FORGE: Force-Aware Multi-Granularity Control for Efficient Humanoid Loco-Manipulation

1. Key Themes

One Policy, Many Command Granularities, No Human Motion Data

FORGE's core contribution is a single whole-body humanoid policy that accepts commands at different levels of detail: base velocity, planar foot placement, wrist poses, and optional force targets. These can be used "individually or jointly" (Sec. I). The practical significance is the data requirement: "Training needs no full-body human trajectories or human joint-angle references; teleoperation supplies only bilateral wrist poses relative to the pelvis and coarse commands from wearable trackers, handheld VR devices, or vision-based pose estimation" (Sec. I). Most competing humanoid stacks depend on retargeted mocap libraries. This one drives from sparse task-space commands, which lowers the barrier to collecting demonstrations and makes it compatible with cheap input devices.

Sensorless Wrist-Force Estimation That Is Good Enough to Use

The paper estimates contact forces at the wrist without force/torque sensors, using "arm joint states and reconstructed low-level PD torques" (Sec. III-B). The hybrid design pairs a classical momentum observer with a learned correction trained on simulator contact forces. On staged real-hardware loads, hybrid RMSE was 0.81/1.97/0.87 N (x/y/z) versus 2.83/5.15/3.02 N for observer-only and 2.43/2.23/2.88 N for learned-only (Table IV). For a BOM-conscious humanoid maker, that is a few newtons of error at zero added sensor cost. The paper is explicit about scope: it estimates "low-frequency translational wrist interaction... not full-wrench sensing or dynamic impedance control" (Sec. II-B).

Speed and Precision Gains Over Named Competing Controllers

On the same robot and target sequences (20 hardware trials per method), FORGE shows 22 ms latency versus 27 ms (HOMIE), 197 ms (TWIST2), and 252 ms (SONIC). Wrist mean position error is 4.15 cm versus 7.76 cm (TWIST2) and 6.42 cm (SONIC), and foot error is 5.42 cm versus 7.87 and 7.35 cm (Table I). For teleoperation data collection, latency matters directly: an operator fighting a 200-250 ms lag produces worse demonstrations.

Gentler Contact by Design

In a simulated bilateral box-squeeze test with identical wrist targets placed 5 cm inside the box surfaces, FORGE produced 8.52 N of squeezing force versus 15.32-17.16 N for the others (Table I). In a foam-box lift, enabling force feedback "produces less visible deformation than the baseline" (Sec. IV-D). This matters for handling fragile goods, human-adjacent work, and anything where position-only control crushes the payload.

The Controller as a Substrate for Learned Visuomotor Policies

A Diffusion Policy trained on 320 demonstrations (80 per payload) drives FORGE as the sole whole-body executor for squat-and-lift box transport, with success rates of 100%, 100%, 90%, and 90% for empty, 0.5 kg, 1 kg, and 2 kg payloads over 20 hardware trials each (Table V). This is the architecture argument in miniature: a robust low-level controller with a clean command interface lets a high-level learned planner be trained on modest data.

2. Contrarian Perspectives

You Don't Need Full-Body Human Motion Data to Get a Capable Humanoid

The prevailing trend is to scale motion-tracking models on large mocap corpora (the paper cites SONIC's "supersizing motion tracking" and BeyondMimic). FORGE argues the opposite: "dense motion-reference objectives do not directly expose task-space commands for precise foot placement, wrist targeting, and sustained contact" (Sec. I). Its evidence is head-to-head: it beats SONIC and TWIST2 on wrist error (4.15 vs 6.42 and 7.76 cm) and latency (22 vs 252 and 197 ms) in Table I. Caveat: these comparisons use locally reproduced baselines on a single robot, and the paper does not test breadth of motion repertoire, where reference-driven models likely win.

Don't Learn End-to-End; Freeze a Locomotion Prior and Learn Only Residuals

Many teams pursue fully end-to-end whole-body policies. FORGE reports that "an end-to-end 29-DoF policy trained without a locomotion prior fails to learn stable behavior, whereas the base-residual design converges" and that removing action-std clipping "causes late-stage reward collapse" (Sec. IV-C, Fig. 6). The implication is that, at least for mixed locomotion-plus-contact objectives, modularity with a frozen expert is a prerequisite, not a compromise. The design is also not a fully decoupled stack: the residual still adjusts the legs, preserving whole-body coupling.

Sensors Are Optional if You Respect What You Can Actually Estimate

The usual assumption is that contact-rich manipulation requires wrist F/T sensors. FORGE shows that a deliberately narrow estimation target (low-frequency, translational, quasi-static) is enough to adapt behavior, using an "algebraic, admittance-like target adaptation" (Sec. III-B3). Many robotics companies would disagree that this suffices for production. The paper's own limits support that skepticism: held-out vertical loads of 35/40/50 N yield hybrid RMSEs of 8.28/9.66/12.35 N (Sec. IV-D), so accuracy degrades well outside the training range.

3. Companies Identified

Unitree (implied)

Humanoid maker. The paper refers to evaluation "on G1 hardware" (Sec. IV-D), and the 29-DoF action space with 7-DoF arms is consistent with that platform. This is the actual hardware FORGE was validated on. The paper does not name the manufacturer, so this attribution is an inference. Quote: "We evaluate force estimation on G1 hardware using manually applied wrist loads measured with a handheld force gauge."

