SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2608.02385

StableMimic: Smooth Human-Like Recovery for Humanoid Motion Tracking - Learning Beyond the Tracking Distribution for Structured Post-Fall Behavior

Abstract

Humanoid motion trackers perform reliably within learned tracking distributions, but falls can move the robot into low-height, contact-rich states from which an advancing command is temporarily unreachable. Tracking-only policies may chase infeasible references, producing rapid, large-amplitude limb corrections that increase risk to the robot and its surroundings. We present StableMimic, a unified tracker trained beyond the nominal tracking distribution. Perturbed resets around multiple human get-up references expose prone, supine, off-balance, and intermediate ground-contact states, shaping structured recovery that returns the robot to the trackable region. Because tracking and recovery occupy markedly different state--action distributions, StableMimic uses dedicated experts for each regime and a proprioceptive gate that continuously blends their actions. A hidden successor-state objective teaches human-reference-shaped recovery without exposing reference identity or phase to the deployed Actor; deployment requires no get-up reference, recovery command, trajectory retrieval, or external policy switch. On the complete retargeted LAFAN1 dance subset, StableMimic achieves the lowest errors on all four tracking metrics among five methods. Across 100 matched push-to-fall trials per method, it recovers in 100/100 and attains the lowest values on six of seven post-fall motion and load measures, supporting improved interaction safety under this protocol. Real Unitree G1 dance and standing-reference deployments qualitatively demonstrate bounded limb motion, autonomous recovery, and command resumption.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Weihao Wu, Ming Huang, Ruofei Liu, Jinglei Nie, Shuxiang Guo, Chunying Li. 2026-08-03. StableMimic: Smooth Human-Like Recovery for Humanoid Motion Tracking - Learning Beyond the Tracking Distribution for Structured Post-Fall Behavior. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02385

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO