A Universal 'Check Engine Light' for Autonomous Systems That Don't Know They're Stuck

Model-free runtime monitor detects when autonomous agents stop learning from new observations. Works across 8 wildly different domains with zero tuning.

Imagine you're scrolling through a news feed. For the first few minutes, every article teaches you something — your mental model of the day's events updates rapidly. Then you hit a pocket of repetitive stories: third article about the same scandal, same takes, same quotes. You're still 'reading' but you're not learning. Now imagine your phone could detect that transition in real time and nudge you: 'You're stagnating. Move on.' That's what this paper builds for autonomous systems. The core claim: a single, fixed, model-free monitor architecture — Acquisition-State Telemetry (AST) — can sit alongside any autonomous agent and emit two continuous signals in real time. The first tracks how much prospective progress the agent is making toward unresolved task requirements. The second measures 'informational friction' — the drag that accumulates when the agent keeps observing but stops resolving anything new. Crucially, the monitor has no model of the domain. It doesn't know if it's watching a search-and-rescue dialogue, a robot arm, or a grid exploration. It just watches the information flow. The architecture is deliberately minimal. A domain-specific interface maps raw observations into 'task resolution coordinates' — essentially a normalized representation of how much of the task has been resolved. This is the only part that changes per domain. The causal monitor itself is fixed: it processes these normalized representations through a windowed comparison that tracks whether new observations are actually shifting the agent's information state. No learning, no gradient updates, no adaptation. One configuration, eight domains. The eight test domains span a genuinely wide range: search-and-rescue dialogue, spatial grid exploration, hierarchical capability acquisition, continuous robotic manipulation, and probabilistic intent estimation, among others. The headline result is that the friction channel reliably distinguished 'stuck spinning wheels' from 'productively exploring' before task completion, then went quiet after completion. This is the diagnostic the autonomy community has lacked — not planning what to observe, but monitoring whether observing is actually working. The closed-loop reinforcement learning experiments are where AST earns its stripes. Under early-termination constraints (the agent must decide when to stop), penalizing informational friction in the reward signal allowed agents to sustain high mission success. Unpenalized policies and baselines with matched operational costs failed to complete required tasks. This is a clean demonstration that the friction signal carries actionable information — it's not just a post-hoc diagnostic. The integrity picture is mixed. Eight domains is impressive breadth, but all validation is simulation-based, and the authors are grading their own homework. There's no independent replication, no pre-registration, and the domain interfaces — the one part that varies — are designed by the same team that built the monitor. The question of how much engineering effort those interfaces require in a genuinely novel domain is unaddressed. Code is stated as available, which helps. The real test ahead is whether AST's friction signal remains informative in high-dimensional, noisy, real-world sensor streams where the boundary between 'stuck' and 'carefully re-examining' is genuinely ambiguous. The paper demonstrates the concept cleanly in controlled environments. The gap to deployment on a physical search-and-rescue drone with degraded GPS and partial occlusions is significant but plausibly bridgeable.