Paper Reading AI Learner

Do Earth-Trained Humanoid Controllers Walk on the Moon? Gravity, Terrain, and Soil Transfer

2026-10-21 17:28:57
Guillem Casadesus Vila, Sri Aditya Deevi, Grace X. Gao

Abstract

The Moon changes gravity, terrain, and soil at once. Learned locomotion has studied reduced gravity on rigid ground and granular terrain mostly at Earth gravity, but not humanoids under both, generalist-controller transfer, or the Earth cost of lunar adaptation. On a simulated Unitree G1, we train 12 policies with one recipe, varying gravity, terrain geometry, and ground contact (rigid or three-dimensional resistive force theory, 3D RFT), and including Earth-to-Moon fine-tuning and gravity randomization. We test them at both gravities on rigid ground and 3D RFT, and at their training gravity on three held-out soil models. We also test the frozen SONIC, a released generalist humanoid controller, at both gravities on rigid ground only. Gravity transfer is asymmetric. Earth-trained policies keep 0.64 to 0.75 survival at the Moon on flat rigid ground, Moon-trained and fine-tuned policies cannot stand at Earth, and SONIC survives at most 0.10 at the Moon. Rough training lifts combined-tile survival from 0.53 to 0.98 at Earth and 0.80 to 0.99 at the Moon. In 3D RFT, soil training helps on Earth sand, on tiles and for rough-trained policies also on flat sand. On the stiffer lunar soil it helps only flat-trained Earth policies at Earth and changes the survival of Moon-trained policies by at most a few hundredths. In the sampled rollouts of the held-out soil models, Moon-trained policies keep most of their rigid-ground progress on lunar regolith at the low G1 foot pressure, with per-seed progress ratios of 0.84 to 1.39 apart from one seed with a short rigid reference. A gravity-randomized policy trained on rough 3D RFT terrain has a seed-mean survival of at least 0.84 at Earth and 0.96 at the Moon on every key test cell up to 20 degrees. Lunar results are simulation predictions conditional on the contact model and soil stiffness.

Abstract (translated)

URL

https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30080

PDF

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.30080.pdf


Tags
3D Action Action_Localization Action_Recognition Activity Adversarial Agent Attention Autonomous Bert Boundary_Detection Caption Chat Classification CNN Compressive_Sensing Contour Contrastive_Learning Deep_Learning Denoising Detection Dialog Diffusion Drone Dynamic_Memory_Network Edge_Detection Embedding Embodied Emotion Enhancement Face Face_Detection Face_Recognition Facial_Landmark Few-Shot Gait_Recognition GAN Gaze_Estimation Gesture Gradient_Descent Handwriting Human_Parsing Image_Caption Image_Classification Image_Compression Image_Enhancement Image_Generation Image_Matting Image_Retrieval Inference Inpainting Intelligent_Chip Knowledge Knowledge_Graph Language_Model LLM Matching Medical Memory_Networks Multi_Modal Multi_Task NAS NMT Object_Detection Object_Tracking OCR Ontology Optical_Character Optical_Flow Optimization Person_Re-identification Point_Cloud Portrait_Generation Pose Pose_Estimation Prediction QA Quantitative Quantitative_Finance Quantization Re-identification Recognition Recommendation Reconstruction Regularization Reinforcement_Learning Relation Relation_Extraction Represenation Represenation_Learning Restoration Review RNN Robot Salient Scene_Classification Scene_Generation Scene_Parsing Scene_Text Segmentation Self-Supervised Semantic_Instance_Segmentation Semantic_Segmentation Semi_Global Semi_Supervised Sence_graph Sentiment Sentiment_Classification Sketch SLAM Sparse Speech Speech_Recognition Style_Transfer Summarization Super_Resolution Surveillance Survey Text_Classification Text_Generation Time_Series Tracking Transfer_Learning Transformer Unsupervised Video_Caption Video_Classification Video_Indexing Video_Prediction Video_Retrieval Visual_Relation VQA Weakly_Supervised Zero-Shot