Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Learning Accurate Whole-body Throwing with High-frequency Residual Policy and Pullback Tube Acceleration

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A legged robot throws with 0.28 m accuracy at six meters

desk verdict Solid hardware demonstration of whole-body throwing with a legged robot, but the tube-acceleration optimizer contains a kinematic omission that biases the central results. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16986 v3 pith:BK2AMHFK submitted 2025-06-20 cs.RO

Yuntao Ma , Yang Liu , Kaixian Qu , Marco Hutter This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords whole-bodymanipulationprehensilethrowingleggedmobilemanipulatorsreinforcementlearningresidualpolicybackwardreachabletubeaccelerationreleaseuncertainty
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

The paper argues that accurate whole-body throwing on a legged mobile manipulator can be achieved by combining a learned end-effector tracking policy with a model-based robust release controller. Its central evidence is hardware: an average landing error of 0.28 meters when throwing grasped objects at targets six meters away, and a 56.8 percent success rate against 15.2 percent for human students when hitting small targets at 3-4 meters. A reader should care because dynamic throwing lets mobile robots deliver or place objects beyond arm reach, and the work is presented as the first quantified whole-body prehensile throwing demonstration on hardware. The same evidence also shows the claim is bounded: without the residual policy and pullback acceleration module, landing error roughly doubles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the backward reachable tube (BRT), the set of release states whose projectile trajectories can reach the landing target, together with the pullback tube acceleration optimizer. At 400 Hz, the optimizer solves a convex program that, given the current end-effector state and the time left in the release window, commands a constant acceleration tube that steers the state into and keeps it inside the BRT, making the landing position largely insensitive to when the gripper actually releases the object. Around this sit a 100 Hz nominal policy that tracks a commanded throwing trajectory and a 400 Hz residual policy that refines the joint targets; the residual policy matters most at high throwing velocities, and the convex solver is fast enough (about 0.4 milliseconds) to run in closed loop.

What would settle it

Record the actual detach instant with a high-speed camera and the landing positions with motion capture for 40 throws at six meters using a light foam ball; if mean landing error exceeds about 0.5 meters or detach times fall outside 50-100 milliseconds, the drag-free and release-window assumptions are violated in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that prehensile whole-body throwing can be reformulated as a high-accuracy end-effector velocity tracking problem, and that a 400 Hz residual policy plus an optimization-based pullback tube acceleration module makes that tracking accurate enough to land objects within about 0.28 meters at six meters. The full system reports mean landing errors of 0.276 meters at six meters and 0.429 meters at four meters over 40 hardware throws, a 49.5 percent error reduction over the nominal policy alone, and a 71/125 versus 19/125 score in a corridor test against 25 students. The authors explicitly claim this is the first reported whole-body prehensile throwing with quantified accuracy on hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The release plan assumes the object flies like a drag-free projectile and that the gripper releases the object 50-100 milliseconds after the opening command; both can fail for light, deformable, or slippery objects and for worn grippers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Whole-body throwing on legged robots can be treated as a timed end-effector velocity tracking problem, with robust release-motion synthesis absorbing release-timing uncertainty in the 50-100 millisecond window.
  • At high release speeds (7-10 m/s), the residual policy reduces velocity tracking error by up to 16.8 percent over the nominal policy, so high-frequency refinement mainly pays off in fast throws.
  • The legged base measurably contributes to throwing power, delivering about 53.4 percent more angular impulse than a tabletop arm executing the same joint trajectory.
  • Simulation ablations put the full method's landing-error improvement at 20.04 percent over the nominal policy and 6.17 percent over the residual-policy-only variant for 7 m throws.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the tube's backward reachable set is computed from drag-free projectile motion, lightweight and deformable objects are the likely failure boundary; replacing the flow map with a drag-aware or learned model is a natural next step.
  • Editorial inference: the pullback tube optimizer is a generic release-layer controller that could be attached to any policy that can report end-effector state at 400 Hz, not only the one trained in this paper.
  • Editorial inference: the human comparison should not be read as evidence that humans throw poorly; untrained students with no practice are a weak baseline, and a controlled comparison with practiced throwers would be the informative benchmark.
  • Editorial inference: the larger mean error at four meters (0.429 m) than at six meters (0.276 m) hints at a systematic bias in nominal velocity or release timing rather than pure noise, which a high-speed camera measurement of detach time could isolate.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-component control framework for whole-body prehensile throwing with a legged mobile manipulator: a 100 Hz nominal tracking policy, a 400 Hz residual policy, and a real-time convex "pullback tube acceleration" optimizer based on a backward reachable tube. The authors report hardware landing errors of 0.276 m at 6 m and 0.429 m at 4 m over 40 throws, a simulated ablation showing the full method improves landing accuracy by 20.04% over the nominal policy, and a human-comparison experiment in which the robot achieved 71/125 successes versus 19/125 for 25 students. The abstract also claims a 0.398 m/s velocity tracking error and a 56.8% success rate. The paper's central assertion is that this is the first reported whole-body prehensile throwing with quantified accuracy on hardware.

