Directional and Tunable End-Effector and Root Compliance for Humanoid Loco-Manipulation

Anonymous Authors
Humanoid demonstrations: directional hand and root compliance for carrying, adjustable vertical stiffness while dragging a payload, and compliant writing compared with a stiff setting that breaks the tool.
Directional and tunable end-effector compliance, together with switchable root compliance, enables versatile humanoid physical interaction.

Abstract

General humanoid motion-tracking policies reproduce diverse behaviors but do not specify responses to physical interaction. Existing compliance methods mainly target selected links or end effectors, without jointly controlling axis-wise stiffness and locomotion behavior. We formulate directional and tunable end-effector (EE) compliance together with root resistance and damping modes. Our two-level hierarchical RL controller combines a stiff low-level whole-body tracking policy with high-level residual policies that modify its shared EE–root command interface. An analytical compliance-space mixture-of-experts (MoE) composes 10 experts, enabling independent, continuous stiffness commands along each Cartesian axis over 100–600 N/m. A root-mode command selects one root resistance policy or one of two root damping policies. Using privileged forces, a teacher–student pipeline jointly trains the high-level policies and a force estimator, enabling deployment without wrist force/torque sensors. Simulation evaluations show accurate full-range directional EE compliance, workspace consistency, and distinct root modes. Real-world tasks further demonstrate directional EE compliance, online adjustment of EE stiffness, and concurrent EE–root compliance through the shared interface.

Video

System Framework

Two-stage hierarchical RL framework: a stiff low-level tracking policy, high-level compliance residual policies, an analytical mixture-of-experts gate for end-effector stiffness, and a root-mode switch.
A shared EE–root interface combines a low-level tracking policy with high-level compliance policies. An analytical mixture of 10 experts controls axis-wise EE stiffness, while a mode switch selects root resistance or damping.

Live Demo

Real-world Experiments

Battery Pulling

Kz = 600 N/m
Kz = 200 N/m
Kz = 100 N/m

Figure-eight Writing

Soft
Stiff
Directional (ours)

Collaborative Box Carrying

Without added payload
With added payload

Simulation Experiments

Table Wiping

Stiff
Directional (ours)

Peg Insertion

Stiff
Directional (ours)

Figure-eight Writing

Stiff
Directional (ours)

Box Lifting

Stiff
Directional (ours)

Collaborative Carrying

Soft
Directional (ours)

Experimental Results

Full-Range Directional EE Compliance

Independent stiffness control across the Cartesian axes, evaluated over 16 stiffness configurations spanning 100–600 N/m, with 960 trials per method.

Swipe the table to view all metrics →

Full-range compliance accuracy and command–response trends
Method Accuracy ↓ lower is better Trend
Compliance matrix
error ↓
EE compliance
error (m) ↓
Stiffness
MAPE ↓
Slope
ideal: 1
R2 ↑
ideal: 1
Stiff.-cond. HL 0.6770.05661.3250.1360.040
Stiff.-cond. E2E 1.0640.08845.2083.4300.003
Oracle-force LL 0.3040.04590.2560.4850.792
Analytical MoE Ours 0.2780.03490.2490.7640.779

Bold marks the best value in each column; slope is ranked by proximity to 1. MAPE is reported as a ratio, as in the paper (0.249 = 24.9%). Values from Table IV. Evaluation details ↗

Analytical MoE has the lowest errors and the slope closest to 1; Oracle-force LL has the highest R2.

Commanded vs. Apparent Stiffness

Figure 4: measured apparent stiffness versus commanded stiffness on the x, y, and z axes for Analytical MoE, stiffness-conditioned HL, stiffness-conditioned E2E, and Oracle-force LL. The dashed diagonal indicates ideal tracking.
Median response with interquartile bands; dashed lines show ideal tracking. The broad E2E band is omitted in the x-axis panel for readability. Figure 4 ↗

Our Team

Anonymous during review.