pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02523 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-02 · 💻 cs.RO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Tune to Learn: How Controller Gains Shape Robot Policy Learning

Antonia Bronars , Younghyo Park , Pulkit Agrawal
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 20:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords robot learningposition controlbehavior cloningreinforcement learningsim-to-real transfercontroller gainspolicy learningmanipulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Controller gains for robot policy learning should be chosen according to the learning method rather than the target task stiffness.

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

The paper examines how the numerical gains on position controllers change the outcomes of three common robot learning pipelines. Experiments across tasks and robot bodies show that behavior cloning succeeds more readily with compliant overdamped settings, reinforcement learning reaches success in every gain regime once hyperparameters are matched to it, and sim-to-real transfer degrades under stiff overdamped gains. The key shift is that stiffness no longer comes from the controller alone; it emerges from the learned policy reacting through the controller. A reader cares because position controllers are now the standard way to run learned policies, so choosing gains by the wrong criterion wastes effort or prevents learning altogether.

Core claim

Systematic tests demonstrate that position controller gains affect learnability differently across paradigms: behavior cloning benefits from compliant and overdamped regimes, reinforcement learning succeeds across all regimes when hyperparameters are tuned compatibly, and sim-to-real transfer is harmed by stiff and overdamped regimes. Effective stiffness therefore arises from the interplay between the learned reactions and the control dynamics rather than from the gains in isolation.

What carries the argument

Position controller gains viewed as a learnability filter that modulates the interaction between the policy output and the robot's closed-loop dynamics in behavior cloning, reinforcement learning, and sim-to-real pipelines.

If this is right

  • Behavior cloning performs reliably only when the controller is set to compliant and overdamped gains.
  • Reinforcement learning from scratch can succeed in any gain regime once its hyperparameters are adjusted to that regime.
  • Sim-to-real transfer success drops when stiff and overdamped gain settings are used.
  • Gain selection must be decided by the learning paradigm in use rather than by the compliance desired at execution time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Practitioners should decide controller gains at the start of a project once they have chosen imitation learning versus reinforcement learning.
  • The same gain-paradigm dependence may appear when other low-level controllers such as velocity or torque interfaces are substituted for position control.
  • Policy architectures that explicitly model the controller dynamics could reduce or eliminate the need for separate gain tuning.

Load-bearing premise

The tested tasks, robots, and hyperparameter regimes are representative enough that the observed patterns will hold for other manipulation settings and learning algorithms.