Significance. If the reported results hold, this is a useful early demonstration of whole-body dynamic throwing on a legged manipulator, combining learning-based tracking with model-based robustification. The 400 Hz residual policy and the closed-loop, 0.4 ms convex tube-acceleration module are technically interesting, and the hardware experiments with diverse objects (gift box, snowball, floorball) go beyond fixed-base throwing studies. The paper also provides quantified accuracy metrics, which prior legged throwing work lacked. However, the significance is currently bounded by several experimental and modeling gaps detailed below, especially the self-acknowledged use of partial implementations for the human comparison and the inconsistency in the tube-acceleration kinematics.

major comments (5)
  1. [III.C.2] Problem Tube-CVX has two related technical issues. First, the terminal position constraint p_T = p_EE + T v_EE omits the 0.5*T^2*a_tube term: for a constant tube acceleration a_tube applied over the remaining release window T, the exact terminal position is p_T = p_EE + T v_EE + 0.5*T^2*a_tube. At T = 0.1 s and a_tube = 10 m/s^2 the omitted term is 0.05 m, and it reaches 0.10 m at 20 m/s^2, i.e., on the order of the claimed 6 m landing error of 0.276 m. Because the landing map is then linearized only with respect to the velocity change, the optimizer solves a biased problem unless p_T is explicitly defined as a constant-velocity placeholder rather than the true predicted release position. Second, the equality constraint ˙r_T = ||v_T,xy||_2 is nonlinear and nonconvex, contradicting the statement that all equality constraints are linear; as written, the program is not convex, so the claimed 0.4 ms solve time and the convexity-based guarantees need re-examination. Please correct the formulation or justify both approximations quantitatively.
  2. [IV.A] The human-comparison result is compromised by the note immediately before Section IV.A, which states that "the comparison of accuracy with human participants were performed under such conditions," i.e., with partial implementations of the proposed method or earlier training checkpoints. The abstract nevertheless presents the 56.8% versus 15.2% success rates as a system-level comparison. Since this comparison may not use the full proposed framework, it cannot serve as evidence for the complete method. Please specify exactly which implementation and checkpoint were used, or re-run the comparison with the final system.
  3. [IV.B] The hardware accuracy results are reported only as mean landing errors over 40 throws (10 per target location at 4 m and 6 m with lateral offsets ±0.5 m). No per-target means, standard deviations, confidence intervals, or raw data are provided. Without these, the 0.276 m and 0.429 m figures and the claimed 49.5% improvement over the nominal policy cannot be statistically evaluated. Please add per-target statistics and variance information.
  4. [IV.E] The ablation does not isolate the contribution of the pullback tube acceleration module. The description states that variations without the tube optimizer were "instructed to track this constant velocity," while the full method tracked the varying EE velocities generated by the tube optimizer. The 6.17% landing-error improvement attributed to the tube module therefore conflates the effect of a different reference trajectory with the effect of the closed-loop tube acceleration. A cleaner ablation would use the same optimized reference commands without the closed-loop tube correction, or otherwise control for the reference change.
