TRIAGE: Type-Routed Interventions via Aleatoric-Epistemic Gated Estimation in Robotic Manipulation and Adaptive Perception -- Don't Treat All Uncertainty the Same

Dynamics models, whether simulators or learned world models, have long been central to robotic manipulation, but most focus on minimizing prediction error rather than confronting a more fundamental challenge: real-world manipulation is inherently uncertain. We argue that robust manipulation under uncertainty is fundamentally an integration problem: uncertainties must be represented, propagated, and constrained within the planning loop, not merely suppressed during training. We present and open-source ManiDreams, a modular framework for uncertainty-aware manipulation planning over intuitive physics models. It realizes this integration through composable abstractions for distributional state representation, backend-agnostic dynamics prediction, and declarative constraint specification for action optimization. The framework explicitly addresses three sources of uncertainty: perceptual, parametric, and structural. It wraps any base policy with a sample-predict-constrain loop that evaluates candidate actions against distributional outcomes, adding robustness without retraining. Experiments on ManiSkill tasks show that ManiDreams maintains robust performance under various perturbations where the RL baseline degrades significantly. Runnable examples on pushing, picking, catching, and real-world deployment demonstrate flexibility across different policies, optimizers, physics backends, and executors. The framework is publicly available at https://github.com/Rice-RobotPI-Lab/ManiDreams

Deploying reinforcement learning in safety critical domains, from autonomous vehicles to medical decision support, is constrained by failures arising when systems encounter unfamiliar conditions. We argue that the fundamental bottleneck is not individual challenges like changing dynamics or incomplete observations, but their synergistic interaction, which we term the Epistemic Trap: agents cannot estimate their state without knowing system dynamics, nor learn dynamics without accurate state information. Proof-of-concept experiments in simulated locomotion reveal that combining these uncertainties causes failures far worse than either challenge alone, a 77% observed degradation against the 46% additive prediction, demonstrating that compounding failure modes can emerge and, when they do, far exceed what additive reasoning would predict. Conventional approaches typically adopt a passive epistemic stance that cannot resolve this coupled uncertainty. We propose reframing safety as an information problem. We introduce an Adaptive Safety Architecture built around three contributions. First, the Compound Uncertainty Coefficient ($κ$), a mutual-information based metric that quantifies how tightly state and dynamics uncertainties are coupled. Second, information-seeking policies governed by a MaxInfoRL objective that actively probe system dynamics rather than waiting for the environment to reveal itself passively. Third, regime adaptive safety constraints that tighten automatically as epistemic coupling rises. Together, these constitute a paradigm shift from passive robustness to active perception, offering a principled path toward decision making systems that operate under uncertainty, recognize their own ignorance, and act strategically to resolve it.

Current evaluation of epistemic uncertainty relies on tasks such as out-ofdistribution detection and active learning. However, the Bayes-optimal decision strategies for these tasks do not coincide with the scores commonly used to quantify epistemic uncertainty. Building on the epistemic reject-option framework, we evaluate epistemic uncertainty using its ability to identify regret, the reducible error. Formulating selective prediction as a constrained optimization over coverage, expected risk, and regret, we prove the optimal selector is a thresholded convex combination of the ground-truth aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. This theoretical unification exposes a weakness in recent uncertainty disentanglement literature: we demonstrate that standard correlation metrics between learned components do not necessarily predict their actual operational utility. We instead propose to evaluate the achievable risk, regret, coverage surface of the decomposition as a diagnostic for joint disentanglement and utility. Benchmarking standard methods on datasets with dense human annotations reveals that decision-theoretic rankings can disagree substantially with proxy-task rankings, including pairwise rank inversions between methods that are top-ranked on one criterion and bottom-ranked on other.