What would settle it

Repeating the exact experimental protocol on a different robot embodiment or task and finding that behavior cloning performs best under stiff gains instead of compliant ones would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02523 by Antonia Bronars, Pulkit Agrawal, Younghyo Park.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Different robot learning paradigms prefer different controller gain interfaces. Colored regions indicate gain regimes where each paradigm succeeds. Contrary to conven￾tional wisdom of tuning gains for desired task compliance, optimal gains depend on the learning paradigm. Based on our experimental findings, heatmaps illustrate representative gain preferences for (a) behavior cloning, which favors compliant… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Controller gains induce diverse action–response dynamics. We evaluate a broad range of representative gain configurations and their resulting dynamic responses to assess their impact on learnability. Once we recognize controller gains as learning interface parameters rather than behavioral parameters, the design ques￾tion becomes: which interface properties facilitate learning? And critically, do different… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Tracking response curves from existing robot datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Task-level impedance can be decoupled from low￾level controller gains with learned policies. A learned policy can achieve (a) compliant behavior despite stiff low-level gains, and (b) stiff behavior despite compliant gains. characteristic of stiff controllers. This pattern was prevalent across datasets, suggesting stiff gains have become an implicit default in data collection. III. DECOUPLING GAINS FROM TA… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Box Pushing Task. fixed goal pose. We chose this task because it requires both precision and sustained contact, yet remains achiev￾able even under unintuitive gain configurations. A critical consideration is that the mapping from user input to commanded position target, ϕ(u, x) → xdes ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Behavior cloning prefers compliant and overdamped controller gains. Closed-loop rollout success rates across a grid of proportional (Kp) and derivative (Kd) gains for diverse manipulation tasks and robot embodiments. Each heatmap reports success averaged over evaluation rollouts. Across tasks, higher success rate (darker red) consistently concentrates in the compliant, overdamped regime (upper-left), while… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Any teleoperation system requires a mapping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Compliant controllers attenuate action errors. (a) Vali￾dation MSE loss during training: compliant gains yield higher loss, while stiff gains achieve lower loss. (b) Open-loop success rate under action noise: compliant gains maintain high success while stiff gains completely fail. (c) Compliant gains keep the perturbed trajectory close to the original, while (d) stiff gains cause large deviations that lead… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Teleoperation performance under different gain regimes. With optimized input mapping ϕ ⋆ (K) (Eq. 7), compliant and over￾damped controllers (grid top-left) achieve similar or better success rates, user ratings, and shorter completion time to stiffer settings. MSE), but the controller attenuates the resulting errors during execution, yielding better closed-loop performance. Result V-A-II (Effect on Teleoper… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: End-to-end BC pipeline still favors compliant and over￾damped gain regime. When data collection and policy training are performed end-to-end under each gain setting (see Section IV-A), the compliant, overdamped regime achieves the highest success rate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: RL training across gain regimes. (a–b) Success rate across the hyperparameter landscape varies among gain settings and tasks; policies with 95%+ success rate (green circles) are found across all conditions. (c–d) Sample efficiency and training stability of PPO is comparable across gain regimes for both tasks. B. Reinforcement Learning Result V-B-I (RL Solution Existence): Reinforcement learning can discov… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Stiff and overdamped gain settings yield lower SysID modeling errors, but exhibit larger closed-loop Sim2Real errors. Policy observations during closed-loop rollout evolve similarly be￾tween sim and real (b-left) for compliant, overdamped gains, but very dissimilarly (b-right) for stiff, overdamped gains. Result V-B-III (RL Sample Efficiency): Sample effi￾ciency and training stability are comparable acros… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Stiff and overdamped gain settings reduce sim2real transferability. The Sim2Real trajectory error (Eq.11) is consistently larger (light blue) in the stiff and overdamped regime (a-c). The primary Sim2Real failure mode is high-frequency oscillation (d). Result V-C-III (Effect of Policy Frequency): Lowering the policy frequency (increasing the zero-order-hold du￾ration ∆t per policy action) reduces the prev… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Jitter Failures vs. ∆t. We detect jitter failures by computing the maximum per￾joint standard deviation of joint velocity during the fi￾nal 2 seconds of each rollout, flagging trajectories exceed￾ing a threshold of 0.04 rad/s; this metric reliably separates the two modes, as settled roll￾outs have a median velocity standard deviation of 0.001 rad/s while jittering rollouts have a median of 0.675 rad/s. As… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Effective Cartesian stiffness throughout training for the two counterintuitive pairings. Despite 32× lower actuator stiffness, the stiff-behavior policy achieves ∼5× higher effective task-level stiffness than the compliant-behavior policy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Non-prehensile box manipulation task for the user study. A single trial of the task involves teleoperating the robot from a reset pose to make contact with the box, then pushing the box towards the goal. The task is complete when the green square is completely occluded by the box (b). As shown in Table II, H0 is rejected for every task with p ≪ αadj, providing strong evidence that the compliant-overdamped… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Five tasks for online RL solution existence proof. For each task, we trained a successful policy for 8+ gain configurations spanning the range of stiff / compliant, overdamped / underdamped. TABLE III: Action representation across RL tasks. Task qref(t) G1 G2 Gripper FR3 Joint-Reach q(t) q0–3 (elbow) q4–6 (wrist) – FR3 EE-Reach q(t) q0–3 (elbow) q4–6 (wrist) – FR3 Lift Cube q(t) q0–3 (elbow) q4–6 (wrist) … view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Action representation. The policy output is scaled by a per-joint-group vector α and added to a reference position qref to produce the position target qdes sent to the PD controller. 