  5. [Table V] The "Residual 100 Hz" row reports a success rate of 13.9%, which is inconsistent with its other metrics: it has lower position tracking error (0.0466 vs 0.0693), lower velocity tracking error (0.2269 vs 0.2506), lower L1 landing error (0.2139 vs 0.2530), and lower landing MSE (0.0692 vs 0.1658) than the nominal policy, yet the success rate drops from 63.3% to 13.9%. Unless the error distributions are pathologically heavy-tailed, this appears to be a typographical error (perhaps 63.9%). Please correct or explain this discrepancy, as the table is central to the ablation claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract/IV.A] The abstract states a "velocity tracking error of 0.398 m/s" but this number does not appear in Section IV.F or elsewhere in the results; please report this metric with its conditions (commanded velocity, number of throws, variance) or remove it from the abstract.
  2. [IV.A] The abstract says the human comparison used targets "randomly placed at distances of 3-5 m," while Section IV.A says the target was placed "3-4 meters away"; please make the distance range consistent.
  3. [IV.B] The procedure for measuring landing positions on hardware is not described; please state the measurement method and its accuracy.
  4. [IV.D] The batch simulation in Section IV.D evaluates the pullback tube using the same drag-free projectile model that was used to construct the BRT and nominal throwing velocities, so it does not assess robustness to unmodeled aerodynamic drag; a sensitivity study with a different flight model (e.g., quadratic drag) would strengthen the robustness claim.
  5. [Fig. 2] The figure caption reads "The proposed control framework.consists" with a missing space after the period.
  6. [V] The conclusion's limitation statement that the residual policy only tracks vertical acceleration and overfits the simulation should be reflected more explicitly in the abstract's general accuracy claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central accuracy claims are independent hardware measurements, and the self-cited tube-acceleration theory is a published, externally validated result.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing empirical claim is the 0.276 m mean landing error at 6 m (Sec. IV.B) and the 49.5% improvement over the nominal policy; these are physical measurements from 40 hardware throws, not outputs of the proposed optimizer or residual policy. The tube-acceleration module is imported from Liu and Billard [5], which Yang Liu co-authored, but [5] is a peer-reviewed T-RO publication with its own proof and hardware demonstration, so citing it is legitimate external support rather than circular. The Sec. IV.D simulation does reuse the same drag-free projectile flowmap that Tube-CVX optimizes, so the simulated robustification is partly a model-consistency check, but the paper does not present it as an independent empirical prediction and the hardware results stand apart. The paper's limitation notes, including partial implementations for snowball and human tests and the acknowledged sim-to-real gap, weaken generalizability but do not make the derivation circular. The possible omission of a 0.5*T^2*a_tube position term in Tube-CVX is a modeling-accuracy concern, not a circularity, and therefore does not affect this verdict.

