CW-WAM: Predicting Contact Wrench Lifts Peg Insertion from 25% to 70%

Vision tells a robot where objects are; it does not tell the robot how hard it is pressing or how much load it is carrying. Assembly, connector mating and wiping tasks hinge on exactly that information: the slight bind between a peg and a hole, the click of a plug seating, the normal force holding a cloth against a surface. These are nearly invisible to cameras and decisive for success. A purely visual world action model therefore has a structural blind spot here — it can predict frames, but not the difference between jamming against an edge and sliding cleanly in.

Core Innovation

CW-WAM takes its cue from hybrid motion-force control: if classical control treats motion and force as two quantities to be regulated together, a world action model should predict them together as well.

The model jointly predicts video, motion and contact wrench. A unified interaction module treats both motion and wrench as modeling targets and emits time-aligned motion-wrench chunks as control references, rather than producing actions first and estimating force afterwards. To couple the two signals correctly in time, the authors introduce pair-causal attention over motion-wrench dependencies, plus a fixed-length wrench memory that retains past interaction information — important because instantaneous force readings are noisy and the real signal lives in how force evolves over time.

The predicted wrench sequence is not the final command. It is a force reference handed to a 20 Hz outer-loop admittance controller, forming a slow-fast hierarchy: the world action model is queried at low frequency and owns intent-level motion and force planning, while the admittance controller runs at 20 Hz to hold force feedback and smooth motion between model queries. That division resolves a practical contradiction — large generative models cannot be queried at control rates, but force control must run fast.

Results

The reported numbers are concrete:

• Square peg insertion with 1 mm clearance per side: 25% → 70% success;
• Power adapter insertion: 40% → 95%;
• Force-reference RMSE: 4.8 → 2.7 N for peg insertion and 2.0 → 1.3 N for wiping, with smaller force fluctuations during successful execution;
• Lifting-height accuracy also improves across different loads.

The comparison baseline is a WAM without wrench input, so these deltas measure the contribution of the force channel rather than the gap to an unrelated system.

Limitations

• The baseline is narrow: the main ablation removes the wrench stream from the same architecture, and there is no systematic comparison against dedicated force-control methods such as classical admittance/impedance strategies or tactile servoing.
• A 20 Hz outer loop implies limited force-feedback bandwidth; whether that suffices for stiff contact or fast-impact tasks is not discussed.
• Only insertion and wiping are reported, with no detail on part geometry, clearance distributions, materials or sensor coverage.
• How the admittance controller’s stiffness and damping are set — and whether they need per-task tuning — is unstated, yet it directly determines deployment cost.

Industry Implications

Precision assembly is the most valuable and least automated part of industrial robotics. What makes this result notable is not the absolute 70% but where the gain comes from: not a more expensive tactile sensor or a finer CAD model, but teaching a generative model to predict force and then tracking that prediction with a mature control law. The engineering consequence is that the “intelligence” can sit in a low-frequency prediction layer while high-frequency stability stays with classical control — an incremental upgrade for production arms that already carry force/torque sensors, rather than a ground-up rebuild.

Peg-in-hole at 1 mm clearance is a canonical precision-fit operation. Seventy percent is not enough for unattended operation, but it enters the range where a human supervises and the robot carries most cycles. What will decide whether this reaches a line is whether the remaining 30% of failures are predictable, and whether a new part geometry demands fresh data collection. For teams working on assembly automation, the direction is clear: put force into the policy’s prediction targets, not just into the feedback loop’s inputs.