ROBOGATE: Adaptive Failure Discovery for Safe Robot Policy Deployment via Two-Stage Boundary-Focused Sampling
Organizations: AgentAI Co., Ltd., Seoul, South Korea
Abstract
Deploying learned robot manipulation policies in industrial settings requires rigorous pre-deployment validation, yet exhaustive testing across high-dimensional parameter spaces is intractable. We present ROBOGATE, a deployment risk management framework that combines physics-based simulation with a two-stage adaptive sampling strategy to efficiently discover failure boundaries in the operational parameter space. Stage 1 employs Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) across an 8-dimensional parameter space; Stage 2 applies boundary-focused sampling concentrated in the 30-70% success rate transition zone. Using NVIDIA Isaac Sim with Newton physics, we evaluate a scripted pick-and-place controller across four robot embodiments -- Franka Panda (7-DOF), UR3e (6-DOF), UR5e (6-DOF), and UR10e (6-DOF) -- totaling over 50,000 experiments. Our logistic regression risk model achieves AUC 0.780 and identifies a closed-form failure boundary equation. We further benchmark eight VLA (Vision-Language-Action) policies, including a fine-tuned NVIDIA GR00T N1.6 (3B) trained on LIBERO-Spatial for 20K steps. The same checkpoint achieves 97.65% success rate on LIBERO (MuJoCo) but 0% on RoboGate's 68 industrial scenarios in NVIDIA Isaac Sim -- a 97.65 percentage point cross-simulator gap on a single model that underscores the deployment validation challenge. Inspired by the validation-layer paradigm NVIDIA codified for quantum computing with Ising, ROBOGATE provides this validation layer for Physical AI. Open-source.
Figures & tables
| Metric | Definition | Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Grasp Success Rate | ||
| Cycle Time | Mean episode duration | baseline |
| Collision Count | Total collisions | |
| Drop Rate | ||
| Grasp Miss Rate | baseline |
| Franka S1 | UR5e S1 | Franka S2 | |
| Robot | Panda 7-DOF | UR5e 6-DOF | Panda 7-DOF |
| Gripper | Parallel-jaw | Suction | Parallel-jaw |
| Experiments | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 |
| Sampling | Uniform LHS | Uniform LHS | Boundary LHS |
| Parameters | 8D | 5D † | 8D |
| Seed | 2026 | 2026 | 2024 |
| Dataset | N | Success | Fail | SR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Franka Stage 1 (uniform) | 10,000 | 3,332 | 6,668 | 33.3% |
| Franka Stage 2 (boundary) | 10,000 | 6,385 | 3,615 | 63.9% |
| Franka Combined | 20,000 | 9,717 | 10,283 | 48.6% |
| UR5e Stage 1 (uniform) | 10,000 | 7,432 | 2,568 | 74.3% |
| Total | 30,000 | 17,149 | 12,851 | 57.2% |
| Parameter | Range | Franka SR | UR5e SR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass | 0.935–1.230 kg | 21.4% | 30.9% |
| Mass | 1.230–1.525 kg | 14.9% | 25.3% |
| Mass | 1.525–1.819 kg | 12.5% | 28.9% |
| Mass | 1.819–2.114 kg | 6.6% | 28.1% |
| Feature | Coeff. | -score | -value |
| friction | 1.015 | 19.28 | |
| ik_noise | |||
| friction mass | |||
| mass | |||
| friction size | 0.190 | 3.30 | |
| mass obstacles | 0.079 | 2.09 | 0.037 |
| Parameter | Threshold | 95% CI | SE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Friction | 0.492 | [0.450, 0.545] | 0.031 |
| Mass | 0.422 kg | [0.097, 0.747] | 0.241 |
| COM offset | 0.019 | [0.005, 0.055] | 0.010 |
| Size | 0.045 m | [0.027, 0.058] | 0.008 |
