Blind Precise Assembly: Zero-Shot Peg-in-Hole from Joint Proprioception Alone

In precision assembly the camera is usually blocked by the part and the force sensor is too slow — the only information left is what the joints already know.

Background

Peg insertion, gear meshing and nut threading are instinctive for human fingers and chronically hard for robots. The dominant approaches lean on visual servoing or force/torque sensing: the former lacks precision once parts occlude each other and clearances shrink to tens of microns, the latter demands expensive six-axis sensors and delicate impedance tuning. Yet the robot is already generating high-resolution contact information — joint encoder positions and velocities change in identifiable ways the moment contact occurs. Legged robots have exploited exactly this for vision-free locomotion, but their contacts are large and impacts pronounced. Precision assembly involves light contact, tiny clearances and little tolerance for error, so whether joint signals still carry enough information is a question that needs an experiment rather than an assumption.

Core Innovation

The work commits to a strictly blind setting: the policy observes only a short history of joint positions, joint velocities and its own actions — no vision, no force/torque, no tactile. Fixture and part poses are unknown to the policy and the initial grasp is randomised substantially, so the policy cannot memorise one fixed scene; it has to search through contact using touch-like proprioceptive cues alone.

Training happens entirely in simulation with reinforcement learning over many randomised parts, grasps and contact configurations. To make clearance real inside the simulator, the authors release an open-source assembly generator that builds clearance-preserving scenes procedurally from exact convex pieces for MuJoCo, reported to be more accurate and faster than convex decomposition or MuJoCo’s signed-distance collision. That detail is the precondition for scale: a blind policy needs thousands of distinct assemblies, not ten thousand repetitions of one.

Results

• The peg-insertion policy transfers zero-shot to a real robot and inserts pegs of varying shapes and sizes in 73% of trials.
• The same training recipe learns gear meshing and nut threading in simulation.
• In controlled simulation comparisons against matched visual policies, blind policies generalise substantially better to unseen part shapes and sizes, though they are slower.

Limitations

Hardware validation covers peg insertion only; gear meshing and nut threading remain simulated, and their contact geometry and failure modes differ enough that transfer difficulty is not equivalent. A 73% success rate means roughly one trial in four fails, and the abstract gives no failure-mode breakdown, insertion time or repeatability, nor does it discuss whether contact forces damage parts — often a hard constraint in precision assembly. The method also relies on the strong assumption that simulation preserves clearance exactly, while real tolerances, burrs and surface roughness are unmodelled. The speed penalty could erase the cost advantage on takt-time-sensitive lines.

Industry Implications

The real contribution is dragging an overlooked low-cost route into the usable range. On an assembly line, occlusion of the workpiece by the part itself is routine, and adding a six-axis force sensor drags in cost, cabling, calibration and maintenance. If joint encoders plus a short history window can deliver better than seven-in-ten zero-shot insertions, a large class of mid-precision stations can defer vision and force control and get useful robustness from the cheapest hardware available. The assembly generator matters just as much: it turns “build clearance-preserving training data” from manual CAD work into procedural generation, which is the step that makes data scale. For high-mix, frequently re-tasked lines, that cost structure may matter more than the headline success rate.