Learning to Leverage Compliance: A Policy-Admittance Learning Framework for Robotic Insertion

A reward-shaping framework that teaches a manipulation policy to use the compliance it already has, so the arm stops shoving and starts inserting.

Background

Autonomous assembly has two well-worn ingredients: learned policies that can cope with pose error and visual uncertainty, and compliant controllers that can cope with contact. Combining them looks like it should give both, but coordination is not guaranteed. The characteristic failure is a policy that keeps commanding motion into a blocked contact while the admittance controller obediently yields - the robot sustains a large contact load, the parts stay misaligned, and nothing progresses. The controller is doing its job; the policy is fighting it.

Core Innovation

LeCo - Leverage Compliance - is a policy-admittance learning framework that guides a visual policy through execution-time interaction while the admittance controller stays fixed. Its key move is to make the policy’s own success depend on how it loads contact. A multirate feedback mechanism aggregates high-rate contact-interaction records into policy-transition rewards, an integrated conflict cost explicitly characterizes sustained opposition between policy loading and controller unloading, and a directional high-force tail cost captures continued-loading events inside a single transition. Combined with task completion, these terms push the policy toward leveraging compliance - letting the controller absorb misalignment - rather than generating unproductive force. Notably, nothing about the controller changes: the fix lives entirely in what the policy is rewarded for.

Results

• Evaluated on four real connector-assembly tasks, with an aggregate success rate of 94%.
• Mean successful-trial resultant-force and torque peaks fall by approximately 30% and 64% relative to the comparison baseline.
• A reward ablation shows that adding conflict shaping reduces median successful-trial contact-conditioned conflict density by roughly 53%.
• The framework guides a visual policy under fixed admittance, requiring no change to the admittance controller itself.

Limitations

Four connector-assembly tasks are a narrow slice of assembly - pegs, gears, flexible parts and multi-part fixtures are not covered - so the 94% figure should be read as strong within that family rather than general. The method operates under fixed admittance, which means the gains come from shaping policy behaviour inside a compliance envelope chosen elsewhere; how it composes with variable-admittance or learned controllers is untested here. The abstract reports no cycle times or throughput, which in insertion tasks often trade directly against force reduction, and there is no simulation-to-real or cross-hardware evidence, so generalization beyond these four setups remains open.

Industry Implications

Connector insertion is one of the highest-volume contact-rich operations in electronics, automotive and appliance manufacturing, and the dominant practical cost is not failure - it is force. Sustained loading during a failed or hesitant insertion wears tooling, deforms or scratches parts, and forces conservative cycle times. A result that cuts successful-trial force peaks by roughly a third and torque peaks by nearly two thirds without sacrificing success is therefore a durability and quality argument as much as a performance one, and it bears on the parts most expensive to scrap. The economical appeal is that LeCo is a reward-shaping layer applied to a policy, not a new controller or sensor suite, so it can plausibly be layered onto admittance-control cells already in the field. The natural next questions for integrators are whether the force reductions survive at production cycle times and how the shaping transfers across connector families.