2) Action Representations: For all tasks, the position target sent to the low-level PD controller at each timestep is: qdes(t) = α ⊙ πθ(st) + qref(t) (26) α = [α1, . . . , α1 | {z } G1 , α2, . . . , α2 | {z } G2 ] where qref(… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: System identification result for sample gain settings in each gain regime. We show commanded positions (green), real-world achieved positions (orange), and simulation positions (blue) achieved with the optimal actuator parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Behavior cloning performance across dataset size. Success rate per gain setting for the Block Stack task. The preference for compliant and overdamped gain settings is maintained across dataset sizes (a-c). 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 Proportional Gain (Kp) 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 Derivative Gain (Kd) 0.04 0.24 0.14 0.18 0.41 0.36 0.29 0.28 0.43 0.33 0.40 0.31 0.56 0.31 0.48 0.19 0.93 0.79 0.66 0.65 0.50 0… view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Behavior cloning performance across policy architectures. Success rate per gain setting for the Block Stack task. The preference for compliant and overdamped gain settings is maintained across policy architectures (a-c). 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 Proportional Gain (Kp) 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 Derivative Gain (Kd) 0.36 0.11 0.08 0.30 0.69 0.31 0.52 0.45 0.44 0.22 0.25 0.53 0.39 0.41 0.49 0.34 0.62 0.80 0… view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Behavior cloning performance across action chunk size. Success rate per gain setting for the Block Stack task. The preference for compliant and overdamped gain settings is observed when predicting both single actions (a) and action chunks (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Behavior cloning performance across action representations. Success rate per gain setting for the Block Stack task. The preference for compliant and overdamped gain settings is observed when predicting both absolute (a) and relative (b) joint position actions. 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 Proportional Gain (Kp) 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 Derivative Gain (Kd) 0.36 0.11 0.08 0.30 0.69 0.31 0.52 0.45 0.44 0.22 0… view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Behavior cloning performance across control frequencies. Success rate per gain setting for the Block Stack task. The preference for compliant and overdamped gain settings is observed when predicting actions at 10Hz (a) and 50Hz (b). 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Dataset Size (episodes) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Success Rate CO (Compliant x Overdamped) SO (Stiff x Overdamped) SU (Stiff x Underdamped) CU (Complian… view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Offline imitation learning scales more favorably under compliant and overdamped gains. Success rate as a function of dataset size across tasks and robot embodiments. Policies trained with low stiffness and high damping achieve higher success with fewer demonstrations, while stiff or weakly damped controllers exhibit poorer data scaling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Stiff and overdamped gain settings reduce sim2real transferability. The Sim2Real trajectory error (Eq.11) is consistently larger (light blue) in the stiff and overdamped regime (a-c). 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 Proportional Gain (Kp) 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 Derivative Gain (Kd) 0.280 0.333 0.170 0.255 0.447 0.170 0.204 0.159 0.247 0.144 0.214 0.192 0.182 0.196 0.119 0.103 0.189 0.132 0.153 0.121 0.146 0.196 0.1… view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Stiff and overdamped gains increase Sim2Real NN error. The Sim2Real NN error (Eq.31) is consistently larger (light blue) in the stiff and overdamped regime (a-c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_30.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Position controllers have become the dominant interface for executing learned manipulation policies. Yet a critical design decision remains understudied: how should we choose controller gains for policy learning? The conventional wisdom is to select gains based on desired task compliance or stiffness. However, this logic breaks down when controllers are paired with state-conditioned policies: effective stiffness emerges from the interplay between learned reactions and control dynamics, not from gains alone. We argue that gain selection should instead be guided by learnability: how amenable different gain settings are to the learning algorithm in use. In this work, we systematically investigate how position controller gains affect three core components of modern robot learning pipelines: behavior cloning, reinforcement learning from scratch, and sim-to-real transfer. Through extensive experiments across multiple tasks and robot embodiments, we find that: (1) behavior cloning benefits from compliant and overdamped gain regimes, (2) reinforcement learning can succeed across all gain regimes given compatible hyperparameter tuning, and (3) sim-to-real transfer is harmed by stiff and overdamped gain regimes. These findings reveal that optimal gain selection depends not on the desired task behavior, but on the learning paradigm employed. Project website: https://younghyopark.me/tune-to-learn

