I began this project by training an ACT policy on approximately 60 teleoperated demonstrations for a grasping task with the SO-101 robotic arm. The policy worked well near the demonstrated object positions, but became less reliable as I moved the object away. This raised a question: how much of the learned grasping behavior would transfer beyond the spatial distribution represented in the demonstrations?
To investigate, I systematically varied the object position using the same checkpoint, while aiming to keep the robot configuration, camera setup and object unchanged. In these small-sample tests, grasping was relatively stable within 0–4 cm. At left 7 cm, both runs eventually succeeded, but required four and six attempts; at left 8 cm, the single recorded run failed. This suggested that training-data coverage could constrain generalization—and that final success alone could hide declining efficiency.
I then collected demonstrations from underrepresented regions and fine-tuned the original policy for 10,000 steps using only the new data, because incompatible observation schemas prevented merging the datasets. The resulting policy succeeded at several newly covered positions, but also failed at some nearby positions. This raised the possibility of a shift in the policy’s spatial preferences or forgetting. Because the two evaluations used different position sets and few trials, I could not yet establish either a workspace expansion or a loss of previous capabilities.
This shifted my perspective. The challenge was no longer only how to adapt to new situations, but also how to preserve existing capabilities while learning from new experience. Thinking about robots encountering changing environments, objects and tasks led me to become interested in Continual Robot Learning: how robots can balance adaptation and retention, and accumulate capabilities over time. A next step is to compare new-only fine-tuning with mixed old-and-new data on the same evaluation grid.