Policies

Imitation-learning policies inherit the quality of the demonstrations they are trained on, and a growing set of curation metrics promise to score and filter low-quality demonstrations automatically. These metrics are each validated on different data with different protocols, so it is unclear which of them actually identify the demonstrations that harm a policy. We build a controlled testbed in which demonstration defects are injected with known type, and audit seven curation metrics along two axes: how well each separates defective from clean demonstrations, and whether training a behavior-cloning policy on each metric's curated subset improves task success. We study two defect regimes. Subtle perturbations (correlated action noise, tremor, truncation) are detectable by multivariate outlier scoring and, once removed, recover the full downstream gap. Structural errors, where the demonstration executes a wrong action at a key moment, are invisible to every action-only metric we test, and two of them are inverted: they score defective demonstrations as higher quality and, used for curation, tend to leave the policy at or below the uncurated baseline rather than above it. Only metrics that examine the state trajectory detect structural errors, and even the best of them recovers just a third of the downstream gap. High detection accuracy does not guarantee downstream improvement. We release the testbed and all curation implementations.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2026

How Visible Are Silent Manipulation Failures? An Observability Study of False-Success Detection in Simulated Robot Episodes

Imitation-learning policies for robot manipulation inherit the quality of the success labels attached to their training episodes, and those labels are usually produced by the robot's own success check. A particularly damaging error is the false success: an episode the robot logs as a success when the task outcome was actually wrong. We ask a narrow but practical question about these episodes. Once an episode has already been flagged as a success, how much of the information needed to overturn that label is present in proprioception, and how much requires vision? We build a simulated testbed on two bimanual ALOHA tasks, induce failures through environment perturbations rather than label edits, label every episode by privileged simulator state that the detector never sees, and keep only episodes the robot flagged as successful. We then compare detectors restricted to proprioception against a vision-based detector. We find that recoverability spans a wide range: in cube transfer the false successes are almost fully recoverable from joint data alone, while in peg insertion proprioception recovers only part of them and a vision detector closes most of the gap. We also show that the proprioceptive separability we measure rests on velocity differences far below any realistic sensor noise floor, so it is best read as an optimistic upper bound that a noiseless simulator inflates. We release the generation and evaluation pipeline.

cs.RO↗