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that position controller gains for learned robot manipulation policies should be selected based on learnability for the specific paradigm (behavior cloning, RL from scratch, or sim-to-real transfer) rather than conventional task-based compliance or stiffness requirements. It supports this via experiments across multiple tasks and robot embodiments showing that (1) behavior cloning benefits from compliant/overdamped gains, (2) RL succeeds across gain regimes when hyperparameters are compatibly tuned, and (3) sim-to-real transfer is harmed by stiff/overdamped regimes, concluding that optimal gains depend on the learning algorithm rather than desired task behavior.

Significance. If the reported patterns hold under broader conditions, the work provides actionable empirical guidance that could improve success rates in robot learning pipelines by decoupling gain choice from task physics. The multi-task, multi-embodiment experimental scope is a strength, offering concrete evidence against purely task-driven gain selection.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experiments (across tasks and embodiments)] The central claim that paradigm dictates gains independently of task behavior rests on the assumption that the tested tasks do not embed varying stiffness requirements; without explicit ablation varying target trajectories or adding stiffness objectives while holding the learning paradigm fixed, the decoupling cannot be isolated from task-specific effects.
  2. [RL experiments and hyperparameter details] For the RL result that it 'can succeed across all gain regimes given compatible hyperparameter tuning,' the manuscript must report the exact search ranges, number of trials, and exclusion criteria used to identify compatible tunings; otherwise the claim reduces to post-hoc selection rather than a general property of the paradigm.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the terms 'compliant,' 'overdamped,' and 'stiff' should be defined quantitatively (e.g., via damping ratio ranges or specific K_p/K_d values) rather than left qualitative.
  2. [Experimental setup] Provide the full list of tasks, robot platforms, and success metrics in a table for reproducibility; the current description is high-level.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and for recognizing the multi-task, multi-embodiment scope of our experiments. We address each major comment below with clarifications and proposed revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experiments (across tasks and embodiments)] The central claim that paradigm dictates gains independently of task behavior rests on the assumption that the tested tasks do not embed varying stiffness requirements; without explicit ablation varying target trajectories or adding stiffness objectives while holding the learning paradigm fixed, the decoupling cannot be isolated from task-specific effects.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit ablation holding the learning paradigm fixed while varying target stiffness or trajectory requirements would provide stronger isolation. Our current design instead demonstrates consistent paradigm-dependent patterns across a deliberately diverse set of tasks (pushing, grasping, insertion) and two robot embodiments with differing dynamics. This cross-task consistency is our primary evidence that gain effects are not reducible to task-specific stiffness demands. In the revision we will add a dedicated limitations paragraph acknowledging the absence of a controlled stiffness-objective ablation and will include additional discussion of how task selection was intended to mitigate this concern. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [RL experiments and hyperparameter details] For the RL result that it 'can succeed across all gain regimes given compatible hyperparameter tuning,' the manuscript must report the exact search ranges, number of trials, and exclusion criteria used to identify compatible tunings; otherwise the claim reduces to post-hoc selection rather than a general property of the paradigm.

    Authors: We accept this point. The original manuscript summarized the tuning process at a high level. In the revised version we will add a new subsection (or appendix) that explicitly lists: (i) the hyperparameter search ranges explored for each gain regime, (ii) the total number of trials per regime, and (iii) the quantitative success criteria and exclusion rules applied when declaring a tuning “compatible.” This documentation will make clear that the reported success across regimes rests on systematic search rather than post-hoc selection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical observations from controlled experiments

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental measurements of success rates and transfer performance under varying position controller gains for behavior cloning, RL, and sim-to-real pipelines across multiple tasks and robot embodiments. No mathematical derivations, parameter fits, or predictions are presented that reduce to the inputs by construction. Central claims rest on observed patterns (e.g., BC favoring compliant overdamped regimes) rather than self-definitional equations or load-bearing self-citations. The findings are falsifiable via new experiments and do not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical study with no mathematical derivation; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced or required.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5514 in / 1064 out tokens · 30021 ms · 2026-05-13T20:59:56.983675+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Nonasymptotic Theory of Gain-Dependent Error Dynamics in Behavior Cloning

    cs.RO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Nonasymptotic analysis shows compliant overdamped PD controllers minimize position error tails in behavior cloning by bounding gain-dependent amplification of sub-Gaussian action errors.

