The Verification Gap in Networked Physical AI: A Post-Semantic Communication Framework
Organizations: The University of Osaka, Japan
Abstract
A task-effective proposal is not yet a justified physical action. In networked Physical AI, a proposal may be understood while valid, timely, proposal-bound evidence or the authority required to finalize an action remains unavailable. We call this mismatch the verification gap and introduce a Post-Semantic Communication Framework for the systems interface between proposal formation and physical execution. The framework begins with application-declared evidence requirements, represents qualifying observations as evidence records, validates supporting and conflicting records through one path, and separates evidence sufficiency from authorized finalization and a downstream runtime gate. It further distinguishes evidence transfer, which can enlarge the record set reachable by a finalizer, from evidence coordination, which can suppress transmission around records already held at the finalization endpoint. Finite-state framework checks verify that the evaluator implements the declared distinctions consistently. Under the declared model, the controlled communication study exposes a finalizer-dependent asymmetry: sender-finalized Feedback uses evidence transfer to expand evidence reachability throughout the feasible plotted region, whereas receiver-finalized Feedback uses coordination to suppress redundant payload until loss, latency, freshness, and deadline costs shift selection to One-way. Finally, an episode-level reporting schema defines common denominators for future measured Physical-AI studies.
Figures & tables
| Changed condition | Proposal-only view | Evidence-aware view | Required response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposal binding | “Proceed” is unchanged. | The record hash refers to an earlier proposal. | Abstain: the record cannot satisfy the current requirements. |
| Freshness / expiry | “Proceed” is unchanged. | A required record expires before finalization. | Abstain: evidence is no longer timely. |
| Admissible conflict | “Proceed” is unchanged. | A validated record conflicts with a required claim. | Reject before testing support completeness. |
| Finalization authority | “Proceed” is unchanged. | The endpoint holding sufficient records is not authorized to finalize. | Make the required evidence available to the authorized finalizer, or abstain. |
| Layer | Report | Confounding avoided |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence | Requirements; support/conflict semantics; record source, modality, freshness, provenance, uncertainty, and proposal binding. | A change in what counts as sufficient is not mislabeled as a delivery gain. |
| Delivery | One-way or Feedback; feedback function; success model; expected evidence payload per proposal episode; logical-message count; latency and deadline accounting. | Payload suppression is not confused with total on-wire or energy reduction. |
| Finalization | Authorized finalizer; evidence-assembly location; credential and handoff assumptions. | Evidence location is not mistaken for action authority. |
| Runtime | Gate inputs, re-evaluation time, stop or backup action, and the execution-observation boundary. | Verifier Accept is not presented as a physical-safety result. |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Parameter | Baseline |
|---|---|
| Required evidence | Visual clearance + Radio no-motion |
| Claim-truth prior | 0.90 per claim |
| Claim-truth dependence | Independent |
| Evidence availability | 0.90 per endpoint/item |
| Conditional validity | 0.99 |
| Evidence-relation error | 0.10 |
Embodied AI
Embodied AI studies agents that perceive, reason, and act through bodies in physical or simulated environments.
See all 255 papers