Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the concept of flash endurance in embodied agents, treating it as a depreciating asset that impacts memory management strategies. By introducing a single endurance shadow price, the authors develop a cost-minimizing index for memory placement across various storage hierarchies, revealing that the optimal memory allocation is influenced by the value-write association, which varies depending on the deployment context. Key findings indicate that while the endurance budget is critical for lower-end hardware, the relationship between task value and memory placement remains complex and not fully realized in practice.
Robots may misallocate their most valuable memories due to the complex interplay between flash endurance and task value, leading to suboptimal performance.
A robot's flash endurance is a non-renewable stock: every persisted write spends one of a few thousand program/erase cycles and never refills, yet no fielded robot memory system prices which memories are worth an erase cycle. We treat embodied memory as depreciating capital and price that stock with a single endurance shadow price $畏$, which makes cost-minimizing placement across a RAM / on-board NVM / cloud hierarchy a threshold in a wear-augmented per-byte index. The index is cost-optimal whatever the sign of the value-write association $蠂$; only when $蠂> 0$ does the optimum turn non-monotone, sending a robot's most valuable memories off its flash. The pivot is thus empirical, and we measure $蠂$ on real robot logs at a pre-specified gate: its sign is a property of the deployment regime -- positive on recurrent long-horizon manipulation ($\hat蠂 \approx +1.0 \times 10^{-3}$, replicated at full power), null on a shorter-horizon suite, and negative on non-recurrent teleoperation. Two boundaries scope the result. The endurance budget is dormant on premium 3,000-P/E TLC at datasheet prices and binding on the commodity QLC/eMMC ($\sim$1,000 P/E) that cheaper edge robots run. And where it binds, a learned wear-aware controller only ties price-based routing on task value, because realized value is tier-invariant across RAM, NVM, and cloud: the rent governs device lifetime and cost, not task performance. Whether wear-aware placement improves task value remains open -- $蠂$ is measured against a value proxy, and the non-monotone optimum, while proven, is not yet observed in data.
