FLORE: Teaching a Humanoid to Push, Pull and Carry with Regulated Contact Force

Most humanoid manipulation today is taught as motion. A policy observes the scene, predicts a trajectory for the hands, and a whole-body controller follows it. That framing works for reaching and grasping, and fails for the large class of everyday tasks where the point is the force applied: wiping a surface, pushing a heavy object, carrying something whose weight shifts, or pressing a tool into contact. On a humanoid these forces cannot be delegated to a single wrist. They are produced by the legs, the torso and both arms together, and the reference signal a policy must emit is a wrench, not a pose.

The data problem arrives immediately. Teleoperating a humanoid to collect force-rich demonstrations requires the robot, a skilled operator and a lot of time, and the recorded action labels are whatever the retargeting pipeline happened to produce.

Core innovation

FLORE splits the problem into a portable data pipeline, a force-aware policy and a controller that can actually execute force commands.

Robot-free demonstration capture. Hand motion and contact wrenches are recorded with two UMI-style handheld grippers fitted with force sensing, while body motion comes from wearable trackers. The human demonstrates the task in the real environment without a robot present; the grippers supply the interaction forces that a motion-capture suit would miss entirely.

A force-reactive diffusion policy. The policy consumes vision, proprioception and measured wrenches and predicts two things at once: the action chunk and a force command for each hand. Force is therefore a first-class output of the learned policy, not an implicit consequence of position targets.

A hybrid compliance whole-body controller. Executing those commands while standing is the hard part. The controller tracks force with an integral term on the error measured by real force/torque sensors, so each hand converges on the commanded force along the intended direction while remaining compliant along the others, and balance is maintained throughout. In simulation it tracks per-hand commands across varied magnitudes and directions with little loss of whole-body motion accuracy, which is the property that makes force commands safe to hand to a locomotion controller.

Results

• On three contact-rich tasks executed on the physical robot, the force-reactive policy succeeds in 80% of rollouts.
• A position-only policy trained on the same demonstrations and run through the same controller succeeds in 26.7%. The comparison isolates force reactivity, since data, policy class and low-level controller are held fixed.
• Simulation ablations show the controller follows per-hand force commands of different magnitudes and directions while preserving whole-body tracking accuracy.

The 3x gap is the headline. It says that for these tasks the missing information was not more demonstrations or a better visuomotor backbone, but the force dimension of the action space.

Limitations

The abstract reports three tasks without naming them, and gives no force-tracking error in newtons, no breakdown of which task produced which failures, and no comparison against a policy that predicts force through a separate regression head. Evaluation is on a single humanoid platform with a single controller, so both the policy and the compliance layer remain untested for cross-embodiment transfer. The demonstrations are robot-free but still human-operated, so the approach reduces robot time rather than human time, and the handheld gripper’s force sensing is not identical to the robot’s own fingertips or wrists, leaving a sensor gap that the controller must absorb. Nothing is reported about behaviour under unexpected external perturbations during contact.

Industry implications

Force-regulated loco-manipulation is the capability boundary between a humanoid that demonstrates well and one that does useful work in a house, a warehouse or a factory. Two design choices here matter commercially. First, the split between a policy that outputs force commands and a controller that guarantees compliant tracking gives vendors a clean interface: the learned component can be swapped or retrained without re-certifying the balance and safety layer underneath. Second, handheld force-sensing grippers turn data collection into something a worker can do in the target environment in minutes, with no robot reservation and no teleoperation rig. For teams currently stuck collecting position-only demonstrations, the result is a concrete argument that the force channel is worth instrumenting at collection time, because no amount of post-hoc position data recovers it.