Reliable contact-rich manipulation requires detecting execution deviations early enough for corrective action. Yet most monitoring methods are reactive, identifying anomalies only after they become observable. Anticipating such anomalies is challenging because visual observations only partially reveal physical interaction, while planned actions describe intended motion rather than their actual physical consequences. We address this problem with MAIA, a multimodal framework for anomaly anticipation. Its vision-action-force world model learns nominal interaction dynamics and predicts the visual and force responses of planned actions, while a lightweight anomaly head predicts impending interaction anomalies. To enable systematic evaluation, we introduce CRIA, a real-world multimodal dataset of 2,852 trajectories spanning 18 contact-rich manipulation tasks, with frame-level annotations of anomaly onset and evolution. Experiments on both seen and novel tasks show that MAIA achieves more accurate anomaly discrimination than representative baselines while providing earlier warnings, with bACC scores of 0.765 and 0.710 and median anticipation lead times of 28.0 and 25.1 steps, respectively. Moreover, using these predictions for anomaly-aware action selection improves end-to-end task success from 52.6% to 61.5% without retraining the underlying manipulation policy. These results highlight the value of modeling future physical consequences for proactive anomaly anticipation.
Figures & tables
Fig. 2: CRIA overview. The central ring presents all 18 tasks grouped by interaction category, while the surrounding panels illustrate category-specific interaction characteristics and typical anomaly modes. The hardware setup used for data collection is shown on the right.
Dataset
Physical Sensing
Anomaly Source
Real Anomalous Traj.
Anomaly Supervision
Granularity
RH20T [ 29 ]
✓
Human
∼ 10k
Outcome
Episode
REASSEMBLE [ 30 ]
✓
Human
516
Outcome
Segment
Hoi! [ 31 ]
✓
–
–
–
–
FreeTacMan [ 32 ]
✓
–
–
–
–
SOAR [ 33 ]
×
Policy
20,564
Outcome
Episode
RoboFAC [ 34 ]
×
Human + Injected
480
Outcome + Type + Explanation
Subtask
TABLE I: Comparison with representative multimodal manipulation and failure/anomaly datasets.
Fig. 3: MAIA Overview. The framework consists of a Vision-Action-Force World Model (VAF-WM) and a predictive anomaly head. VAF-WM extends GE-Base with gated action-force adapters to forecast future visual and force dynamics. The anomaly head fuses these predictions with interaction tokens and uses a temporal transformer to predict anomaly occurrence, temporal prevalence, and localization within the future window.
Method
Seen Tasks
Novel Tasks
AUPRC ↑
bACC ↑
AR ↑
Med. ALT ↑
AUPRC ↑
bACC ↑
AR ↑
Med. ALT ↑
PCA-KMeans [ 38 ]
0.488
0.576
0.113
14.3
0.589
0.508
0.142
16.4
LogpZO [ 6 ]
0.551
0.619
0.145
16.0
0.556
0.504
0.161
24.6
SAFE-LSTM [ 7 ]
0.583
0.724
0.182
18.8
0.426
0.495
0.103
22.2
Robo-Dopamine [ 39 ]
0.411
0.523
0.352
18.9
0.500
0.546
0.361
17.4
Robometer [ 40 ]
0.356
0.512
0.320
12.0
0.469
0.524
0.377
15.3
TABLE II: Anomaly anticipation performance on seen and novel tasks, macro-averaged across tasks.
Variant
Insertion
Wiping
Pressing
Path-Constrained
Articulated-Object
Average
Seen
Novel
Seen
Novel
Seen
Novel
Seen
Novel
Seen
Novel
Seen
Novel
MAIA-V
0.709
0.766
0.684
0.615
0.655
0.668
0.724
0.654
0.674
0.624
0.689
0.665
MAIA-VA
0.764
0.815
0.604
0.616
0.663
0.615
0.669
0.558
0.623
0.637
0.665
0.648
MAIA
0.868
0.832
0.743
0.683
0.702
0.662
0.763
0.742
0.748
0.631
0.765
0.710
TABLE III: Ablation of visual, action, and force modeling across task categories.
Fig. 4: Qualitative comparison of anomaly predictions. Shaded regions indicate correct predictions (green), prediction errors (red), and early warnings (yellow) prior to the true anomaly onset (dashed line). (a) Nominal execution: our method produces fewer false alarms than the baselines. (b) Anomalous execution: our method provides an earlier sustained warning than WCM, while reward-model warnings are intermittent.
Fig. 5: Qualitative modality ablation on representative anomaly cases. The examples illustrate how incorporating physical feedback enables MAIA to distinguish anomalous interactions that remain ambiguous when only visual and action cues are available.
Fig. 6: Novel-task adaptation with varying amounts of task-specific data.
Method
Insertion
Wiping
Pressing
Path.
Articulated
Overall
π0.5
63.3
46.7
48.3
48.9
53.3
52.6
π0.5 + MAIA
63.3
66.7
54.2
62.2
62.5
61.5
TABLE IV: Real-robot task success rates (%).
Category / Task
Traj.
Anomalous Traj.
Anomaly Events
Anomalous Frames
Insertion
Insert-Plug-2
150
128
221
35.13%
Insert-Plug-3
150
133
171
44.11%
Insert-Type-C
150
139
156
38.83%
Insert-NI
150
140
161
50.30%
Subtotal
600
540
709
42.11%
TABLE V: Statistics of the CRIA dataset.
Insertion
Task: Insert-Plug-2 Instruction: Insert a two-prong plug. Description: Insert the two-prong power plug into its socket with precise alignment.
Task: Insert-Plug-3 Instruction: Insert a three-prong plug. Description: Insert the three-prong power plug into its socket with precise alignment.
Task: Insert-Type-C Instruction: Insert the typec. Description: Insert the Type-C connector into its port with correct orientation and fine alignment.
Task: Insert-NI Instruction: Insert the ethernet port. Description: Insert the RJ45 plug into the ethernet port with precise alignment.
Wiping
Task: Wipe-Board Instruction: Erase the whiteboard. Description: Bring the eraser into contact with the whiteboard, then move it across the board along a tangential wiping path while maintaining normal contact to remove the markings.
Task: Wipe-Bowl Instruction: Wipe the bowl from left to right. Description: Use the gripper-held wiping tool to contact the bowl’s inner surface, then move it along the inner rim while maintaining normal contact to clean the bowl.
Task: Wipe-Vase Instruction: Wipe the vase. Description: Bring the eraser into contact with the vase’s outer surface, then move it along the vase’s outer contour while maintaining normal contact to remove the markings.
Pressing
Task: Press-Seal Instruction: Press the seal on the white paper. Description: Press the seal onto the white paper with adequate axial force along the pressing axis to ensure a clear impression.
Task: Press-Switch-1 Instruction: Press the switch. Description: Contact the rocker switch, then press it with localized force at the correct position and angle to toggle its state.
Task: Press-Switch-2 Instruction: Press the red button. Description: Contact the red push-button, then press it with sufficient normal force and a short, controlled stroke to light up the LED strip.
Task: Press-Bottle Instruction: Press the pump to dispense liquid. Description: Contact the pump, then press it with adequate axial force along the pressing axis to press out liquid while keeping the bottle stable.
TABLE VIII: Task-level anomaly anticipation performance across all 18 tasks.
Fig. 7: Comparison of the original π0.5 policy and π0.5 with MAIA across 18 contact-rich manipulation tasks. The rightmost column shows the success-rate difference in percentage points.
College of Connected Computing, Vanderbilt University, USA. · School of Computer Science, The University of Sydney, Australia. · 3Australian Centre for Robotics, The University of Sydney, Australia.