Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 7 cited by

DexForce: Extracting Force-informed Actions from Kinesthetic Demonstrations for Dexterous Manipulation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Imitation learning for contact-rich dexterous manipulation succeeds when actions are computed from measured contact forces, and the force-informed target $x_f = x_o + k_f f$ is the action representation that makes it work.

desk verdict Useful new method for collecting contact-rich dexterous demonstrations; the headline comparison needs seed variance, though the effect likely holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10356 v2 pith:43ZNVD6S submitted 2025-01-17 cs.RO

Claire Chen , Zhongchun Yu , Hojung Choi , Mark Cutkosky , Jeannette Bohg This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords force-informedactionskinestheticdemonstrationdexterousmanipulationimitationlearningcontact-richimpedancecontrolforce-torquesensingdiffusionpolicy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that for contact-rich dexterous manipulation, the right way to define actions in imitation learning is to compute them from measured contact forces rather than from fingertip positions alone. It introduces DexForce, which converts kinesthetic demonstrations on an instrumented robot hand into force-informed position targets $x_f = x_o + k_f f$ by augmenting observed fingertip positions with a term proportional to the measured contact force. When these targets are tracked by an impedance controller and used to train diffusion policies, the resulting policies succeed on average 76% of the time across six tasks, while policies trained on raw fingertip positions have near-zero success. The paper also shows that adding 6-axis force data to policy observations never hurts and helps most on tasks that demand precise, coordinated contact, such as opening an AirPods case and unscrewing a nut.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the force-informed target $x_f = x_o + k_f f$, a per-finger desired position computed by shifting the observed fingertip position $x_o$ along the measured contact force $f$ scaled by a scalar stiffness $k_f$. It converts a kinesthetic demonstration, which contains only states (positions and forces), into actions: when the Cartesian impedance controller tracks $x_f$, the first term of its control law, $F = k_p(x_d - x_c) - k_v \dot{x}_c$, turns the displacement $x_f - x_c$ into an applied force. The identity that makes this work is the quasi-static spring relation between commanded position error and contact force, so the same $k_f$ is used in both demonstration replay (Stage 2) and policy runtime. The paper's sensitivity analysis shows a whole interval of $k_f$ values succeeds for each task and these intervals overlap, so the parameter does not need task-specific tuning.

What would settle it

Take a kinesthetic demonstration of a task with significant tangential friction, such as sliding a cube while pressing down, and replay the force-informed target trajectory with $k_f = 0.0045$ while measuring the actual 6-axis force at the fingertip. If the reconstructed contact force directionally deviates from the demonstration's measured force and the deviation grows with the friction component, the single-scalar stiffness assumption fails exactly on tasks that need coordinated tangential forces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Measured contact forces from kinesthetic demonstrations contain information that observed positions do not: the same fingertip pose can coincide with very different applied forces. DexForce extracts this information into the action space by computing a force-informed target for each finger, $x_f = x_o + k_f f$, where $x_o$ is the recorded fingertip position, $f$ the measured contact force exerted by the finger on the object, and $k_f$ a single hand-tuned stiffness. The claim is that commanding the impedance controller to track $x_f$ reproduces both the motion and the force profile of the demonstration, and that policies supervising on these targets learn contact-rich skills that policies supervising on observed positions cannot. The evidence is a six-task evaluation on an Allegro hand with fingertip force-torque sensors: force-informed action policies average 76% success, position-only policies average near zero, and 6-axis force observations give the largest gains on the most force-sensitive tasks, with binary contact signals performing no better than no force signal at all.