  2. A Nonasymptotic Theory of Gain-Dependent Error Dynamics in Behavior Cloning

    cs.RO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Nonasymptotic analysis shows sub-Gaussian action errors in behavior cloning propagate through gain-dependent closed-loop dynamics to produce sub-Gaussian position errors whose tail is governed by a proxy matrix and am...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A new feedback method for dynamic control of manipulators,

    M. Takegaki and S. Arimoto, “A new feedback method for dynamic control of manipulators,”ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 1981

    work page 1981

  2. [2]

    Pd control with desired gravity compensation of robotic manipulators: a review,

    R. Kelly, “Pd control with desired gravity compensation of robotic manipulators: a review,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 660– 672, 1997

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    On the role of the action space in robot manipulation learning and sim-to-real transfer,

    E. Aljalbout, F. Frank, M. Karl, and P. van der Smagt, “On the role of the action space in robot manipulation learning and sim-to-real transfer,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 5895–5902, Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2024.3398428

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2024.3398428 2024

  4. [4]

    Torque- based deep reinforcement learning for task-and-robot agnostic learning on bipedal robots using sim-to-real transfer,

    D. Kim, G. Berseth, M. Schwartz, and J. Park, “Torque- based deep reinforcement learning for task-and-robot agnostic learning on bipedal robots using sim-to-real transfer,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 10, p. 6251–6258, Oct. 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2023.3304561

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2023.3304561 2023

  5. [5]

    Action space design in reinforcement learn- ing for robot motor skills,

    J. Eßer, G. B. Margolis, O. Urbann, S. Kerner, and P. Agrawal, “Action space design in reinforcement learn- ing for robot motor skills,” in8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    A framework for autonomous impedance regulation of robots based on imitation learning and optimal control,

    Y . Wu, F. Zhao, T. Tao, and A. Ajoudani, “A framework for autonomous impedance regulation of robots based on imitation learning and optimal control,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 127–134, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Learning compliant ma- nipulation through kinesthetic and tactile human-robot interaction,

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

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Soft- mimic: Learning compliant whole-body control from examples,

    G. B. Margolis, M. Wang, N. Fey, and P. Agrawal, “Soft- mimic: Learning compliant whole-body control from examples,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17792, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Sail: Faster-than-demonstration ex- ecution of imitation learning policies,

    N. R. Arachchige, Z. Chen, W. Jung, W. C. Shin, R. Bansal, P. Barroso, Y . H. He, Y . C. Lin, B. Joffe, S. Kousiket al., “Sail: Faster-than-demonstration ex- ecution of imitation learning policies,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.11948, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Domain Randomization for Transferring Deep Neural Networks from Simulation to the Real World

    J. Tobin, R. Fong, A. Ray, J. Schneider, W. Zaremba, and P. Abbeel, “Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.06907

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Sim-to-real transfer of robotic control with dynamics randomization,

    X. B. Peng, M. Andrychowicz, W. Zaremba, and P. Abbeel, “Sim-to-real transfer of robotic control with dynamics randomization,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2018, p. 3803–3810. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2018.8460528

    work page doi:10.1109/icra.2018.8460528 2018

  12. [12]

    Solving rubik’s cube with a robot hand,

    OpenAI, I. Akkaya, M. Andrychowicz, M. Chociej, M. Litwin, B. McGrew, A. Petron, A. Paino, M. Plappert, G. Powell, R. Ribas, J. Schneider, N. Tezak, J. Tworek, P. Welinder, L. Weng, Q. Yuan, W. Zaremba, and L. Zhang, “Solving rubik’s cube with a robot hand,”

    work page

  13. [13]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910. 07113

    work page 1910

  14. [14]