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

The central claim rests on the trained policies (shaped by hand-tuned reward weights and entropy/action-scale hyperparameters), on the drag-free ballistic model used both for planning and for evaluating the robustifier, and on the assumed 50 to 100 ms release window. The convex tube program and BRT topology are imported from published work, partly by the same author. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Nominal policy action scale = 0.5
    Hand-tuned in Table II; scales the actions of the 100 Hz baseline policy and affects tracking behavior.
  • Residual policy action scale = 0.2
    Hand-tuned in Table II; limits deviations of the 400 Hz residual policy.
  • Entropy coefficients = 0.0016 (nominal), 0.035 (residual)
    PPO exploration temperature, tuned per policy (Table II).
  • Reward weights for EE tracking = EE pos 4000, EE vel 2000, EE alignment 1000, residual action -1, etc.
    Hand-chosen reward scales in Table I; they shape the trained policy that achieves the reported accuracy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Drag-free projectile flight dynamics (only gravity) accurately predict landing position for the thrown objects
    Used to compute nominal throw velocity (Sec III.D) and to construct the BRT and pullback program (Sec III.C.1, III.C.2).
  • domain assumption Object detach time after gripper opening command lies between 50 and 100 ms
    Sec III.C.2 states the detach time cannot be determined a priori but is only known to be between 50 and 100 ms; this defines the release window the optimizer acts in.
  • standard math The convex tube acceleration program is a tight relaxation of the robust throwing problem (from Liu and Billard 2024)
    Adopted from [5], a published T-RO result by a co-author; the paper relies on it without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Object mass is negligible relative to the reflected inertia of the end-effector
    Stated in the conclusion as a limitation of the framework; affects dynamics during grasp and release.
  • standard math The BRT of a smooth connected flying dynamics is connected and has well-defined interior (Khalil Th. 3.5)
    Invoked in Sec III.C.1 to justify treating the BRT as a topological set with boundaries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Accurate Whole-body Throwing with High-frequency Residual Policy and Pullback Tube Acceleration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BK2AMHFK

@misc{pith2026250616986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Accurate Whole-body Throwing with High-frequency Residual Policy and Pullback Tube Acceleration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BK2AMHFK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16986}
}
read the original abstract

Throwing is a fundamental skill that enables robots to manipulate objects in ways that extend beyond the reach of their arms. We present a control framework that combines learning and model-based control for prehensile whole-body throwing with legged mobile manipulators. Our framework consists of three components: a nominal tracking policy for the end-effector, a high-frequency residual policy to enhance tracking accuracy, and an optimization-based module to improve end-effector acceleration control. The proposed controller achieved the average of 0.28 m landing error when throwing at targets located 6 m away. Furthermore, in a comparative study with university students, the system achieved a velocity tracking error of 0.398 m/s and a success rate of 56.8%, hitting small targets randomly placed at distances of 3-5 m while throwing at a specified speed of 6 m/s. In contrast, humans have a success rate of only 15.2%. This work provides an early demonstration of prehensile throwing with quantified accuracy on hardware, contributing to progress in dynamic whole-body manipulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16986 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The robot performing prehensile whole-body throwing with varying velocities and object properties. (A) A gift box. (B) A snowball. (C) A floorball. The target positions for the throws are identified using AprilTags, and the EE throwing states are calculated based on a user￾specified velocity component along the x-axis, aligned with the robot’s forward direction. Another major difficulty lies in achieving accurate wh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed control framework. consists of a standard whole-body base throwing policy, a residual policy, and an acceleration optimizer. The latter two modules run at the same frequency as the robot state estimation to provide high￾frequency state feedback for the throwing motion. During the deployment, the controller acquires the target position from the AprilTag reader and computes the PD target commands for each… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Robustifying effect of Pullback Tube Acceleration on stochastic systems. summarized in Fig.4 and Table IV. TABLE IV: PULLBACK TUBE ACCELERATION PROFILING Release Motion Command Max. Landing Error (cm) Constant Velocity 96.8(±57.9) Pullback Tube Acceleration (100Hz) 38.1(±57.9) Pullback Tube Acceleration (200Hz) 34.9(±23.6) Pullback Tube Acceleration (400Hz) 31.1(±17.7) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Base motion contributions to throws. This figure illustrates the role of base motion in the throwing process by analyzing the base pitch angle, pitching torque, pitching an￾gular momentum, power, and cumulative work. The angular momentum and cumulative work are calcula…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of residual policy effects in hard￾ware and simulation. (a) EE velocity tracking improvement on hardware with the residual policy. The residual policy enhances tracking, especially at higher commanded end￾effector velocities. (b) Effectiveness of residual po…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. AeroThrow: An Autonomous Aerial Throwing System for Precise Payload Delivery