Load-bearing premise

The entire pipeline rests on the quasi-static spring model $x_f = x_o + k_f f$: contact forces are assumed proportional to commanded position error through one scalar stiffness, ignoring soft contact and friction; if real contacts do not follow this relation, the force-informed targets will not reproduce the demonstration's forces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Force-informed action extraction is what makes imitation learning succeed on contact-rich dexterous tasks; position-only actions collapse to near-zero success, so the action representation, not just the observation, determines learnability.
  • Including 6-axis force and moment data in policy observations is never harmful and yields large gains on tasks requiring precision and coordination; binary contact signals do not capture what is needed.
  • Because the admissible $k_f$ intervals overlap across all six tasks, a single stiffness parameter suffices for the whole suite, and DexForce does not require per-task tuning.
  • Replaying force-informed targets preserves enough of the demonstration's force profile to generate successful robot-only demonstrations, making the two-stage collection procedure with wrist-camera images feasible.
  • DexForce extends to tasks with contact switching and no fixed grasp, which earlier kinesthetic-teaching force methods could not handle without task-specific heuristics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 76% versus near-zero gap is robust, the dominant failure mode in teleoperation-based data collection for dexterous hands may be the action space itself rather than state coverage; adding force-shifted targets to existing retargeting pipelines could inherit this benefit at scale.
  • The single-scalar spring model suggests a testable generalization: replacing $k_f$ with a per-contact compliance that depends on normal direction or contact area should improve force reconstruction on soft or frictional contacts, and a principled way to select $k_f$ from measured kinematics would remove the main tuning knob.
  • The correlation the paper observes between task force-sensitivity and the benefit of force observations could be turned into a predictor: tasks with small admissible $k_f$ ranges are the ones where force observations matter most, so a short replay sweep could estimate the expected observation gain for a new task.
  • DexForce's two-stage procedure still requires a human operator; a semi-automated variant that replaces Stage 1 kinesthetic examples with scripted or RL-generated force profiles, keeping only the replay stage, would test whether the force-informed action representation alone, rather than the human demonstration, is what drives success.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents DexForce, a demonstration-collection method for dexterous manipulation that converts kinesthetic demonstrations into force-informed actions. The action at each timestep is a fingertip position target x_f = x_o + k_f f, where x_o is the observed fingertip position and f is the measured contact force; tracking this target with a Cartesian impedance controller is intended to reproduce the demonstrated forces. Demonstrations are collected in two stages: first, force-informed targets are extracted from human kinesthetic manipulation; second, these targets are replayed by the robot to obtain robot-only image observations. Diffusion Policies are then trained on these demonstrations. Across six contact-rich tasks, policies trained on force-informed targets achieve an average 76% success rate, while a baseline trained on raw observed fingertip positions has near-zero success. Additional experiments ablate force observations and analyze sensitivity to the stiffness parameter k_f.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it demonstrates that the action representation itself, not just the observation, must encode contact forces for contact-rich dexterous manipulation, and it provides a simple, hardware-feasible way to compute such actions from kinesthetic demonstrations. The main experiment is internally consistent, and the ablation and sensitivity analysis (Figs. 8 and 9) are appropriate and informative. The k_f sensitivity study is a particular strength: it shows a permissive range of stiffness values across tasks, which supports the robustness of the spring-model approximation. The paper does not provide code or machine-checked proofs, but the method description is sufficiently clear for replication. The principal weakness is the lack of statistical reporting for the headline comparison, which currently makes the central quantitative claim under-supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Question 1; Fig. 7] The headline claim that force-informed actions achieve 76% average success while position-only actions achieve near-zero success is based on point estimates with no reported variance across training seeds and no significance test. Because Diffusion Policies are stochastic, a single seed per condition can yield success rates far from the mean, especially for a near-zero baseline where a few accidental successes qualitatively change the rate. Since all policies are evaluated on the same 30 initial configurations, a paired statistical test (e.g., McNemar's test) or confidence intervals over multiple training seeds for each task is needed to support the central quantitative claim. Please report the number of seeds, mean and standard deviation (or per-seed results), and a suitable test for the comparison in Fig. 7.