    Robot learning from randomized simulations: A review,

    F. Muratore, F. Ramos, G. Turk, W. Yu, M. Gienger, and J. Peters, “Robot learning from randomized simulations: A review,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.00956

    work page arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Learning low-frequency motion control for robust and dynamic robot locomotion,

    S. Gangapurwala, L. Campanaro, and I. Havoutis, “Learning low-frequency motion control for robust and dynamic robot locomotion,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 5085–5091

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    DROID: A Large-Scale In-The-Wild Robot Manipulation Dataset

    A. Khazatsky, K. Pertsch, S. Nair, A. Balakrishna, S. Dasari, S. Karamcheti, S. Nasiriany, M. K. Srirama, L. Y . Chen, K. Elliset al., “Droid: A large-scale in-the-wild robot manipulation dataset,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12945, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Open x- embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models,

    Q. Vuong, S. Levine, H. R. Walke, K. Pertsch, A. Singh, R. Doshi, C. Xu, J. Luo, L. Tan, D. Shahet al., “Open x- embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models,” inTowards Generalist Robots: Learning Paradigms for Scalable Skill Acquisition@ CoRL2023, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,

    O. Khatib, “A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,”IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–53, 2003

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    Diffusion policy: Visuo- motor policy learning via action diffusion,

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y . Du, B. Burch- fiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song, “Diffusion policy: Visuo- motor policy learning via action diffusion,”The Interna- tional Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 44, no. 10-11, pp. 1684–1704, 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Automatic environment shaping is the next frontier in rl,

    Y . Park, G. B. Margolis, and P. Agrawal, “Automatic environment shaping is the next frontier in rl,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16186, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework,

    T. Akiba, S. Sano, T. Yanase, T. Ohta, and M. Koyama, “Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework,” inProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2019

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    skrl: Modular and flexible library for reinforcement learning,

    A. Serrano-Mu ˜noz, D. Chrysostomou, S. Bøgh, and N. Arana-Arexolaleiba, “skrl: Modular and flexible library for reinforcement learning,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 24, no. 254, pp. 1–9, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://jmlr.org/papers/v24/23-0112. html

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,”

    work page

  24. [24]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707. 06347

    work page

  25. [25]

    Isaac Lab: A GPU-Accelerated Simulation Framework for Multi-Modal Robot Learning

    NVIDIA, :, M. Mittal, P. Roth, J. Tigue, A. Richard, O. Zhang, P. Du, A. Serrano-Mu ˜noz, X. Yao, R. Zurbr ¨ugg, N. Rudin, L. Wawrzyniak, M. Rakhsha, A. Denzler, E. Heiden, A. Borovicka, O. Ahmed, I. Akinola, A. Anwar, M. T. Carlson, J. Y . Feng, A. Garg, R. Gasoto, L. Gulich, Y . Guo, M. Gussert, A. Hansen, M. Kulkarni, C. Li, W. Liu, V . Makoviychuk, G....

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Humanoid policy˜ human policy,

    R.-Z. Qiu, S. Yang, X. Cheng, C. Chawla, J. Li, T. He, G. Yan, D. J. Yoon, R. Hoque, L. Paulsen et al., “Humanoid policy˜ human policy,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13441, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video,

    K. Grauman, A. Westbury, E. Byrne, Z. Chavis, A. Furnari, R. Girdhar, J. Hamburger, H. Jiang, M. Liu, X. Liuet al., “Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 18 995–19 012

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    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 manipula- tion interface: In-the-wild robot teaching without in-the- wild robots,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10329, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    S. H. Crandall and W. D. Mark,Random vibration in mechanical systems. Academic Press, 2014

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Using apple vision pro to train and control robots,

    Y . Park and P. Agrawal, “Using apple vision pro to train and control robots,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/Improbable-AI/VisionProTeleop

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Dexhub and dart: Towards internet scale robot data collection,

    Y . Park, J. S. Bhatia, L. Ankile, and P. Agrawal, “Dexhub and dart: Towards internet scale robot data collection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02214, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    cmaes : A simple yet practical python library for cma-es,

    M. Nomura and M. Shibata, “cmaes : A simple yet practical python library for cma-es,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01373

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    aiofranka: Asyncio-based franka robot control,

    Y . Park, “aiofranka: Asyncio-based franka robot control,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ Improbable-AI/aiofranka APPENDIX A. Analytical Proof of Gain-Dependent Error Sensitivity We formalize the empirical observation that compliant and overdamped controller gains attenuate action prediction errors during behavior cloning. We analyze a sim...

