Unrecognized anomalies in critical infrastructure can rapidly cascade into catastrophic physical or operational failures. Current anomaly detection approaches often rely on direct access to the monitored system by utilizing onboard sensors, such as motor encoders, to detect anomalous states. However, legacy hardware often lacks these sensors, or strict security protocols may prohibit access altogether. We therefore present AWARE, a world model framework that is capable of anomaly detection using only external camera monitoring via system dynamics estimation and state prediction. Evaluated across 240 real-world robotic crane trajectories, including payload collisions and motor degradations, AWARE demonstrates a 26% improvement in anomaly classification over our strongest baseline under noisy, camera-only state estimation. Furthermore, the inferred dynamics parameter can be decoded to identify the source of faults, localizing the degrading motor with 88% accuracy.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: System and model overview, showing human-operated robotic crane used for anomaly detection experiments. AWARE operates as follows: 1) camera-based state estimation; 2) estimation of system hidden dynamics parameters; 3) prediction of future trajectory; 4) anomaly recognition via examination of both the estimated dynamics parameters and the trajectory prediction error.
Figure 2: AWARE framework. Our model consists of two key components. First, a Latent Dynamics Estimator (green) reconstructs a latent encoding of system dynamics ( z^t ) using a history of state-action pairs. Second, a World Model (blue) predicts the next state, given this encoding, the same history, and the current action. This integrated framework enables introspection (yellow) and anomaly detection (red) by comparing dynamics estimations and state prediction errors ( et ) against their expected distributions under normal operation.
Figure 3: Deployment Method (1) Crane platform : The system is modeled by three actuated joints: slew ( q1 ), luff ( q2 ), and hoist ( q5 ). The under-actuated dynamics are captured by a double pendulum model: two angles ( q3 , q4 ) defining the movement at the hoist connection point (cable swing), and two angles ( q6 , q7 ) defining the relative orientation of the payload with respect to the cable. (2) Camera-Based State Estimation : Operator actions are estimated by two hand-tracking cameras. Crane states q1 and q2 are derived from ArUco marker poses using a ZED X camera. The remaining states ( q3 – q7 ) are estimated by a boom-mounted ZED 2i camera utilizing a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). (3) Operator Interface : A multi-color indicator lamp provides real-time visual feedback, signaling nominal operation (green light) or system alerts (red light).
Method
Motion Capture Quality State Estimation (Low Noise)
Camera Only State Estimation (High Noise)
Avg. Precision ± std
F1 Score ± std
Avg. Precision ± std
F1 Score ± std
Randomly Generated Signal
0.17 ± 0.03
0.26 ± 0.03
0.17 ± 0.03
0.26 ± 0.03
Isolation Forest [ 26 ]
0.29 ± 0.00
0.36 ± 0.01
0.16 ± 0.00
0.25 ± 0.01
Statistical Anomaly Detection
0.40 ± 0.01
0.40 ± 0.01
0.22 ± 0.01
0.31 ± 0.02
AESOP [ 36 ]
0.47 ± 0.00
0.56 ± 0.00
0.24 ± 0.00
0.41 ± 0.00
AnyAnomaly ∗ [ 2 ]
0.37 ± 0.07
0.56 ± 0.06
0.37 ± 0.07
0.56 ± 0.06
Table 1: Anomaly recognition results over 240 real robotic trajectories, averaged over 10 seeds per trained model. Metrics detail classification performance for identifying anomalies at the correct times within trajectories, under two different passive state estimation schemes. Bold entries are statistically significant improvement over the best non-AWARE model. ∗ AnyAnomaly is only evaluated on the nominal and payload collision set, see Appendix C.3 for more detail.
Figure 4: Contribution of Latent and Predictor to Anomaly Recognition across different Impairments types using the Transformer AWARE model under (a) Motion Capture Quality Estimation (low noise) and (b) Camera Only Estimation (high noise).
Figure 5: Estimated Motor Strength using the Transformer AWARE model under (a) Low Noise State Estimation Data and (b) High Noise State Estimation Data. The solid curves and shaded bands represent the mean and standard deviation over multiple environments respectively. Decoding Accuracy is the rate of correctly detecting the impaired motor within a ±12.5% tolerance.
