Robotics / Humanoid

ASAPAligning Simulation and Real-World Physics for Learning Agile Humanoid Whole-Body Skills

Original paper PaperBridge Editorial7/26/2026

Tairan He et al. · arXiv:2502.01143v3 · 2025 · Primary source

ASAP teaches a humanoid an agile motion in simulation, lets the first policy expose where the real robot behaves differently, and then makes training simulation reproduce that mismatch. The key idea is not to identify every wrong physical parameter. It is to learn the small joint-command changes that make simulated motion follow recorded real motion.

A human video becomes a motion the robot can physically attempt

Follow the motion from left to right. The authors record a person, reconstruct a moving 3D body with TRAM, reject reconstructions that a physics-based character cannot imitate, and then match 12 corresponding body links to the Unitree G1. The result is a cleaned robot trajectory, not a direct copy of video pixels. Paper §II-A, Fig. 2

This screen makes a motion more plausible in simulation; it does not prove that the real G1 can execute it safely. Reconstruction errors, different human and robot proportions, and real hardware limits can still matter.

A clock and the robot’s recent sensations become 23 joint targets

The policy receives a motion clock, from 0 at the start to 1 at the end, plus five recent steps of joint positions, joint velocities, body rotation cues, gravity direction, and earlier actions. It outputs 23 target joint positions for a low-level controller. During training, the critic may see extra simulated information, but the deployed policy does not need global position tracking or odometry. Paper §II-B

Training starts with a forgiving 1.5 m tracking-error cutoff and tightens it to 0.3 m. Episodes also begin at random points in the reference motion, so the robot can practice a landing without first mastering the takeoff. These choices help training, but the paper tests one policy per motion rather than one universal policy for arbitrary motions.

Real failures are replayed as corrective commands inside simulation

The first policy runs on the real G1 while motion capture and onboard sensors record states and actions. Replaying those actions in the original simulator reveals a mismatch. A learned delta action adds a joint-command correction until the simulated next state resembles the recorded real next state. The correction model is then frozen inside simulation while the motion policy is fine-tuned; only that fine-tuned policy goes back onto the robot. Paper §III, Fig. 1

Think of the correction as making the simulator reproduce the robot’s mistakes, not helping the deployed robot at the last second. If a simulated motor is too strong, the learned correction may reduce its command so training experiences the weaker behavior. This avoids choosing a fixed list of physical parameters, but it still depends on real trajectories that cover the relevant mismatch.

The real robot tracks two tested motions better, at a hardware cost

Every plotted error is lower after ASAP fine-tuning. Global joint-position error falls from 61.2 to 50.2 mm on the recorded kick and from 159 to 112 mm on the held-out “LeBron” motion. The second result is the stronger generalization check because that motion was outside the delta model’s training set. Paper §IV-C, Table V

This is evidence for two real-world motions on a fixed-wrist Unitree G1, not proof of broad reliability in homes, crowds, or changing terrain. Data collection needed motion capture; two robots were damaged to some extent; and the authors report that full 23-joint correction training demanded more than 400 simulated episodes, making comparable real-world collection impractical. Paper §VIII

Research appendix

What the essential equation is trying to answer

Question: Given the robot’s current condition and the joint command that was recorded in the real world, what extra command would make the simulator land closer to the real robot’s next condition?

$\Delta a_t=\pi^\Delta_\theta(s_t,a_t)$

The inputs are the current state $s_t$ and action $a_t$ . Here, a state contains base position and motion plus 23 joint positions and velocities; the action is a vector of joint targets. The learned function $\pi^\Delta_\theta$ , whose adjustable settings are $\theta$ , outputs $\Delta a_t$ : one correction per commanded joint. The operation is a learned mapping, not subtraction performed directly on two measurements. A larger correction means the recorded command needs more adjustment in simulation; a zero correction leaves it unchanged.

Concrete example: suppose one knee target in the recording is $0.40$ radians, but replaying it makes the simulated knee move too far. If the model outputs $-0.05$ , the simulator receives $0.40+(-0.05)=0.35$ radians for that joint. This number is illustrative, not reported by the paper.

Question: How does that correction change the simulator used for fine-tuning?

$s_{t+1}=f^{\mathrm{ASAP}}(s_t,a_t)=f^{\mathrm{sim}}\!\left(s_t,a_t+\pi^\Delta(s_t,a_t)\right)$

The simulator $f^{\mathrm{sim}}$ takes the current state and the corrected action. It produces the next state $s_{t+1}$ . During delta-model training, rewards favor next states close to the recorded real next state and penalize large corrections. During policy fine-tuning, $\pi^\Delta$ is frozen. This matters because the motion policy must learn to succeed under the reproduced weakness rather than rely on a correction that will remain attached at deployment. If $\pi^\Delta$ grows, the simulated physics experienced by the policy moves farther from the original simulator; if it is zero everywhere, fine-tuning uses the original dynamics.