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (3); Section IV, Question 1] The stiffness k_f was tuned (k_f = 0.0045) so that Stage-2 replays succeed, whereas the observed-position baseline in Question 1 has no comparable free parameter. This asymmetry makes the comparison in Fig. 7 less direct than it appears: the force-informed condition benefits from task-success-based parameter selection while the baseline does not. The sensitivity analysis in Fig. 9 shows a broad range of acceptable k_f values, which mitigates concerns about fragility, but the paper should explicitly discuss whether the position-only baseline is disadvantaged by lacking an equivalent tunable scale or offset, and ideally evaluate a position-only action with a simple tuned parameter (e.g., a constant offset or gain) to confirm that the advantage is due to force information rather than to the tuning procedure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, Question 2] In the third observation-ablation bullet, 'RGB only: RBG image features only' contains a typo: 'RBG' should be 'RGB'.
  2. [References] Reference [12] is incomplete: 'arXiv preprint arXiv:240' is cut off and should include the full identifier.
  3. [Section IV, Question 1] For unscrew nut, the observed-position policy achieves 23/30 partial successes; please include partial-success rates in Fig. 7 or the text, because 'near-zero success' refers only to full successes and the partial successes provide important context for interpreting the baseline's behavior.
  4. [Section III, Eq. (3)] The scalar k_f is named similarly to the force vector f; consider using a different symbol (e.g., α) or explicitly stating 'scalar stiffness' at every use to avoid confusion.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (1)] The controller gains k_p and k_v are given as numbers without units; please specify their units or state that they are dimensionless gains for the Allegro hand's impedance control.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the force-informed action claim is supported by an empirical ablation, a sensitivity analysis, and held-out evaluations rather than by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison (Question 1) is between policies trained on force-informed targets xf = xo + kf f and policies trained on observed fingertip positions xo. The force-informed target is deliberately constructed from measured force using Eq. (3) and the impedance controller Eq. (1), so its ability to apply force in contact is by design; however, the paper does not present this as a prediction from first principles. The claim that force-informed actions are critical is an empirical result: policies are evaluated on 30 random initial object configurations per task, the baseline position-only policies have near-zero success, and the stiffness parameter kf is subjected to a sweep in Question 3 showing a permissive range with a minimum greater than zero. The hand-tuning of kf for replay success does not force the policy-learning result, because the policy evaluation uses unseen configurations and the sensitivity analysis demonstrates robustness. The only self-citations ([43] CoinFT force-torque sensor, [44] camera mounting) are equipment references and are not load-bearing for the derivation. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The headline '76% vs near-zero' may raise statistical robustness concerns, but that is a correctness/evidence issue, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on a simple spring-based mapping from force to position offset, a set of controller gains, and the assumption that fingertip-mounted sensors measure true contact forces. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • kf (force-to-displacement stiffness) = 0.0045
    Hand-tuned scalar in Eq. (3); chosen so Stage 2 replays succeed. Sensitivity analysis shows a permissible range per task, so the exact value is not tightly constrained, but it is still a fitted constant.
  • kp (impedance stiffness gain) = 310
    Tuned so fingertips track desired positions in free space; affects force generation during contact, held fixed across tasks.
  • kv (impedance damping gain) = 2
    Tuned controller damping; held fixed across tasks.
  • Contact threshold for binary signal = 0.55 N
    Used only in the RGB,0/1 observation ablation; chosen by hand to define contact.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quasi-static spring model: xf = xo + kf f accurately maps desired force to position offset for impedance control
    Assumed in Eq. (3); authors note it ignores soft contact and friction and justify it empirically.
  • standard math Impedance control law Eq. (1) with gains kp, kv produces the commanded forces when tracking xf
    Standard impedance control; parameters tuned manually.
  • domain assumption Fingertip base force-torque sensors measure contact forces at the fingertips
    Instrumentation assumption; forces applied above the sensor by the operator do not affect measurements, as stated in Fig. 1a caption.
  • domain assumption Stage 2 replay with the same controller produces robot-only demonstrations that match test-time observation distribution
    Justifies replacing kinesthetic images with replay images for policy training.
  • domain assumption Kinesthetic teaching with up to two fingers is sufficient to demonstrate the six tasks
    Limits tasks to one- and two-finger extrinsic dexterity; stated in Section IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DexForce: Extracting Force-informed Actions from Kinesthetic Demonstrations for Dexterous Manipulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/43ZNVD6S

