Blind Precise Assembly… | arXiv Physical AI Research Summary

1. Key Themes

Proprioception Alone Is Sufficient for Millimeter-Precision Assembly

The paper demonstrates that a robot arm can perform contact-rich assembly tasks — peg insertion, gear meshing, and nut threading — using only its own joint encoders, with no vision, force/torque, or tactile sensors. The policy observes "a 0.6 s history of joint positions and velocities, the gripper pose and twist computed from them, and its own previous actions" (Section 2.3). In simulation, all three tasks achieve near-perfect success on in-distribution geometries (Figure 8). This is significant because it suggests that the sensor stack required for precise assembly may be far simpler than the industry assumes — potentially eliminating cameras, F/T sensors, and tactile fingertips from assembly workcells.

Blind Policies Generalize Better Than Visual Policies to Unseen Parts

In controlled comparisons, blind policies dramatically outperform matched visual policies when evaluated on parts outside the training distribution. On peg insertion with unseen random convex shapes, the blind policy succeeds in 36.2% of episodes versus 3.9% for the visual policy (Table 7). On nut threading with extreme size variation, the blind policy achieves 98.4% versus 1.6% for visual. The authors explain: "The visual policy learns to align visual features which may not appear in held-out assemblies. The blind policy, on the other hand, learns a searching strategy that is much more transferable" (Section 3.3). This challenges the prevailing assumption that more sensing modalities always yield better generalization.

Zero-Shot Sim-to-Real Transfer Without Fine-Tuning

A single policy trained entirely in simulation transfers to a real Flexiv Rizon 4S arm with a Robotiq 2F-85 gripper at 50 Hz, achieving 73% success (173 of 237 trials) across eight different pegs, including three outside the training distribution (Section 3.4). The policy receives "only encoder-derived joint and gripper state; no camera, force/torque sensor, or hole pose enters the policy." This is the first demonstration of sim-to-real precise insertion from proprioception alone, and the success rate on out-of-distribution pegs (66-72%) is only modestly lower than in-distribution pegs (73-80%).

mjfit: Open-Source Procedural Assembly Generator for MuJoCo

The authors release mjfit, which generates pegs/holes, gears, and nut/bolt pairs from exact convex prisms, preserving millimeter-scale clearances. It is "more accurate and faster than convex decomposition or MuJoCo's signed-distance collision" (Abstract). On a 16mm hole with 20µm clearance, mjfit achieves 0.2µm error versus baselines that "fill the clearance" or produce 23-79µm errors (Table 4). This tool directly enables the massive parallelization (12,288 worlds) needed to train diverse assembly policies, and is itself a contribution for any team doing contact-rich simulation.

Contact Supervision Accelerates Training Without Leaking Privileged Information

A contact decoder predicts contact state from the policy's latent representation during training only; its gradient trains the encoder but "the prediction never enters the policy, so nothing privileged reaches the actor and the decoder is dropped at deployment" (Section 2.3). This speeds up learning by 2.7-5.1× across tasks (Figure 14). This is a practical training trick for any team using RL for contact-rich manipulation.

2. Contrarian Perspectives

Vision Can Hurt Generalization in Contact-Rich Assembly

The industry default is to add more sensors — wrist cameras, F/T sensors, tactile fingertips — to improve assembly robustness. This paper provides evidence that visual policies can actually generalize worse: "The visual policy is particularly vulnerable to geometry changes that significantly change how the parts look; it consistently underperforms the blind policy across tasks when evaluated on parts that are of a different shape, or extremely different size, than the training distribution" (Section 3.3). On nut threading with extreme size variation, the visual policy collapses to 1.6% success while the blind policy holds at 98.4% (Table 7). The implication: visual features learned during training become brittle dependencies rather than generalizable signals. For companies deploying assembly systems across diverse part catalogs, a blind policy that learns a transferable search strategy may be more robust than a vision system tuned to specific geometries.

Scripted Search Patterns Are Far Less Efficient Than Learned Reactive Search

Industrial assembly commonly uses spiral search or raster patterns for peg-in-hole under position uncertainty. The paper shows that a learned blind policy travels a median 37mm before seating, versus 95mm for "an optimistic spiral that starts flush with the hole opening, and is given the peg's orientation and the best starting direction" (Section 3.2, Figure 9c). The learned policy is reactive — it uses contact feedback to steer — while the scripted pattern is open-loop. This suggests that companies relying on classical search strategies are leaving significant cycle-time on the table, and that RL-trained policies can outperform hand-engineered assembly routines even without additional sensing.

Convex Decomposition and SDF Collision Are Inadequate for Tight-Clearance Assembly Simulation

Standard approaches to simulating concave geometry in MuJoCo — convex decomposition (CoACD, V-HACD) and mesh SDF — introduce errors larger than the clearances they need to simulate. The authors show that "approximate decomposition tolerates concavity far larger than an assembly's clearance, so it leaves wall material inside the hole" (Section 2.2, Figure 5). A centered peg "stops on the rim or jams on every baseline's default plate, but falls cleanly through ours" (Section 2.2). This means teams using off-the-shelf convex decomposition for assembly simulation may be training policies on physically incorrect contact dynamics, and their sim-to-real gap may be partly self-inflicted.

