Writing study: Resilience Matters for Embodied Agents System: New Metrics, Systematic Evaluation, and Optimization
← NeurIPS 2026 oral writing corpus
Yapeng Liu, Yuanzhao Zhai, Xudong Gong, Feng Dawei, Bo Ding, Lin Wang, Huaimin Wang · Official NeurIPS 2026 oral record
Figure, table and section ledger
Editorial contribution type: Empirical analysis, diagnosis & auditing (primary).
Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.
- Canonical PDF
- 12 physical pages
- Before references / appendix
- ≈ 9.09 page-equivalents
- Main figures / tables
- 5 / 3
- Attached appendix figures / tables
- 0 / 0
- Attached appendix span
- No boundary detected; not assumed zero
Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.
Source-bound correction: Top-level heading and reference/appendix boundaries checked against source PDF text. Bibliography titles/author initials, numbered contribution/property bullets, diagram steps, equations and TOC entries are not substantive headings. Section spans are page-coordinate estimates, not ink area or prose-only length. This is an author manuscript mirror, not a verified accepted-version template. Source layout uses physical single-column y/page-height, including equation-heavy pages.
Section-by-section lengths and source pages
The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.
| Top-level heading | Starts on PDF page | Estimated span | Share of entire PDF |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Introduction | 1 | ≈ 1.1 pp. | 9.17% |
| 2 Related Works | 2 | ≈ 0.68 pp. | 5.67% |
| 3 The Proposed EAS Resilience Evaluation Framework | 3 | ≈ 5.29 pp. | 44.08% |
| 4 EAS Optimization: Metric-Guided Resilience Diagnostics | 8 | ≈ 0.93 pp. | 7.75% |
| 5 Conclusion and Future Work | 9 | ≈ 0.37 pp. | 3.08% |
| References | 10 | ≈ 2.91 pp. | 24.25% |
All detected figure and table locations
Main text
Attached appendix
No recognized caption labels.
Argument and organization
- Problem and contribution
Starts from two agents reaching the same outcome through differently costly or unstable recovery paths, motivating process metrics that cannot be read from success rate alone.
- Argument sequence
The framework defines resilience dimensions and operational metrics before construct validation, a multi-agent comparison and a small metric-guided intervention study.
- Evidence and verification
The main comparison distinguishes resilience measures, outcome references and simulation steps. A highlighted findings box states that no evaluated method dominates every resilience dimension.
Problem, claim and contribution
Starts from two agents reaching the same outcome through differently costly or unstable recovery paths, motivating process metrics that cannot be read from success rate alone.
Introduction and Figure 1, pp. 1–2 · Main paper
Argument and section order
The framework defines resilience dimensions and operational metrics before construct validation, a multi-agent comparison and a small metric-guided intervention study.
Sections 3–4, pp. 3–9 · Main paper
Figures, captions and visual explanation
Figure 5 repeats an identically ordered radar profile for each agent, directly beneath the numerical benchmark table. The chart communicates heterogeneous profiles, while the table preserves unnormalized quantities and metric directions. Figure 1 contrasts two trajectories with the same successful outcome but different recovery behavior. Matched task steps, explicit perturbation labels and a legend for rebound, replanning, backtracking and unsafe paths make the missing process-level evaluation construct visible before its metrics are defined.
Table 2 and Figure 5, physical p. 8 (render inspected); Figure 1, physical PDF p. 2 (additional rendered inspection) · Main paper
Tables, comparisons and evidence
The main comparison distinguishes resilience measures, outcome references and simulation steps. A highlighted findings box states that no evaluated method dominates every resilience dimension.
Table 2 and benchmark findings, physical p. 8; Table 3, p. 9 · Main paper
Appendix and reproducibility
Implementation details are delegated to external code and a project site rather than an embedded appendix; a future manuscript should keep enough protocol detail in a stable archival supplement for independent verification.
Section 4, physical p. 8 · Main paper
Clarity and writing conventions
Numbered findings connect observed profiles to a proposed diagnostic use, but claims about general embodied systems should remain qualified by the simulation setting and tested agents.
Sections 3.2–5, physical pp. 5–9 · Main paper
What to reuse—and what not to infer
Transferable lesson: When proposing evaluation metrics, show why a familiar metric misses the phenomenon, validate the new dimensions, and report where metric-guided changes help.
Boundary: Radar area is not an aggregate performance score. The inspected experiments are simulation-based and do not establish equivalent resilience for real deployed robots.
Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.
Inspection record and sources
- Checked
- 2026-10-02
- Reading status
- Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected
- Main text
- Writing-oriented scan across manuscript framing, section sequence, figure/table captions, selected argument/evaluation prose and conclusion; not exhaustive technical or proof verification. Physical PDF pp. 1–9, Sections 1–5; references pp. 10–12. Embedded figure-font characters add false form-feed page breaks in text extraction. Source is the exact public author version listed below, not a verified accepted/camera-ready revision.
- Appendix / supplement
- Writing-oriented appendix/documentation scan: No separately labeled appendix in the inspected twelve-page PDF. The source points to external code/project materials, which were not executed or separately assessed. Source code, data, model outputs and external video assets were not executed or independently validated.
- Visually inspected PDF pages
- 2, 8
This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.