@misc{pith2026250110356,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DexForce: Extracting Force-informed Actions from Kinesthetic Demonstrations for Dexterous Manipulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/43ZNVD6S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10356}
}
read the original abstract

Imitation learning requires high-quality demonstrations consisting of sequences of state-action pairs. For contact-rich dexterous manipulation tasks that require dexterity, the actions in these state-action pairs must produce the right forces. Current widely-used methods for collecting dexterous manipulation demonstrations are difficult to use for demonstrating contact-rich tasks due to unintuitive human-to-robot motion retargeting and the lack of direct haptic feedback. Motivated by these concerns, we propose DexForce. DexForce leverages contact forces, measured during kinesthetic demonstrations, to compute force-informed actions for policy learning. We collect demonstrations for six tasks and show that policies trained on our force-informed actions achieve an average success rate of 76% across all tasks. In contrast, policies trained directly on actions that do not account for contact forces have near-zero success rates. We also conduct a study ablating the inclusion of force data in policy observations. We find that while using force data never hurts policy performance, it helps most for tasks that require advanced levels of precision and coordination, like opening an AirPods case and unscrewing a nut.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10356 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) DexForce extracts force-informed actions (orange squares) from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The left column shows kinesthetic demonstrations where the operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The DexForce two-stage demonstration collection procedure, illustrated with a one-finger task where the robot must slide a purple square along a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Task names, descriptions, example trajectories, success criteria, and number of training demonstrations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In our demonstrations, we randomly initialize object poses within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hardware setup - Robot: Allegro hand; Camera: wrist-mounted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Force observation ablation results for six in-distribution evaluations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Sensitivity analysis of kf for each task. Each bar represents the average ranges of kf that result in successful DexForce demonstrations, across five unique kinesthetic demonstrations. We also show the standard deviations of the minimum and maximum kf values. For a giv…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. FACET: Force-Adaptive Control via Impedance Reference Tracking for Legged Robots

    cs.RO 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    FACET trains legged robots to track a virtual mass-spring-damper reference, so the user can tune stiffness and virtual mass to control how the robot yields to or applies forces.

  2. DexDirect: Direct Kinesthetic Arm Guidance for Efficient Dexterous Demonstration Collection

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A hybrid kinesthetic-arm-plus-webcam-hand teleoperation interface achieved 17x/3x higher demonstration throughput than vision baselines and trained a 90%-success pick-and-place policy in a ten-person study.

  3. TA-VLA: Elucidating the Design Space of Torque-aware Vision-Language-Action Models

    cs.RO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Feeding torque history as a single decoder token and adding torque prediction as an auxiliary objective improves pretrained VLA success rates on contact-rich manipulation, with large gains on button pushing and charge...

  4. Unfettered Forceful Skill Acquisition with Physical Reasoning and Coordinate Frame Labeling

    cs.RO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Overlaying coordinate frames on robot camera images lets a general-purpose vision-language model generate executable wrench commands, achieving 51% zero-shot success on four manipulation tasks and revealing that embod...

  5. Crossing the Human-Robot Embodiment Gap with Sim-to-Real RL using One Human Demonstration

    cs.RO 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A single human RGB-D video, reduced to an object pose trajectory and one pre-manipulation hand pose, suffices to train zero-shot sim-to-real RL policies for dexterous manipulation.

  6. DOGlove: Dexterous Manipulation with a Low-Cost Open-Source Haptic Force Feedback Glove

    cs.RO 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DOGlove is a low-cost, open-source haptic glove for dexterous teleoperation that improves performance on contact-rich tasks and supplies demonstrations for imitation learning.

