by Lazaruscv | 2025-10-04 21:53:45+00:00
errors are rarely explicit in robots, they're often emergent from complex interactions, like a silent drift in AMCL localization causing a downstream collision, or sporadic packet loss in DDS causing desynchronized multirobot coordination. We'd describe errors dynamically through a mix of domain rules, unsupervised ML, and generative AI;

* Start with user-determined or auto-deduced invariants from "nominal" runs (e.g., "joint torque variance should never exceed 10% during unloaded motion," derived from historical MCAP bags). This takes inspiration from model-based verification techniques in current ROS2 research, e.g., automated formal verification with model driven engineering.

* use light, edge-optimized models (e.g., graph neural networks or variational autoencoders) to monitor ROS topic multivariate time series (/odom, /imu, /camera/image_raw). Fuse visual and sensor input using multimodal LLMs (fine-tuned on e.g. nuScenes or custom robot logs) to detect "silent failures" e.g., detect a LiDAR occlusion not reflected in logs but apparent from point cloud entropy spikes cross-checked against camera frames.

* Utilize GenAI (e.g., versions of GPT-4o or Llama) for NLP on logs, classifying ambiguous events like "nav stack increased latency" as a predictor for failure. This predictive approach is an improvement of the ROS Help Desk's GenAI model that already demonstrates 70-80% decrease in debugging time by indicating issues before full failure.

This is not hypothesizing; there are already PyTorch and ROS2 plugin prototype versions with ~90% accuracy detection in Gazebo simulation failures, and dynamic covariance compensation (as used in more recent AI-facilitated ROS2 localization studies) takes care of noisy real-world data.

The detection pipeline that is automatic will be akin to where the system receives live streams or bag files via a ROS2-compatible middleware (e.g., based on more recent flexible integration layers for task orchestration), then processes in streaming fashion then:

* map heterogeneous formats (MCAP, OpenLABEL, JSON logs) to a temporal knowledge graph nodes for components (sensors, planners), edges for causal dependencies and timestamps. Enables holistic analysis, as opposed to fragmented tools.

* Route the data through Apache Flink or Kafka combined ML pipelines for windowed detection. For instance, flag a "error" if a robot's velocity profile is beyond predicted physics models (with Control or PySDF libraries), even without explicit logs—combining environmental context from combined BIM/APS for vision use.

* subsequently employ uncertainty sampling through large language models to solicit user input on borderline scenarios, progressively fine‑tuning the models. Benchmark outcomes from SYSDIAGBENCH indicate that LLMs such as GPT‑4 perform exceptionally well, correctly identifying robotic problems in 85 % of cases across various model scales.

I trust this provides some insight; we are currently testing a prototype that fuses these components into a real‑time observability framework for ROS2. Although still in its infancy, it already demonstrates encouraging accuracy on both simulated and real‑world data sets. I would appreciate your thoughts on sharpening the notion of “error” for multi‑agent or hybrid systems, particularly in contexts where emergent behavior makes it hard to distinguish between anomalies and adaptive responses.