Figure 6: Average Precision (AP) of Transformer AWARE across three anomaly detection modes as increasing levels of noise, sampled from a Student’s t -distribution, are injected into the Motion Capture Quality dataset. Noise is scaled relative to the standard deviation ( σ ) of each joint. The noise level of the Camera Only Quality data relative to the Motion Capture Quality data is estimated by inverse interpolation of the AP score, with the cross indicating the interpolated σ corresponding to the Camera Only Quality data.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Config in MuJoco
Range
Motor Strength Scale Factor
ctrlrange
(0.5, 1.5)
Motor Rotor Inertia Scale Factor
armature
(0.1, 2.0)
Payload Mass / kg
(0.1, 2.0)
Appendix
Table 2: Parameters for Domain Randomization
Model
Anomaly Decision Input
Motion Capture Quality State Estimation (Low Noise)
Camera Only State Estimation (High Noise)
Avg. Precision ± std
F1 Score ± std
Avg. Precision ± std
F1 Score ± std
Randomly Generated Signal
Raw sensor data
0.17 ± 0.03
0.26 ± 0.03
0.17 ± 0.03
0.26 ± 0.03
Isolation Forest [ 26 ]
0.29 ± 0.00
0.36 ± 0.01
0.16 ± 0.00
0.25 ± 0.01
Statistical Anomaly Detection
0.40 ± 0.01
0.40 ± 0.01
0.22 ± 0.01
0.31 ± 0.02
AESOP [ 36 ]
0.47 ± 0.00
0.56 ± 0.00
0.24 ± 0.00
0.41 ± 0.00
AnyAnomaly ∗ [ 2 ]
0.37 ± 0.07
0.56 ± 0.00
0.37 ± 0.07
0.56 ± 0.00
Appendix
Table 3: Anomaly recognition results organized by anomaly decision input. Bold entries are statistically significant improvement over the best non-AWARE model. ∗ AnyAnomaly is only evaluated on the nominal and payload collision set.
Baseline
Motion Capture Quality (Low Noise)
Camera Only (High Noise)
AP ( p )
F1 ( p )
AP ( p )
F1 ( p )
Transformer AWARE
RSSM AWARE (double)
0.00195
0.00195
0.02734
0.19336
RWM (double)
0.00195
0.01172
0.00195
0.00195
Transformer AWARE (latent)
0.00195
0.00195
0.00195
0.00195
RSSM AWARE (latent)
0.00195
0.00195
0.00195
0.00195
RWM (latent)
0.00195
0.00195
0.00195
0.00195
Appendix
Table 4: Per-metric raw p -values from two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank tests over 10 paired seeds. Significance is assessed within each baseline using a Bonferroni-corrected threshold over four metrics (two datasets × AP/F1), i.e., α=0.05/4=0.0125 .
Figure 7: World model prediction error over a 100 step horizon. We condition the model on either Single Camera Quality Data or Motion Capture Quality Data, computing the error relative the Motion Capture data in both cases. The error is computed as a fraction of the joint’s total range, averaged over all joint dimensions then as a running cumulative error averaged over all experiments.
Figure 8: Training curves for RSSM AWARE. We ablate by reintroducing components from Regularized Online Adaptation [ 13 ] to AWARE, including: regularization of the target encoder that the latent dynamics estimator learns to follow; removing the latent decoder and reintroducing the latent bottleneck. We plot both average precision and F1 over 1.5 million training steps on the Single Camera Quality dataset.
Encode dynamics param to z^t
Dynamics latents fixed to median z^0
Error normalized by variance σt
Motion Capture Quality
Single Camera Quality
State Estimation (Low Noise)
State Estimation (High Noise)
AP
F1
AP
F1
✓
✓
0.71 ± 0.02
0.65 ± 0.02
0.50 ± 0.01
0.54 ± 0.01
✓
✓
0.88 ± 0.01
0.83 ± 0.01
0.55 ± 0.01
0.58 ± 0.01
✓
✓
0.81 ± 0.01
0.75 ± 0.01
0.50 ± 0.01
0.54 ± 0.01
✓
✓
✓
0.90 ± 0.01
0.85 ± 0.01
0.59 ± 0.01
0.61 ± 0.01
Appendix
Table 5: RSSM AWARE results using only the world model Epred to detect anomalies. We ablate over the enhancements we make to improve predictor performance, including learning a latent representation, z^ , of the hidden dynamics parameter, γ ; conditioning the world model on the fixed median nominal latent, z^0 ; and normalizing the computed error by the world model’s variance.
Distance Measure
Operator
Motion Capture Quality State Estimation (Low Noise)
Camera Only State Estimation (High Noise)
Avg. Precision ± std
F1 Score ± std
Avg. Precision ± std
F1 Score ± std
L1
OR
0.86 ± 0.02
0.80 ± 0.02
0.69 ± 0.03
0.63 ± 0.04
AND
0.78 ± 0.04
0.72 ± 0.03
0.66 ± 0.01
0.59 ± 0.04
SUM
0.78 ± 0.09
0.72 ± 0.07
0.50 ± 0.04
0.55 ± 0.04
L2
OR
0.83 ± 0.03
0.78 ± 0.02
0.67 ± 0.04
0.60 ± 0.04
AND
0.75 ± 0.05
0.71 ± 0.03
0.65 ± 0.02
0.59 ± 0.04
Appendix
Table 6: Anomaly detection results averaged across AWARE methods using different distance measures to the nominal reference distribution and operators to combine the prediction and latent signal Epred and Elat . ’L1’ and ’L2’ use the Manhattan and Euclidean distance to the reference distribution mean. ’L2 standardized’ normalizes the L2 distance by the diagonal covariance.
