Learning Smooth Humanoid Locomotion through Lipschitz-Constrained Policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforcement learning combined with sim-to-real transfer offers a general framework for developing locomotion controllers for legged robots. To facilitate successful deployment in the real world, smoothing techniques, such as low-pass filters and smoothness rewards, are often employed to develop policies with smooth behaviors. However, because these techniques are non-differentiable and usually require tedious tuning of a large set of hyperparameters, they tend to require extensive manual tuning for each robotic platform. To address this challenge and establish a general technique for enforcing smooth behaviors, we propose a simple and effective method that imposes a Lipschitz constraint on a learned policy, which we refer to as Lipschitz-Constrained Policies (LCP). We show that the Lipschitz constraint can be implemented in the form of a gradient penalty, which provides a differentiable objective that can be easily incorporated with automatic differentiation frameworks. We demonstrate that LCP effectively replaces the need for smoothing rewards or low-pass filters and can be easily integrated into training frameworks for many distinct humanoid robots. We extensively evaluate LCP in both simulation and real-world humanoid robots, producing smooth and robust locomotion controllers. All simulation and deployment code, along with complete checkpoints, is available on our project page: https://lipschitz-constrained-policy.github.io.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".