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    For all tasks besides Block Stack, we collect 100 teleoperated demon- strations with the Apple Vision Pro [28, 29] for each task

    Task Descriptions:The six tasks we study are: Biman- ual Handover, Dishrack Unload, Dishrack Load, Dishwasher Open, Mug Hang, and Block Stack (Figure 16). For all tasks besides Block Stack, we collect 100 teleoperated demon- strations with the Apple Vision Pro [28, 29] for each task. For Block Stack, we use motion-planned trajectories. These demonstration...

    work page

  35. [35]

    Nominal Training Configuration:As a nominal con- figuration, we use V AE as a generative model with MLP network with observation size 10 and action chunk size 10, with privileged simulation states as inputs, using absolute joint as action space

    work page

  36. [36]

    Across (a) Bimanual Handover (b) Dishrack Unload (c) Dishrack Load (d) Dishwasher Open (e) Mug Hang (f) Block Stack Fig

    Ablation Training Configurations:We present ablation results across dataset size (Figure 23), policy architectures (Figure 24), action chunk size (Figure 25), action represen- tation (Figure 26), and control frequency (Figure 27). Across (a) Bimanual Handover (b) Dishrack Unload (c) Dishrack Load (d) Dishwasher Open (e) Mug Hang (f) Block Stack Fig. 16: S...

    work page

  37. [37]

    As shown in Fig

    Scaling Law:Beyond absolute performance, the choice of controller gains also affects how efficiently policies improve with additional data. As shown in Fig. 28, compliant and overdamped gains exhibit steeper scaling with dataset size, implying that data collection efforts yield greater returns in this regime. For practitioners with limited demonstration b...

    work page

  38. [38]

    For each setting, we measure: (1) task success rate across 100 rollouts, and (2) joint-position MSE between the retargeted and original state trajectories

    TPR Fidelity Validation:To quantify how faithfully Torque-to-Position Retargeting (TPR) preserves the original demonstration trajectories, we retarget a motion-planned Block Stacking trajectory to four representative gain configurations spanning the gain grid corners and evaluate at varying decima- tion rates (from1×at 500 Hz down to50×at 10 Hz). For each...

    work page

  39. [39]

    Extension to Task-Space Position Control:While the TPR formulation in Section IV-A addresses joint-space po- sition control, many manipulation systems instead use op- erational space control (OSC) [17] with SE(3) end-effector pose targets. OSC computes joint torques through a task-space impedance law: τ=J ⊤Mx (Kp˜x−K d ˙x) +τ null,(23) where ˜xis the pose...

    work page

  40. [40]

    For each task and gain cell, we evaluateN=100closed-loop rollouts and record the binary success outcome

    Statistical Significance Analysis:We provide a formal statistical analysis to verify that the compliant-overdamped gain regionG CO significantly outperforms its complement G \ G CO across all six BC tasks. For each task and gain cell, we evaluateN=100closed-loop rollouts and record the binary success outcome. Logistic Regression.We fit a binomial logistic...

    work page

  41. [41]

    For each trial, users teleoperate a Franka Research 3 Robot with a SpaceMouse in order to push the box from an initial pose to the goal (Figure 18b)

    Task Description:The non-prehensile box manipulation task used in the user study is shown in Figure 18. For each trial, users teleoperate a Franka Research 3 Robot with a SpaceMouse in order to push the box from an initial pose to the goal (Figure 18b). The box is always initialized to the left and off-axis relative to the goal (Figure 18a), but the preci...

    work page

  42. [42]