Figure 9: Examples of Anomaly Recognition by a pivoting measurement signal, where a successful detection is classified as either measurement signal exceeds its corresponding threshold. Nominal std gives the standard deviation of both measurement signals during nominal operations across all environments.
Figure 10: Examples of predictor and latent-estimator measurement signals with and without anomalies. (a) Motion Capture Quality Estimation (low noise); (b) Camera Only Estimation (high noise). From left to right, the four columns correspond to True Positive, True Negative, False Positive, and False Negative cases (based on whether an anomaly was present and whether the model raised an alarm). Solid blue and green curves show the predictor and latent-estimator signals, respectively, while dashed blue and green lines denote their anomaly thresholds. The red dashed vertical line marks the time at which the anomaly is injected.
Autonomous inspection robots for monitoring industrial sites can reduce costs and risks associated with human-led inspection. However, accurate readings can be challenging due to occlusions, limited viewpoints, or unexpected environmental conditions. We propose a hybrid framework that combines supervised failure classification with anomaly detection, enabling classification of inspection tasks as a success, known failure, or anomaly (i.e., out-of-distribution) case. Our approach uses a world model backbone with compressed video inputs. This policy-agnostic, distribution-free framework determines classifications based on two decision functions set by conformal prediction (CP) thresholds before a human observer does. We evaluate the framework on gauge inspection feeds collected from office and industrial sites and demonstrate real-time deployment on a Boston Dynamics Spot. Experiments show over 90% accuracy in distinguishing between successes, failures, and OOD cases, with classifications occurring earlier than a human observer. These results highlight the potential for robust, anticipatory failure detection in autonomous inspection tasks or as a feedback signal for model training to assess and improve the quality of training data. Project website: https://autoinspection-classification.github.io
Michelle Ho, Muhammad Fadhil Ginting, Isaac R. Ward +4
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 USA · Field AI, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 USA
Recent advances in Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have enabled robots to execute increasingly complex tasks. However, VLA models trained through imitation learning struggle to operate reliably in dynamic environments and often fail under Out-of-Distribution (OOD) conditions. To address this issue, we propose Robot-Conditioned Normalizing Flow (RC-NF), a real-time monitoring model for robotic anomaly detection and intervention that ensures the robot's state and the object's motion trajectory align with the task. RC-NF decouples the processing of task-aware robot and object states within the normalizing flow. It requires only positive samples for unsupervised training and calculates accurate robotic anomaly scores during inference through the probability density function. We further present LIBERO-Anomaly-10, a benchmark comprising three categories of robotic anomalies for simulation evaluation. RC-NF achieves state-of-the-art performance across all anomaly types compared to previous methods in monitoring robotic tasks. Real-world experiments demonstrate that RC-NF operates as a plug-and-play module for VLA models (e.g., pi0), providing a real-time OOD signal that enables state-level rollback or task-level replanning when necessary, with a response latency under 100 ms. These results demonstrate that RC-NF noticeably enhances the robustness and adaptability of VLA-based robotic systems in dynamic environments.
Shijie Zhou, Bin Zhu, Jiarui Yang +3
Institute of Trustworthy Embodied AI, Fudan University · Shanghai Key Laboratory of Multimodal Embodied AI · Singapore Management University
Reliable robot deployment requires online failure monitoring, yet existing monitors mainly derive risk from proxy signals or train dedicated monitoring components. We ask whether the internal predictive states of a frozen pretrained robotic world model already contain directly decodable failure information. Failure-Aware Readout from World Models (FARM) trains only a 33,985-parameter supervised readout over frozen VLA-JEPA predictive states, producing step-wise failure scores and causal trajectory risk. Five-fold out-of-fold evaluation across seven source tasks reaches 85.68/88.59 pooled AUROC/AUPRC, and FARM gives the best Seen performance among 15 matched baselines on the 10-task benchmark. Across four real-robot populations on PIPER X, SO-101, and Franka, fixed-readout transfer and readout-only adaptation test deployment shifts without updating the predictive backbone. FARM also discriminates failures from partial causal histories and adds 0.2256 ms mean CUDA latency once the frozen state is available. These results support frozen predictive world-model states as reusable features for causal, transferable, and low-overhead execution monitoring.
Haoran Pei, Mingrui Luo, Senbao Wang +4
Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China