正しい警報でも介入は得とは限らない、RESCUEが同じロボット状態から復旧と再開を比較

RESCUE: Is This Alarm Worth Acting On? Counterfactual Evaluation of VLA Runtime Monitors

Runtime failure monitors for robot policies are typically evaluated by how accurately they distinguish failed from successful executions. Yet an accurate alarm may arrive too late for recovery, while an unnecessary intervention may disrupt an execution that would otherwise succeed. We introduce RESCUE, a counterfactual framework for evaluating whether a monitor's alarms enable useful interventions. By restoring simulator and policy states at execution checkpoints, RESCUE compares alternative actions, identifies the latest checkpoint satisfying a specified recovery criterion, and evaluates whether acting on alarms reduces expected task-completion cost. We evaluate RESCUE with OpenVLA-OFT and $π_{0.5}$ over LIBERO-Spatial and LIBERO-Plus using 128,340 counterfactual branches. Recoverability depends on the state--intervention pair rather than on robot state alone: at $τ=0.5$, 14 of 66 OpenVLA-OFT/LIBERO-Plus failures contain a recoverable checkpoint under continuation, compared with 34 of 66 under continuation or scripted recovery, while recovery reduces recoverability in other conditions. On the primary strong-policy conditions, favourable detection scores do not establish lower intervention cost. Under the evaluated stop-and-reset model, even an idealised detector can afford only a 2.0--3.3% false-alarm rate before unnecessary resets outweigh the savings from stopping failures early. These results show that monitor value depends jointly on the intervention available and the workload in which it is deployed.