    The subjective rating is on a scale from 1–5, where 1 means the gain setting provides a completely unintuitive interface and 5 means a completely intuitive interface

    Experimental Design and Results:As described in Sec- tion IV-A, the study collected 1,297 trials from 12 users over 1-hour sessions with randomized, blind gain presentation. The subjective rating is on a scale from 1–5, where 1 means the gain setting provides a completely unintuitive interface and 5 means a completely intuitive interface. Users complete t...

    work page

  43. [43]

    Each task is derived from the IsaacLab [23] template environments

    Task Descriptions:The five tasks we study are: FR3 Joint-Reach, FR3 EE-Reach, FR3 Lift Cube, FR3 Open Drawer, and Unitree G1 Track Velocity (Figure 20). Each task is derived from the IsaacLab [23] template environments. Fig. 19:User study survey.After each trial, users complete the survey to rate their subjective experience teleoperating with a given gain...

    work page

  44. [44]

    , α1| {z } G1 , α 2,

    Action Representations:For all tasks, the position target sent to the low-level PD controller at each timestep is: qdes(t) =α⊙π θ(st) +q ref(t)(26) α= [α 1, . . . , α1| {z } G1 , α 2, . . . , α2| {z } G2 ] whereq ref(t)is an offset equal to either the current joint positionq(t)or the default joint positionq 0, depending on the task. Joints are partitioned...

    work page

  45. [45]

    We evaluate the best (highest reward) checkpoint for each policy

    Success Criteria:For each policy trained during hyper- parameter optimization, we record the success rate across 100 simulated trials according to the success metrics in Table IV. We evaluate the best (highest reward) checkpoint for each policy. TABLE IV: Success criteria for each RL task. Task Criterion Threshold FR3 Joint-Reach∥q−q goal∥< ϵ ϵ= 0.1rad FR...

    work page

  46. [46]

    Hyperparameters, including any changes we made, are repro- duced here (Table V and Table VI)

    PPO Hyperparameters:We use largely the same PPO hyperparameters as the IsaacLab [23] template environments. Hyperparameters, including any changes we made, are repro- duced here (Table V and Table VI). TABLE V: PPO hyperparameters shared across all tasks. Hyperparameter Value Algorithm PPO (SKRL) Discount factorγ0.99 GAEλ0.95 Learning epochs5 Clip range (...

    work page

  47. [47]

    During execution, we log joint positionsq, joint velocities ˙q, and desired positions qdes at 50 Hz

    System Identification Data Collection:For each gain configuration(K p,K d), the real robot executes a sinusoidal reference trajectoryq des(t) =q 0 + 0.1 sin(πt/50)applied uniformly across all joints for 4 seconds. During execution, we log joint positionsq, joint velocities ˙q, and desired positions qdes at 50 Hz. The low-level torque controller on the rea...

    work page

  48. [48]

    TABLE VII: System identification parameter bounds

    System Identification Procedure:For each gain config- uration, we use CMA-ES [30] to optimize simulation param- eters per-actuatorψ(Table VII) to minimize the discrepancy between real and simulated response trajectories. TABLE VII: System identification parameter bounds. Parameters are optimized per-actuator. Parameter Lower Upper StiffnessK p 1 1024 Damp...

    work page

  49. [49]

    Training Deployable Policies:We train deployable FR3 Joint-Reach and FR3 EE-Reach policies. To discover policies that respect the real robot’s limits, we modify the outer- loop Optuna objective to a two-stage formulation that al- ways prefers constraint-satisfying configurations over violating ones: J=    1 +r success if allv c ≤¯vc rsuccess Y c∈C ϕc...

    work page

  50. [50]

    For each gain cell, we compute the trajectory error (Eq

    Statistical Significance Analysis:We provide a formal statistical analysis to verify that the stiff-overdamped gain regionG SO produces significantly larger sim-to-real trajectory error than its complementG \ G SO across all three sim-to-real conditions. For each gain cell, we compute the trajectory error (Eq. 11) averaged over 30 real-world rollouts. OLS...

    work page 1980