Training and evaluation details

Item	Paper setting
Robot	Unitree G1, fixed wrists
Policy output	23 target joint positions
Motion goal	Phase $\phi\in[0,1]$ for a single motion
Policy input history	Five steps of joint and body-sensor information; earlier actions
Simulation benchmark	43 motions, grouped easy / medium / hard
Transfers	IsaacGym → IsaacSim; IsaacGym → Genesis; IsaacGym → real G1
Success rule	Failure if average body-distance error exceeds 0.5 m at any point
Real comparison	One in-distribution kick; one out-of-distribution “LeBron” motion

Exact real-world results

Lower is better for every value.

Motion	Method	Global position error (mm)	Root-relative joint error (mm)	Acceleration error (mm/frame²)	Root velocity error (mm/frame)
Kick	Vanilla	61.2	43.5	2.96	2.91
Kick	ASAP	50.2	40.1	2.46	2.70
LeBron, held out	Vanilla	159	55.3	3.43	6.43
LeBron, held out	ASAP	112	47.5	2.84	5.94

Source: Paper Table V. The paper’s “up to 52.7%” conclusion is not the reduction in the Table V global errors shown above; readers should not substitute it for these motion-specific values.

What the simulator experiments add

The simulator-to-simulator tests offer broader controlled coverage than the two real-motion comparisons. Policies trained in IsaacGym were tested in IsaacSim and Genesis across 43 motions. ASAP maintained 100% reported success across difficulty levels and generally reduced tracking errors relative to Vanilla, SysID, and DeltaDynamics. At a 1.0 s open-loop horizon, for example, global position error in IsaacSim was 37.9 mm for ASAP versus 80.8 for uncorrected open-loop replay, 77.6 for SysID, and 68.1 for DeltaDynamics. These tests isolate dynamics transfer, but a second simulator is still not the physical world. Paper §IV-A–B, Tables III–IV

Ablations and boundaries

More delta-training data improved held-out open-loop prediction, but closed-loop improvement saturated: moving from 4,300 to 43,000 samples reduced the reported closed-loop error by only 0.65%.
A 1.5 s training horizon gave the lowest open-loop errors, while closed-loop performance had its sweet spot at 1.0 s.
Uniform action noise improved over no fine-tuning in a tested range, but its 150 mm global error was worse than ASAP’s 126 mm. The learned corrections also varied by joint, with larger gaps in the lower body, especially ankles and knees.
The authors list motor overheating, hardware failure, dependence on motion capture, and the sample demands of full 23-DoF correction as limitations.

Source grounding

Claim	Primary-paper location	Confidence
Human video is reconstructed, physics-screened, and retargeted using 12 body-link correspondences.	§II-A, Fig. 2	High
The deployable actor uses proprioception and phase; privileged information is confined to the training critic.	§II-B	High
Delta actions are trained from real-trajectory replay mismatch, frozen for fine-tuning, and absent at deployment.	§III, Fig. 1	High
ASAP lowers all eight Table V errors across the two reported real motions.	§IV-C, Table V	High
Real-world scope is limited by hardware damage, motion capture, and data demands.	§VIII	High

Terms

Proprioception: the robot’s internal sense of joint positions, joint speeds, body rotation, and gravity direction.
Policy: a learned rule that turns observations and a goal into motor targets.
Reinforcement learning: training by repeatedly trying actions and scoring their results.
Residual or delta action: an added correction to an existing command.
System identification (SysID): fitting selected simulator parameters, such as mass or controller gains, to measurements.
Domain randomization: training across many randomized simulated conditions so one policy tolerates variation.
Open loop: replaying actions without letting a policy correct the trajectory as it unfolds.
Closed loop: continually choosing new actions from the latest sensed state.
Out of distribution (OOD): not included in the data used to train the component being tested.

Verification questions

Why does ASAP train the simulator to reproduce real failures instead of attaching the delta model to the deployed robot?
Which information reaches the deployed actor, and which information is available only to the training critic?
Why is the held-out LeBron motion a stronger check than the recorded kick?
What do the two real-motion results leave unanswered about safety and general use?
If the learned delta action were zero for every joint, what training environment would remain?

Three key questions about this paper

What problem does ASAP: Aligning Simulation and Real-World Physics for Learning Agile Humanoid Whole-Body Skills address?

Tairan He et al. · arXiv:2502.01143v3 · 2025 · Primary source