Non-Prehensile Throwing: A Reinforcement Learning Perspective

· Editorial Team estimated
non-prehensile-manipulation robotic-throwing reinforcement-learning sim-to-real

This paper casts non-prehensile (grasp-free) throwing as a reinforcement learning problem: the policy explicitly exploits sliding and rolling contact modes and directly optimizes joint-space trajectories, requiring no analytical contact models or custom parameterizations. The policy reaches 99% simulated success across thousands of configurations and generalizes to unseen objects; deployed zero-shot on a UR5e running near its physical limits at 5 m/s end-effector velocity, it throws heavy 790 g and large 20x20x28 cm objects to targets up to 350 cm away or 180 cm high with a 97% real-world success rate.

Paper · arXiv:2609.00771

Throwing lets a robot transport objects quickly and extends its effective workspace far beyond what its arm can reach. Prehensile, grasp-based throwing works well for graspable rigid items, but large, heavy, or deformable objects defeat it; non-prehensile (grasp-free) throwing — letting the object slide and roll across the palm before release — is the natural fit for these. Existing non-prehensile approaches lean on model-based optimization with simplified contact models such as dynamic grasping, plus low-dimensional trajectory parameterizations, which cap both solution quality and reachable workspace. This paper sidesteps explicit modeling altogether and lets reinforcement learning discover how to use contact.

Core Innovation

  • Contact modes as policy — the RL policy explicitly exploits sliding and rolling contact for release, with no analytical contact model and no hand-crafted trajectory parameterization.
  • Direct joint-space optimization — the MDP is a dynamical system that evolves the robot’s joint state conditioned on the throwing target, the object model, and the initial configuration.
  • Two-stage execution — joint-jerk trajectories are planned offline at a low control rate and upsampled into smooth, high-rate velocity commands, balancing planning quality with execution smoothness.
  • Sim-to-real by design — minimum-jerk system identification narrows the robot-dynamics gap, and uncertainty-aware policies mitigate object-modeling errors, in particular sensitivity to dynamic friction.

Results

  • Simulation: 99% success across thousands of configurations, with generalization to unseen objects; sensitivity analysis shows robustness to mass uncertainty but high sensitivity to dynamic friction — consistent with the sliding-based release mechanism.
  • Real deployment: zero-shot transfer to a UR5e operating near its physical limits at 5 m/s end-effector velocity, throwing 790 g heavy objects and 20x20x28 cm large items to targets up to 350 cm in distance or 180 cm in elevation.
  • Real-world success: 97%, with no fine-tuning on the physical robot.

Limitations

The high sensitivity to dynamic friction means deployment requires decent friction identification, and success may drop when material properties shift; the offline planning with low-rate upsampling limits online reactivity to moving targets; and the evaluation is single-arm, without fine-grained failure analysis or long-term wear studies.

Industry Implications

“Throw it rather than carry it” translates directly into throughput and coverage gains in sorting and logistics: the end effector never closes, so heavy and soft items can be moved without dedicated grippers, reducing conveyor and mobile-platform investments. A 97% real-world success rate with zero-shot transfer is the kind of signal industrial buyers look for, and throwing is a natural primitive for unloading, recycling sortation, and palletizing assistance. For arm vendors, this class of dynamic manipulation is a credible path from pick-and-place robots toward high-speed transfer robots.