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An aerial manipulator with trajectory optimization over a release interval, NMPC disturbance compensation, and online release timing reassessment reduces airdrop landing error to centimeter level in real flights.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [5]

    Tube acceleration: robust dexterous throwing against release uncertainty,

    Y . Liu and A. Billard, “Tube acceleration: robust dexterous throwing against release uncertainty,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    2024

  2. [1]

    Tossing- bot: Learning to throw arbitrary objects with residual physics,

    A. Zeng, S. Song, J. Lee, A. Rodriguez, and T. Funkhouser, “Tossing- bot: Learning to throw arbitrary objects with residual physics,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1307–1319, 2020

    2020

  3. [2]

    Dynamic throwing with robotic material handling machines,

    L. Werner, F. Nan, P. Eyschen, F. A. Spinelli, H. Yang, and M. Hutter, “Dynamic throwing with robotic material handling machines,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, October 14-18, 2024. IEEE, 2024, pp. 98–104. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS58592.2024.10802743

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Whole- body dynamic throwing with legged manipulators,

    H. Munn, B. Tidd, D. Howard, and M. Gallagher, “Whole- body dynamic throwing with legged manipulators,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05681, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Umi on legs: Making manipulation policies mobile with manipulation-centric whole-body controllers,

    H. Ha, Y . Gao, Z. Fu, J. Tan, and S. Song, “Umi on legs: Making manipulation policies mobile with manipulation-centric whole-body controllers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10353, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    A solution to adaptive mobile manipulator throwing,

    Y . Liu, A. Nayak, and A. Billard, “A solution to adaptive mobile manipulator throwing,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1625– 1632

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Combining learning-based locomotion policy with model-based manipulation for legged mobile manipulators,

    Y . Ma, F. Farshidian, T. Miki, J. Lee, and M. Hutter, “Combining learning-based locomotion policy with model-based manipulation for legged mobile manipulators,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2377–2384, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Deep whole-body control: Learning a unified policy for manipulation and locomotion,

    Z. Fu, X. Cheng, and D. Pathak, “Deep whole-body control: Learning a unified policy for manipulation and locomotion,” inConference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2022

    2022

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Visual whole-body control for legged loco-manipulation,

    M. Liu, Z. Chen, X. Cheng, Y . Ji, R. Qiu, R. Yang, and X. Wang, “Visual whole-body control for legged loco-manipulation,”The 8th Conference on Robot Learning, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Whole-body end- effector pose tracking,

    T. Portela, A. Cramariuc, M. Mittal, and M. Hutter, “Whole-body end- effector pose tracking,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16048, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Combining model- based policy search with online model learning for control of physical humanoids,

    I. Mordatch, N. Mishra, C. Eppner, and P. Abbeel, “Combining model- based policy search with online model learning for control of physical humanoids,” in2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 242–248

    2016

  4. [12]

    Neural network dynamics for model-based deep reinforcement learning with model- free fine-tuning,

    A. Nagabandi, G. Kahn, R. S. Fearing, and S. Levine, “Neural network dynamics for model-based deep reinforcement learning with model- free fine-tuning,” in2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 7559–7566

    2018

  5. [13]

    Sim-to-real: Learning agile locomotion for quadruped robots,

    J. Tan, T. Zhang, E. Coumans, A. Iscen, Y . Bai, D. Hafner, S. Bo- hez, and V . Vanhoucke, “Sim-to-real: Learning agile locomotion for quadruped robots,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10332, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Residual reinforcement learning for robot control,

    T. Johannink, S. Bahl, A. Nair, J. Luo, A. Kumar, M. Loskyll, J. A. Ojea, E. Solowjow, and S. Levine, “Residual reinforcement learning for robot control,” in2019 international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019, pp. 6023–6029

    2019

  7. [15]

