Which cheap wheel-legged rover covers the most stylised rubble under a 120 USD parts cap, and does a session agent beat CMA-ES and Bayesian optimisation?
research/codesign-sar
Which cheap wheel-legged rover covers the most stylised rubble under a 120 USD cap, and can an agent beat CMA-ES and Bayesian optimisation at 40 evaluations? Wheel radius at its bound plus about 0.5 N m torque reaches the ceiling (J 0.783, 69 USD); Bayesian opt and CMA-ES 0.782, session agent 0.783, random 0.716; stylised, falls never occurred.
What it found
Five design variables (wheel radius, wheelbase, flipper length, drive torque, battery) are scored on twelve held-out random-rubble terrains with Gamma-patchy friction, each design with its own evolution-strategies speed-and-flipper policy (not PPO). Wheel radius at its 90 mm bound with torque of about 0.5 N m reaches the ceiling J = 0.783 (16 of 20 m) at 69 USD. Median best J at 40 evaluations: Bayesian optimisation 0.782, CMA-ES 0.782, session agent 0.783, random search 0.716; the gaps at the top are within policy-search noise. Falls were zero throughout, so the tip-over and recovery path is untested. Stylised statics, assumed unsourced prices, one agent run with a calibration-time prior.
A figure from its own output

Paper, code and results
More in Agentic co-design of low-cost robots
- Which three-finger pad design picks the most unbruised strawberry-like fruit under a 60 USD cap, and does a session agent beat CMA-ES and Bayesian optimisation?Which three-finger pad design picks the most unbruised strawberry-like fruit under a 60 USD cap, and can an agent beat CMA-ES and Bayesian optimisation at 40 evaluations? Bayesian optimisation did (median J 0.635 against the agent's 0.618); about 20% of fruit are lost to clutter collisions no pad setting changes. Stylised, assumed constants.
- Which suction gripper picks the most of a stylised mixed tote under an 80 USD cap, and does a session agent beat CMA-ES and Bayesian optimisation?Which suction gripper picks the most of a stylised mixed tote (boxes, polybags, bottles) under an 80 USD cap, and can an agent beat CMA-ES and Bayesian optimisation at 40 evaluations? The agent's best J was 0.519 against 0.478 for Bayesian optimisation (median of 20 seeds); the best design is two 18.5 mm cups at 80 kPa and 60 L/min, and a catalogue-default single 30 mm cup scores 0.075. Stylised, assumed constants.
- Should a quadrotor’s airframe and its learned attitude controller be sized together, or one after the other?Should a quadrotor's airframe and its learned roll controller be sized together? Yes in this stylised model: joint CMA-ES reaches 5.25° RMS roll error, equal to the grid optimum, against 7.06° for lightest-airframe-first; a controller reused across airframes is worse on 41% of them.
- Does the best quadrotor airframe stay best when motor strength, mass and motor lag are randomised?Does the best quadrotor airframe stay best under widened motor-strength, mass and lag randomisation? Mostly: top five unchanged (Spearman 0.75), but retuning gains helps the median airframe 0.91° (stylised).
- Should a quadrotor’s airframe and controller gains be searched jointly when the plant is uncertain?Should airframe and gains be searched jointly under an uncertain plant? Yes in this stylised model: joint CMA-ES at 960 evaluations (5.75° median held-out, 8 seeds) beats random search and a 4800-evaluation grid-then-tune best cell (6.00°).
- Is the quadrotor airframe ranking from one tuning run reproducible, or is it tuning noise?Is the airframe ranking from one tuning run reproducible? With wide-tuned gains yes (Spearman 0.99 over six replicates); with nominal-tuned gains it is noisier (0.84) and the earlier 0.17° regret was within noise (stylised).
All 27 Agentic co-design of low-cost robots projects →
Other research topics
Proper scoring & elicitation28Effort & peer prediction9Verification games & slashing19Detection & tolerances14Markets as routers13Prediction-market design9Paying contributors8Decentralised training systems23Digital twins & sim-to-real164LLM chip design loops40Robot manufacturing loops53Ambient AI assistant46Self-replicating manufacturing34Simulation-first design64Engineered clothing45Task-specific AI accelerators40Algorithmic chip-design loops42Open-source purpose-built robots44The software-engineering loop43Adversarial human imitation41Open-source residential construction41Autonomous multi-angle capture34Sensing, imaging and 3D31Energy supply and dense energy storage39Robot societies among people31Agentic co-design of low-cost robots27Laundry-hanging robots25Machine learning on qualitative data23Robots on the building site27Civilizations & group psychology1History & human sciences1
Produced with AI assistance (Claude). Results are from the code in this repository and are simulated or stylised unless the abstract says otherwise; nothing here implies affiliation with or endorsement by any lab, researcher or company cited. MIT licensed.