NVIDIA (via Isaac Gym and research affiliations)

GPU simulation and robotics platform provider. Training runs in Isaac Gym: "Isaac Gym advances at 200 Hz with the TGS solver" with 2,048 parallel environments (Secs. III-B3, IV-A). Several cited baselines (SONIC, ASAP, FALCON) come from NVIDIA-affiliated or related authors. It is the de facto training stack for this class of work, which reinforces its position. The paper does not mention NVIDIA by name.

Shanghai AI Laboratory (institutional)

Authors' primary affiliation, which also produced HOMIE, Gallant, and PhysHSI cited in the references. It is a state-backed research hub producing a coherent pipeline of humanoid work (teleoperation, terrain, scene interaction, force-aware control). Quote: "Shanghai AI Laboratory" (author affiliations).

Competing controller lines referenced

• SONIC (Luo et al., large-scale motion tracking): the 252 ms latency and 6.42 cm wrist error comparison point (Table I).
• TWIST2 (Ze et al., portable humanoid data collection): 197 ms latency and 7.76 cm wrist error (Table I).
• HOMIE (isomorphic exoskeleton teleop): the closest on latency at 27 ms, but with "no wrist-target or foothold interface" (Sec. IV-B).

4. People Identified

Weinan Zhang, Jingbo Wang, Yebin Liu (Corresponding authors)

Shanghai AI Laboratory, with Liu at Tsinghua University. They lead the group and direct a line of work on humanoid loco-manipulation and humanoid-scene interaction. Quote: "†Corresponding authors" (author list).

Liangjun Xing, Ke Fan, Kailin Li (Equal-contribution first authors)

Shanghai AI Laboratory. Li is also first author on ManipTrans, which the paper cites for residual learning (ref. [20]), suggesting the residual-on-frozen-prior idea carries over from dexterous manipulation. Quote: "∗Equal contribution."

Qingwei Ben

Shanghai AI Laboratory / CUHK. First author on HOMIE (ref. [8]) and Gallant (ref. [2]), both directly relevant to this work as the decoupled-stack baseline and a locomotion foundation.

Peiyuan Zhi, Siyuan Huang (UniFP)

Authors of "Learning unified force and position control for legged loco-manipulation" (ref. [10]), the closest prior work. FORGE retains UniFP's force-position separation but adds a momentum-observer prior: "FORGE retains this separation but adds a momentum-observer prior before learned correction" (Sec. II-B).

Guanya Shi, Tairan He, and collaborators

CMU and NVIDIA-affiliated authors on ASAP, OmniH2O, FALCON, and "Hold My Beer" (refs. [1], [5], [15], [17], [23]). They define much of the reference landscape FORGE positions against.

Alessandro De Luca, Raffaella Mattone

Authors of the sensorless momentum-observer method FORGE builds on (ref. [25]). A classical robotics technique is being revived as a structured prior for learning.

5. Operating Insights

Design the Command Interface Before the Policy

FORGE's most transferable lesson is interface design: four command groups with activation masks, where "four task-level activation bits expand into a per-group mask" without "selecting another controller or changing the 29-D action semantics" (Sec. III-A). The ablation shows why: removing the mask raises wrist error from 7.9 cm to 11.5 cm and cuts valid rollout time from 19.46 s to 15.69 s (Table III). If your teleop and learned-policy stacks share one interface, you can use the same executor for data collection and deployment.

Treat Teleop Latency and Tracking as Data-Quality Metrics

Because downstream policies learn from demonstrations, the 22 ms vs. ~200-250 ms latency gap (Table I) shapes everything upstream. The diffusion policy reached 90-100% success with only 80 demonstrations per payload condition (Sec. IV-F). Benchmark your executor's latency and tracking error before investing in demonstration collection.

Budget Training Compute and Tuning Realistically

The recipe is not trivial: 2,048 parallel environments, up to 20,000 PPO updates per stage, a two-stage pipeline (frozen lower-body expert, then residual), and sensitive details such as a 0.2 action-std clip on the lower body and a termination threshold tuned to 0.2 m (Fig. 7). The paper notes 0.3 and 0.4 m give "longer high-error tails." Expect to tune these per robot.

6. Overlooked Insights

The Success Statistics Hide How Little Was Tested

The 20/20 and 18/20 results look strong, but the paper's own Wilson intervals are 83.9-100% and 69.9-97.2% (Sec. IV-F). The task is a single squat-and-lift box transport, the payload range is 0-2 kg, and the force-estimation evaluation relies on manually applied loads from a handheld gauge. The 90% payload results are statistically compatible with roughly 70% reliability. Commercial deployments typically need far higher, so this is a capability demonstration rather than a reliability claim.

The Force Loop Is Not Closed on Real Contact Dynamics

Force estimation was validated with the commanded force set to zero ("fcmd = 0 and every gauge load is externally applied," Sec. IV-D), while the force-conditioned adaptation was demonstrated separately in a qualitative foam-box comparison. The squeezing-force numbers in Table I are from simulation, not hardware. Moreover, the estimator is "wrist-equivalent": "unmodeled link contacts and whole-body coupling are not separately identified" (Sec. III-B). Contact with an elbow or torso would be misattributed to the wrist, a meaningful gap for cluttered real-world environments. The force-command gain (Kf = 200 N/m) and the 50 N clip also cap how hard the system can push or hold.