cs.ROJun 2, 2026

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

Authors: Aarav Bedi

Organizations: University of California, Berkeley · Department of Mechanical Engineering University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, USA

Abstract

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.

Explore similar work

Sep 3, 2026cs.RO

FailBench: How Reliable are VLMs at Judging Robot Task Success?

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate robot manipulation outcomes, but existing benchmarks offer limited evidence of cross-domain generalization. We introduce FailBench, a benchmark for robot failure detection comprising 2,197 manipulation attempts across 14 public sources (12 real-world, 2 simulated). In FailBench, 75% of failures occur naturally, and six real-world sources come from non-failure-detection datasets. Evaluating 13 VLM-based detectors, we find the best model achieves only 0.77 mean balanced accuracy. Notably, models fine-tuned for failure detection consistently underperform general-purpose VLMs and their own pretrained baselines. Performance depends heavily on required visual evidence: models approach saturation when outcomes depend on observable object motion, but degrade to near-chance (<0.60 balanced accuracy) on contact-intensive assembly tasks. Error analysis reveals a systematic bias toward predicting success under ambiguous evidence, which persists even with increased reasoning effort. Finally, we show that input-level intervention--spatially localizing and cropping outcome-relevant regions--improves the top detector by 2.4 percentage points without extra training.
Zaruhi Navasardyan, Tatul Danielyan, Hrant Davtyan
Sep 16, 2026cs.RO

RAFAIL: Relationship-Aware Failure Detection for Robotic Manipulation

Detecting failures during execution is essential for reliable robotic manipulation. Vision-language models (VLMs) can assess task outcomes semantically but add runtime computation, whereas out-of-distribution (OOD) detectors may respond to harmless scene variations rather than failure-relevant deviations. We introduce RAFAIL, a framework for detecting execution failures during robotic manipulation. RAFAIL identifies failures by detecting anomalies in task-relevant relationships between entities, such as a gripper and an object or an object and its target. By focusing OOD detection on relevant parts of the observation, RAFAIL reduces sensitivity to task-irrelevant scene variation. Offline, a VLM annotates successful demonstrations with task progress and relationship importance, which are used to learn point-cloud-based relationship representations without relying on policy-internal features. At runtime, relationship-specific OOD detectors evaluate these representations while relationship importance and task progress are predicted without VLM inference. RAFAIL requires no failure data and achieves 73.4% balanced accuracy across three real-world robotic manipulation tasks, outperforming the strongest evaluated OOD- and uncertainty-based baselines.
Loris Schneider, Edgar Welte, Rania Rayyes
Jul 29, 2026cs.RO

Failure Detection for Surgical Robot Imitation Policies via Flow-Matching World Modeling

Imitation learning has shown increasing promise for autonomous robotic surgery, yet safe deployment remains challenging due to the safety-critical nature of surgical tasks and the complexity and variability of surgical environments. Failure detection is therefore an essential safeguard, but its development remains difficult due to the challenges of scarce failure data, highly variable manipulation dynamics, and the need to balance missed detections against disruptive false alarms. To address these challenges, we introduce FoMo-FD (Flow-Matching World Model for Failure Detection), a failure detection method that learns nominal short-horizon visual dynamics with an action-conditioned flow-matching world model. FoMo-FD scores the inverse-transport nonconformity of observed endpoint latents, enabling window-level detection of visual-action inconsistencies without requiring failure demonstrations. Detection thresholds are obtained by conformal calibration on successful executions, yielding task-specific alarms without assuming future failure types. We evaluate FoMo-FD on four surgically relevant manipulation tasks with twenty failure modes across simulation and real-world experiments using the da Vinci Research Kit (dVRK). Results show that FoMo-FD outperforms observation-level anomaly baselines and a prediction-error variant of the same world model, with the wrist-camera view achieving the strongest performance, including a 96.6% failure detection rate (FDR) at a 1.3% false alarm rate (FAR).
Zhefeng Huang, Yilin Cai, Ankit Patel +3