Robotics paper index
Topological Necessities: Mechanism-Invariant Strategic Subgoals for Cross-Embodiment Goal-Conditioned Control
One-line summary
A robotics research paper on Topological Necessities: Mechanism-Invariant Strategic Subgoals for Cross-Embodiment Goal-Conditioned Control.
Engineering notes
Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.
Chinese explanation / 中文解读
中文解读待补充:本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。
Original abstract
Long-horizon goal-conditioned reinforcement learning delegates control to a high-level module that proposes subgoals, but existing subgoals are implicit byproducts of value functions or latent actions, tied to the executor that produced them. We study a different object: a route-conditioned order of unavoidable stages that every successful executor must traverse, recoverable from offline trajectories and belonging to none of them. Its defining properties are topological: an unskippable stage is a separating set that every admissible path must cross, and a loop in free space forces a route choice. We read the two by homology in dimensions 0 and 1 over a transport-weighted carrier built from successful trajectories, yielding an enumerable gate set with shell-level certificates; the certified gates are what we call topological necessities. Certified gates enter the decision loop as a recursive topological gate hierarchy. Under a fixed, isomorphic free space, the object survives executor replacement: gates frozen on PointMaze data transfer without retraining to Ant and Humanoid, attaining the highest Humanoid aggregate under a unified interface (96.1), with +36.0 over a map-privileged reference on the multi-route task (p=1.4e-5); the planner saturates PointMaze (100+/-0) and matches or exceeds the strongest baselines on AntMaze (giant +22.9) and Kitchen (+15.8/+12.6).
Links and sources
Need this topic turned into a technical roadmap?
Robot Papers can prepare a custom robotics literature review, code map, dataset map, and B2B technology assessment.
Request B2B research
Comments