3. Companies Identified

Flexiv, Robot arm manufacturer, Their Rizon 4S arm is the hardware platform for real-world deployment, "We deploy the frozen blind policy on a Flexiv Rizon 4S with a Robotiq 2F-85 at 50 Hz" (Section 3.4).

Robotiq, Gripper manufacturer, Their 2F-85 parallel jaw gripper is used for real-world experiments (Section 3.4).

Google DeepMind and NVIDIA, Co-developers of MuJoCo Warp (GPU-accelerated MuJoCo), Referenced as the GPU simulation backend used for benchmarking collision methods (Section 2.2, Figure 6b). Their platform is critical infrastructure for the scale of parallel simulation (12,288 worlds) used in training.

NVIDIA, GPU hardware, RTX 5090 used for GPU simulation benchmarks (Appendix B, Table 4).

4. People Identified

Antonia Bronars, MIT (co-first author), Co-led the work on blind assembly policies and the mjfit generator. Equal contribution with Younghyo Park.

Younghyo Park, MIT (co-first author), Co-led the work. Hosts the project page at younghyopark.me/blind-proprioceptive-assembly/. Equal contribution.

Kushal Kedia, MIT, Co-author on the paper, contributing to the research on proprioceptive assembly.

Pulkit Agrawal, MIT, Senior author and PI. Notable figure in Physical AI; his lab at MIT works on robot learning, manipulation, and sim-to-real transfer. Previously co-authored work on in-hand object reorientation (Chen et al., 2021) cited in the paper.

5. Operating Insights

Proprioception-Only Policies Reduce Hardware Complexity and Cost for Assembly

For any team building assembly workcells, this paper provides evidence that you can potentially drop cameras, F/T sensors, and tactile sensors from the bill of materials for contact-rich insertion tasks. The real-world deployment uses "only encoder-derived joint and gripper state; no camera, force/torque sensor, or hole pose enters the policy" (Section 3.4). This simplifies integration, reduces failure modes (no camera calibration drift, no sensor wiring), and lowers per-station cost. The tradeoff is speed: blind policies are slower than visual ones on in-distribution parts (0.80s vs 0.44s to seat, Table 5), but the generalization advantage may be worth it for high-mix assembly environments.

Massive Part Diversity in Simulation Is the Key to Generalization

The deployed policy trains on "random convex cross-sections" with wide ranges of geometry, contact properties, and poses (Table 2), using 12,288 parallel simulation worlds. The generalization to unseen real-world pegs (66-72% success on out-of-distribution parts) comes from this diversity, not from any architectural trick. Teams building assembly policies should invest in procedural part generation (like mjfit) rather than hand-modeling a small set of parts. The paper also shows that without contact supervision, training takes 2.7-5.1× longer (Figure 14), so the contact decoder trick is worth implementing.

The Policy Is a Last-Mile Skill, Not a Full Assembly Solution

The authors are explicit about limitations: "it assumes it starts in contact: every training episode begins with the peg already touching the fixture a few centimeters from the hole, so another motion, scripted or visual, must bring it there" and "its behavior is local" (Section 5). This means the policy is a plug-in for the final insertion step of an assembly pipeline, not a replacement for the full pick-and-place stack. Companies should think of this as a drop-in replacement for spiral search or force-controlled insertion at the end of a visual or scripted approach motion.

6. Overlooked Insights

The Blind Policy's Internal Representation Decodes Contact State Accurately in the Real World

A linear probe fitted only in simulation can decode the peg's contact mode (lifted, searching near/far, partially engaged, moving, stuck) from the policy's latent on the real robot with the same sequence as in simulation (Figure 10a). The probe achieves 70% balanced accuracy over 7 modes from the history latent, versus 56% from current observation alone and 33% from a random encoder (Appendix C). This means the policy has learned a genuinely transferable contact representation, not a simulation-specific artifact — and this representation could potentially be used for monitoring, anomaly detection, or as input to a higher-level planner.

The Sim-to-Real Gap Is Partly a Grasp Slip Problem, Not a Dynamics Problem

At the end of successful real-world trials, "the peg pose estimated from the joint encoders and planned grasp is a median 6.6 mm (10th–90th percentile 2.6–17.4 mm) from the seated pose, as the peg slips and turns in the fingers" (Appendix C). The probe labels only 62% of inside states correctly on the real robot versus 100% in simulation from the same starts. This suggests that grasp variability — not arm dynamics or contact friction — is the primary source of sim-to-real degradation. Companies deploying similar policies should focus randomization and robustness efforts on grasp modeling rather than friction or stiffness identification.