    Residual policy learning,

    T. Silver, K. Allen, J. Tenenbaum, and L. Kaelbling, “Residual policy learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.06298, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Residual policy learning for perceptive quadruped control using differentiable simulation,

    J. Y . Luo, Y . Song, V . Klemm, F. Shi, D. Scaramuzza, and M. Hutter, “Residual policy learning for perceptive quadruped control using differentiable simulation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03076, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Optimal control goal manifolds for planar nonprehensile throwing,

    A. Pekarovskiy and M. Buss, “Optimal control goal manifolds for planar nonprehensile throwing,” in2013 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2013, pp. 4518– 4524

    2013

  10. [18]

    Learning coor- dinated badminton skills for legged manipulators,

    Y . Ma, A. Cramariuc, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter, “Learning coor- dinated badminton skills for legged manipulators,”Science Robotics, vol. 10, no. 102, p. eadu3922, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Learning to throw with a handful of samples using decision transformers,

    M. Monastirsky, O. Azulay, and A. Sintov, “Learning to throw with a handful of samples using decision transformers,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 576–583, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    H. K. Khalil,Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, 2002

    2002

  13. [21]

    A review of the analysis of wind- influenced projectile motion in the presence of linear and nonlinear drag force,

    M. V . Lubarda and V . A. Lubarda, “A review of the analysis of wind- influenced projectile motion in the presence of linear and nonlinear drag force,”Archive of Applied Mechanics, vol. 92, no. 7, pp. 1997– 2017, 2022

    1997

  14. [22]

    Learning neural event functions for ordinary differential equations,

    R. T. Q. Chen, B. Amos, and M. Nickel, “Learning neural event functions for ordinary differential equations,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=kW zpEmMLdP

    2021

  15. [23]

    S. P. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  16. [24]

    Differentiable convex optimization layers,

    A. Agrawal, B. Amos, S. Barratt, S. Boyd, S. Diamond, and J. Z. Kolter, “Differentiable convex optimization layers,”Advances in neu- ral information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Embedded code generation with cvxpy,

    M. Schaller, G. Banjac, S. Diamond, A. Agrawal, B. Stellato, and S. Boyd, “Embedded code generation with cvxpy,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 2653–2658, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Learning to walk in minutes using massively parallel deep reinforcement learning,

    N. Rudin, D. Hoeller, P. Reist, and M. Hutter, “Learning to walk in minutes using massively parallel deep reinforcement learning,” in Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 91–100

    2022

  19. [27]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,

    J. Hwangbo, J. Lee, A. Dosovitskiy, D. Bellicoso, V . Tsounis, V . Koltun, and M. Hutter, “Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,”Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 26, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    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,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ international con- ference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 23–30

    2017

  22. [30]

    Symme- try considerations for learning task symmetric robot policies,

    M. Mittal, N. Rudin, V . Klemm, A. Allshire, and M. Hutter, “Symme- try considerations for learning task symmetric robot policies,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04359, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Anymal-a highly mobile and dynamic quadrupedal robot,

    M. Hutter, C. Gehring, D. Jud, A. Lauber, C. D. Bellicoso, V . Tsounis, J. Hwangbo, K. Bodie, P. Fankhauser, M. Bloeschet al., “Anymal-a highly mobile and dynamic quadrupedal robot,” in2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, 2016,...

    2016

  24. [32]

    Apriltag: A robust and flexible visual fiducial system,

    E. Olson, “Apriltag: A robust and flexible visual fiducial system,” in2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 2011, pp. 3400–3407

    2011

  25. [33]

    The pinocchio c++ library – a fast and flexible implementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical derivatives,

    J. Carpentier, G. Saurel, G. Buondonno, J. Mirabel, F. Lamiraux, O. Stasse, and N. Mansard, “The pinocchio c++ library – a fast and flexible implementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical derivatives,” inIEEE International Symposium on System Integration...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.