MetaSpace: 具身エージェントの空間認知のためのメタモルフィックテスト
MetaSpace: Metamorphic Testing for Spatial Cognition in Embodied Agents
具身エージェントの空間認知能力を評価するため、ソフトウェア工学のメタモルフィックテスト原理に基づくフレームワークMetaSpaceを提案し、実軌跡から自動生成したテストケースで空間認知エラーを検出する。
詳しい要約
1. どんなもの？
2. 先行研究と比べてどこがすごい？
3. 技術・手法の肝は？
4. どうやって有効だと検証した？
5. 議論はある？
6. 次に読むべき論文は？
※ AIが要旨から生成した要約です。正確性は原文をご確認ください。
著者: Gengyang Xu, Dongwei Xiao, Yiteng Peng, Shuai Wang
分類: cs.AI, cs.SE
原文アブストラクト
An embodied agent is an intelligent entity that interacts with its environment through a physical body. Currently, the evaluation of embodied agents primarily relies on two paradigms: (1) manually annotated Visual Question Answering (VQA) pairs and (2) high-level task completion metrics, such as success in navigation or manipulation. The former is labor-intensive and subject to variability in annotation quality. The latter may obscure critical vulnerabilities, allowing agents to complete tasks through suboptimal means or safety violations, thereby concealing safety risks and inefficiencies. Given that spatial cognition is the cornerstone for executing embodied tasks, there is a pressing need to assess whether embodied agents possess robust spatial cognition during task execution. Inspired by metamorphic testing principles in software engineering, we propose MetaSpace, a novel framework designed to evaluate the spatial cognition of agents. By leveraging spatiotemporal multimodal states derived from real execution trajectories, MetaSpace automatically generates test cases based on predefined metamorphic relations (MRs) grounded in logical rules and physical laws. Crucially, we encode these MRs as executable rules in a logic programming language (Prolog). Violations of these relations indicate failures in spatial cognition. Our empirical evaluation across three embodied scenarios demonstrates that MetaSpace successfully detects 90,422 spatial cognition errors in state-of-the-art (SOTA) MLLM-driven agents. We introduce the Spatial Cognition (SC) score to quantify performance. Results indicate that all SOTA agents achieve average scores between 0.44 and 0.52, significantly lower than the human benchmark of 0.96.