  7. An Optimization-Augmented Control Framework for Single and Coordinated Multi-Arm Robotic Manipulation

    cs.RO 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A multi-modal controller that switches between optimization-based planning and force control completes simulated single-arm, bimanual, and four-arm manipulation tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Learning Fine-Grained Bimanual Manipulation with Low-Cost Hardware,

    T. Z. Zhao, V . Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn, “Learning Fine-Grained Bimanual Manipulation with Low-Cost Hardware,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems , Daegu, Republic of Korea, July 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Aloha unleashed: A simple recipe for robot dexterity,

    T. Z. Zhao, J. Tompson, D. Driess, P. Florence, K. Ghasemipour, C. Finn, and A. Wahid, “Aloha unleashed: A simple recipe for robot dexterity,” 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,

    C. Chi, S. Feng, Y . Du, Z. Xu, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song, “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Recent advances in robot learning from demonstration,

    H. Ravichandar, A. S. Polydoros, S. Chernova, and A. Billard, “Recent advances in robot learning from demonstration,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 3, no. V olume 3, 2020, pp. 297–330, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Holo-dex: Teaching dexterity with immersive mixed reality,

    S. P. Arunachalam, I. G ¨uzey, S. Chintala, and L. Pinto, “Holo-dex: Teaching dexterity with immersive mixed reality,” 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Open-television: Teleoperation with immersive active visual feedback,

    X. Cheng, J. Li, S. Yang, G. Yang, and X. Wang, “Open-television: Teleoperation with immersive active visual feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01512, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Dexpilot: Vision based tele- operation of dexterous robotic hand-arm system,

    A. Handa, K. V . Wyk, W. Yang, J. Liang, Y .-W. Chao, Q. Wan, S. Birchfield, N. Ratliff, and D. Fox, “Dexpilot: Vision based tele- operation of dexterous robotic hand-arm system,” 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Open teach: A versatile teleoperation system for robotic manipulation,

    A. Iyer, Z. Peng, Y . Dai, I. Guzey, S. Haldar, S. Chintala, and L. Pinto, “Open teach: A versatile teleoperation system for robotic manipulation,” 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Anyteleop: A general vision-based dexterous robot arm- hand teleoperation system,

    Y . Qin, W. Yang, B. Huang, K. Van Wyk, H. Su, X. Wang, Y .-W. Chao, and D. Fox, “Anyteleop: A general vision-based dexterous robot arm- hand teleoperation system,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Eyesight hand: Design of a fully-actuated dexterous robot hand with integrated vision- based tactile sensors and compliant actuation,

    B. Romero, H.-S. Fang, P. Agrawal, and E. Adelson, “Eyesight hand: Design of a fully-actuated dexterous robot hand with integrated vision- based tactile sensors and compliant actuation,” 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Bimanual dexterity for complex tasks,

    K. Shaw, Y . Li, J. Yang, M. K. Srirama, R. Liu, H. Xiong, R. Men- donca, and D. Pathak, “Bimanual dexterity for complex tasks,” in 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Ace: A cross-platfrom visual-exoskeletons for low-cost dexterous teleoperation,

    S. Yang, M. Liu, Y . Qin, D. Runyu, L. Jialong, X. Cheng, R. Yang, S. Yi, and X. Wang, “Ace: A cross-platfrom visual-exoskeletons for low-cost dexterous teleoperation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:240 , 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Bunny-visionpro: Real-time bimanual dexterous teleoperation for imitation learning,

    R. Ding, Y . Qin, J. Zhu, C. Jia, S. Yang, R. Yang, X. Qi, and X. Wang, “Bunny-visionpro: Real-time bimanual dexterous teleoperation for imitation learning,” 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Designing anthropomorphic soft hands through interaction,

    P. Mannam, K. Shaw, D. Bauer, J. Oh, D. Pathak, and N. Pollard, “Designing anthropomorphic soft hands through interaction,” 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Dexcap: Scalable and portable mocap data collection system for dexterous manipulation,

    C. Wang, H. Shi, W. Wang, R. Zhang, L. Fei-Fei, and C. K. Liu, “Dexcap: Scalable and portable mocap data collection system for dexterous manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07788 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Arcap: Collecting high-quality human demonstrations for robot learning with augmented reality feedback,

    S. Chen, C. Wang, K. Nguyen, L. Fei-Fei, and C. K. Liu, “Arcap: Collecting high-quality human demonstrations for robot learning with augmented reality feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08464 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Tilde: Teleoperation for dexterous in-hand manipulation learning with a deltahand,

