How firmly should a robot grip when its friction twin is too clean?
research/grasp-twin
How firmly to grip in a friction twin: closed-form (quadratic) optimum force under slip vs crush, a twin with spread 0.1 vs real 0.3 claims risk 1e-5 and delivers 0.069 (4× the optimum, 11.6× at 0.05), a zero-spread twin has no unique policy (real slip 0.50 to 0.015), width can cancel a known bias but not an unknown one, delta-method calibration budget.
What it found
A pinch grasp slips if μF < w0 and crushes if F exceeds a fragility limit; with log-normal friction and crush force the expected loss is a sum of two normal CDFs in ln F and its optimum solves a quadratic. A twin whose friction spread is 0.1 instead of 0.3 grips softer, claims a risk of 1.1×10−5 and delivers 0.069 (4.0× the optimum; 11.6× at spread 0.05). A near-zero-spread twin has a flat zero-risk plateau, so its ‘optimal’ force is a tie-break: real slip 0.50 at the lower edge, 0.015 at the upper. Biased friction costs ≈ ½J″Δx² (85% of the optimum at −0.3 in log-friction), and a widened randomisation width can cancel a known bias but costs 1.5× the optimum if the bias is of opposite sign. A plug-in from n real friction measurements has regret matched by the delta method within 5% for n ≥ 50. Stylised: static friction threshold, chosen parameters, no contact dynamics or reactive re-grasp.
A figure from its own output
Paper, code and results
More in Digital twins & sim-to-real
- How much battery should a UAV carry when its twin has a constant wind?Battery reserve of a UAV leg planned in a constant-wind twin: cruise speed nearly right (regret 0.1%) but the energy claim is low by exactly
artanh(x)/x(3.5%) and a battery sized to it depletes in 50% of real flights; 5% depletion needs a 39% margin, and the twin speed stalls once wind spread exceedsv−μ. - What does a too-clean odometry twin do to a SLAM loop-closure gate?A SLAM loop-closure gate tuned in a too-clean odometry twin: exact chi-square gate costs and closed-form optimal gate, real noise 2× the twin's rejects 38% of true closures (claimed 2%) at 4.4× the claimed cost, pessimistic twins are not safe either, and ~59 ground-truthed closures repair it.
- What does an odometry twin that is too clean do to a loop-closure gate?A chi-square loop-closure gate tuned in a too-clean odometry twin: exact real error 2.1× the claim at drift-sd ratio 2, rejected genuine closures compound into lock-out (9–16× the ungated error, growing with horizon), the gate halves aliasing error when the twin is right but is 8× worse than no gate when it is not, and ~30 measured drifts make the repair safe.
- How often should a mapping team rendezvous when its twin's odometry drift has no bias?How often a mapping team should rendezvous when its twin's odometry drift has no bias: real error is exactly
√(1+ρ)times the claim, cost-optimal interval solves a cubic, twin regret 0.19–34.6%, shared bias cancels in the pairwise frame (5.3%→0.10%), and repair needs a long-lag ground-truth fit. - What does a simulator tuned on one-step odometry noise get wrong about drift, relocalisation and loop closure?A twin tuned on one-step odometry noise cannot see drift: variance ratio exactly
1+(T−1)ρ, relocalisation interval 3.4× too long (real miss 51.6% vs 5%), twin-tuned loop-closure gate recall 0.64 at T=200, closed-loop runaway, aliasing limits calibrated gates. - How wrong is a safety margin certified in a Gaussian-disturbance simulator when real gusts are heavy-tailed?A corridor-keeping safety margin certified in a Gaussian-disturbance twin: same variance, heavy-tailed real gusts give 0.29 real failure at a claimed 0.01, needed margin 7.3× at
δ=0.001 (ν=3), variance inflation misses by 24×, conformal needsn≥1/δ, a Hill tail fit from one-step data repairs it.
All 164 Digital twins & sim-to-real 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.