| IK noise | 0.010 rad | [0.0004, 0.020] | 0.005 |
| Feature | Coeff. | -score | Sig. |
| friction | |||
| mass | 0.458 | 24.77 | |
| ik_noise | 0.292 | 17.56 | |
| placement_penalty | |||
| size | |||
| obstacles | n.s. |
| Model | Org. | Params | SR | Conf. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scripted (IK) | Baseline | — | 100% | 76 |
| GR00T N1.6 (ft) | NVIDIA | 3B | 0% | 49 |
| PI0 (OpenPI) | Phys. Intel. | 3.5B | 0% | 27 |
| OpenVLA | Stanford+TRI | 7B | 0% | 27 |
| GR00T N1.6 (base) | NVIDIA | 3B | 0% | 1 |
| SmolVLA Base | HuggingFace | 450M | 0% | 1 |
| Model | SR | Conf. | Collisions | Cycle (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GR00T N1.6 (base) | 0% | 1 | 8 | 64.3 |
| GR00T N1.6 (ft) | 0% | 49 | 0 | 2.2 |
| Model | GM | COL | Other | Dominant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GR00T N1.6 (ft) | 68 | 0 | 0 | GM (100%) |
| PI0 (OpenPI) | 68 | 0 | 0 | GM (100%) |
| OpenVLA | 68 | 0 | 0 | GM (100%) |
| GR00T N1.6 (base) | 60 | 8 | 0 | GM (88%) |
| Octo-Base | 55 | 13 | 0 | GM (81%) |
| Octo-Small | 60 | 8 | 0 | GM (88%) |
| Robot | DOF | Reach (m) | N | SR | Failures |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UR5e | 6 | 0.85 | 10,000 | 74.3% | grasp_miss only |
| Franka Panda | 7 | 0.855 | 10,000 | 33.3% | 4-mode mix |
| UR3e | 6 | 0.50 | 10,000 | 9.6% | grasp_miss only |
| UR10e | 6 | 1.30 | 10,000 | 61.6% | grasp_miss only |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Field | Type | Description |
| Physical parameters | ||
| friction | float | Friction coefficient [0.05, 1.2] |
| mass | float | Object mass in kg [0.05, 2.0] |
| com_offset | float | COM offset [0, 0.4] |
| size | float | Object size in m [0.02, 0.12] |
| ik_noise | float | IK noise in rad [0, 0.04] |
| Friction Range | N fail | Dominant Mode | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.050–0.108 | 1,968 | timeout | 39.1% |
| 0.108–0.165 | 1,069 | timeout | 44.3% |
| 0.165–0.280 | 1,298 | timeout | 42.0% |
| 0.280–0.450 | 1,514 | timeout | 38.5% |
| 0.450–0.625 | 1,067 | grip_loss | 33.1% |
| 0.625–0.768 | 1,044 | timeout | 31.2% |
| Parameter | Range | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| ik_noise | [0, 0.02] rad | linear |
| mass | [0.05, 3.0] kg | log |
| grip_threshold | [0.005, 0.02] | linear |
| obstacles | [0, 3] | integer |
| placement | 8 configurations | categorical |
| Category/Variant | Pass | Total | SR | Primary Fail |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| nom/standard_objects | 0 | 7 | 0% | grasp_miss (6), collision (1) |
| nom/standard_lighting | 0 | 7 | 0% | grasp_miss (5), collision (2) |
| nom/centered_placement | 0 | 6 | 0% | grasp_miss (5), collision (1) |
| edge/small_objects | 0 | 3 | 0% | grasp_miss (2), collision (1) |
| edge/heavy_objects | 0 | 3 | 0% | grasp_miss (3) |
| edge/edge_placement | 0 | 3 | 0% | grasp_miss (2), collision (1) |
| Component | Metric | Weight | Scoring |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grasp SR | 0.30 | Linear: | |
| Cycle Time | 0.20 | ||
| Collision | 0.25 | if , else | |
| Edge Cases | SR | 0.15 | Linear: SR on edge scenarios |
| Baseline | 0.10 |
Robotic Policy Evaluation
Robotic policy evaluation measures whether learned controllers succeed reliably, generalize across conditions, recover from failures, and behave safely.
See all 125 papers