    Z. Si, K. L. Zhang, Z. Temel, and O. Kroemer, “Tilde: Teleoperation for dexterous in-hand manipulation learning with a deltahand,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18804, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Human to robot whole-body motion transfer,

    M. Arduengo, A. Arduengo, A. Colome, J. Lobo-Prat, and C. Torras, “Human to robot whole-body motion transfer,” in2020 IEEE-RAS 20th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids) . IEEE, Jul. 2021, p. 299–305

    2021

  11. [19]

    Gello: A general, low- cost, and intuitive teleoperation framework for robot manipulators,

    P. Wu, Y . Shentu, Z. Yi, X. Lin, and P. Abbeel, “Gello: A general, low- cost, and intuitive teleoperation framework for robot manipulators,” 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Haptic feedback enhances force skill learning,

    D. Morris, H. Tan, F. Barbagli, T. Chang, and K. Salisbury, “Haptic feedback enhances force skill learning,” in Second Joint EuroHaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environ- ment and Teleoperator Systems (WHC’07) , 2007, pp. 21–26

    2007

  13. [21]

    Early exposure to haptic feedback enhances per- formance in surgical simulator training: A prospective randomized crossover study in surgical residents,

    P. Str ¨om, L. Hedman, L. S ¨arn˚a, A. Kjellin, T. Wredmark, and L. Fell ¨ander-Tsai, “Early exposure to haptic feedback enhances per- formance in surgical simulator training: A prospective randomized crossover study in surgical residents,” Surgical endoscopy , vol. 20, pp. 13...

    2006

  14. [22]

    Respilot: Teleoperated finger gaiting via gaussian process residual learning,

    P. Naughton, J. Cui, K. Patel, and S. Iba, “Respilot: Teleoperated finger gaiting via gaussian process residual learning,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    A gripper-like exoskeleton design for robot grasping demonstration,

    H. Dai, Z. Lu, M. He, and C. Yang, “A gripper-like exoskeleton design for robot grasping demonstration,” in Actuators, vol. 12, no. 1. MDPI, 2023, p. 39

    2023

  16. [24]

    Visual-tactile robot grasping based on human skill learning from demonstrations using a wearable parallel hand exoskeleton,

    Z. Lu, L. Chen, H. Dai, H. Li, Z. Zhao, B. Zheng, N. F. Lepora, and C. Yang, “Visual-tactile robot grasping based on human skill learning from demonstrations using a wearable parallel hand exoskeleton,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    A wearable robotic hand for hand-over-hand im- itation learning,

    D. Wei and H. Xu, “A wearable robotic hand for hand-over-hand im- itation learning,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 18 113–18 119

    2024

  18. [26]

    Learning object-level impedance control for robust grasping and dexterous manipulation,

    M. Li, H. Yin, K. Tahara, and A. Billard, “Learning object-level impedance control for robust grasping and dexterous manipulation,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014, pp. 6784–6791

    2014

  19. [27]

    Haptic exploration of unknown objects for robust in-hand manipulation,

    G. Solak and L. Jamone, “Haptic exploration of unknown objects for robust in-hand manipulation,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics , vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 400–411, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Online movement adaptation based on previous sensor experiences,

    P. Pastor, L. Righetti, M. Kalakrishnan, and S. Schaal, “Online movement adaptation based on previous sensor experiences,” in 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2011, pp. 365–371

    2011

  21. [29]

    Imitation learning of positional and force skills demonstrated via kinesthetic teaching and haptic input,

    S. C. Petar Kormushev and D. G. Caldwell, “Imitation learning of positional and force skills demonstrated via kinesthetic teaching and haptic input,” Advanced Robotics , vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 581–603, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Learning compliant manipulation through kinesthetic and tactile human-robot interaction,

    K. Kronander and A. Billard, “Learning compliant manipulation through kinesthetic and tactile human-robot interaction,” IEEE Trans- actions on Haptics , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 367–380, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Forcemimic: Force-centric imitation learning with force-motion capture system for contact-rich manipulation,

