Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

No Free Checker: A Survey of Verifiers for Robot Policies

Summary

arXiv:2609.09250v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A verifier for robot policies reads a candidate behavior and returns a score for how well it did, used both to evaluate vision-language-action policies and to train them. Verifiers range from success detectors and reward models to runtime monitors, safety filters, and temporal-logic specifications. We survey roughly 150 verifiers and compare them along two properties. Availability is how much a verdict costs, how early in a rollout the verdict arrives, and how often a verdict can be asked for. Availability rises as verdicts get cheaper, earlier, and denser. Credibility is how much a high score tells us about the task. Credibility falls as the judgment becomes gameable and self-serving. We group the verifiers by who supplies the judgment: hum…

SourcearXiv RoboticsAuthor: Yang Wan, Xihang Yue, Zhirui Liu, Ziyuan Chu, Shuxun Wang, Yuhan Chen, Xiaonan Jiang, Xukun Zhu, Yubo Dong, Linchao Zhu
No Free Checker: A Survey of Verifiers for Robot Policies
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 8 Sep 2026]

Title:No Free Checker: A Survey of Verifiers for Robot Policies

View a PDF of the paper titled No Free Checker: A Survey of Verifiers for Robot Policies, by Yang Wan and 9 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:A verifier for robot policies reads a candidate behavior and returns a score for how well it did, used both to evaluate vision-language-action policies and to train them. Verifiers range from success detectors and reward models to runtime monitors, safety filters, and temporal-logic specifications. We survey roughly 150 verifiers and compare them along two properties. Availability is how much a verdict costs, how early in a rollout the verdict arrives, and how often a verdict can be asked for. Availability rises as verdicts get cheaper, earlier, and denser. Credibility is how much a high score tells us about the task. Credibility falls as the judgment becomes gameable and self-serving. We group the verifiers by who supplies the judgment: human verifiers, rule-based and formal verifiers, learned and pretrained verifiers, and model-intrinsic verifiers. Across the four families, we find that credibility falls as availability rises. Regardless of who supplies the judgment, there is no free checker. We then examine what validates a verifier itself, and how much a high score tells us. Three measures appear in the literature: agreement with human labels, the performance of the policy it trains, and behavior under reward hacking. We close with nine metrics that make a verifier claim checkable, and coordinates for the verifiers still to be built.

Comments: Survey. 31 pages, 5 figures, 7 tables, 187 references. Covers reward models, success and failure detection, temporal-logic and formal verification, world-model evaluation, and reward hacking. Project page: this https URL

Subjects:

Robotics (cs.RO); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Systems and Control (eess.SY)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.09250 [cs.RO]

(or arXiv:2609.09250v1 [cs.RO] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.09250

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Yang Wan [view email] [v1] Tue, 8 Sep 2026 13:52:59 UTC (2,747 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled No Free Checker: A Survey of Verifiers for Robot Policies, by Yang Wan and 9 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.RO

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs cs.AI cs.CV cs.LG cs.SY eess eess.SY

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.09250v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A verifier for robot policies reads a candidate behavior and returns a score for how well it did, used both to evaluate vision-lang…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.