    W. Liu, J. Wang, Y . Wang, W. Wang, and C. Lu, “Forcemimic: Force-centric imitation learning with force-motion capture system for contact-rich manipulation,” in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Adaptive compliance policy: Learning approximate compliance for diffusion guided control,

    Y . Hou, Z. Liu, C. Chi, E. Cousineau, N. Kuppuswamy, S. Feng, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song, “Adaptive compliance policy: Learning approximate compliance for diffusion guided control,” 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Multimodal and force-matched imitation learning with a see-through visuotactile sensor,

    T. Ablett, O. Limoyo, A. Sigal, A. Jilani, J. Kelly, K. Siddiqi, F. Hogan, and G. Dudek, “Multimodal and force-matched imitation learning with a see-through visuotactile sensor,” 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Training robots without robots: Deep imitation learning for master-to-robot policy transfer,

    H. Kim, Y . Ohmura, A. Nagakubo, and Y . Kuniyoshi, “Training robots without robots: Deep imitation learning for master-to-robot policy transfer,” 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Feeling the force: Integrating force and pose for fluent discovery through imitation learning to open medicine bottles,

    M. Edmonds, F. Gao, X. Xie, H. Liu, S. Qi, Y . Zhu, B. Rothrock, and S.-C. Zhu, “Feeling the force: Integrating force and pose for fluent discovery through imitation learning to open medicine bottles,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems ...

    2017

  28. [36]

    Few-shot learning of force-based motions from demonstration through pre- training of haptic representation,

    M. Y . Aoyama, J. Moura, N. Saito, and S. Vijayakumar, “Few-shot learning of force-based motions from demonstration through pre- training of haptic representation,” 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Survey of learning-based approaches for robotic in-hand manipulation,

    A. I. Weinberg, A. Shirizly, O. Azulay, and A. Sintov, “Survey of learning-based approaches for robotic in-hand manipulation,” 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Lessons from learning to spin “pens

    J. Wang, Y . Yuan, H. Che, H. Qi, Y . Ma, J. Malik, and X. Wang, “Lessons from learning to spin “pens”,” in CoRL, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Surprisingly Ro- bust In-Hand Manipulation: An Empirical Study,

    A. Bhatt, A. Sieler, S. Puhlmann, and O. Brock, “Surprisingly Ro- bust In-Hand Manipulation: An Empirical Study,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems , Virtual, July 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Impedance control: An approach to manipulation,

    N. Hogan, “Impedance control: An approach to manipulation,” in 1984 American Control Conference , 1984, pp. 304–313

    1984

  33. [41]

    Siciliano and O

    B. Siciliano and O. Khatib, Eds., Springer Handbook of Robotics . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008

    2008

  34. [42]

    Passivity-based stability in explicit force control of robots,

    R. Balachandran, M. Jorda, J. Artigas, J.-H. Ryu, and O. Khatib, “Passivity-based stability in explicit force control of robots,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2017, pp. 386–393

    2017

  35. [43]

    Coinft: A coin-sized, capacitive 6-axis force torque sensor for robotic applications,

    H. Choi, J. E. Low, T. M. Huh, G. A. Uribe, S. Hong, K. A. W. Hoffman, J. Di, T. G. Chen, A. A. Stanley, and M. R. Cutkosky, “Coinft: A coin-sized, capacitive 6-axis force torque sensor for robotic applications,” 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Tidybot++: An open-source holonomic mobile manipulator for robot learning,

    J. Wu, W. Chong, R. Holmberg, A. Prasad, Y . Gao, O. Khatib, S. Song, S. Rusinkiewicz, and J. Bohg, “Tidybot++: An open-source holonomic mobile manipulator for robot learning,” in Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Rotating without seeing: Towards in-hand dexterity through touch,

    Z.-H. Yin, B. Huang, Y . Qin, Q. Chen, and X. Wang, “Rotating without seeing: Towards in-hand dexterity through touch,” Robotics: Science and Systems , 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Universal manipulation interface: In-the-wild robot teaching without in-the-wild robots,

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, C. Pan, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, S. Feng, R. Tedrake, and S. Song, “Universal manipulation interface: In-the-wild robot teaching without in-the-wild robots,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.