Poke &Wiggle
Papers
Paper

CSP

Hierarchical Policy Learning via Spectral Decomposition

Claim tested: CSP improves real-robot task success over Diffusion Policy on precision-sensitive manipulation tasks.

Tested

Paper
arXiv⁠ (opens in a new tab)
Code
—
Venue
ICML 2026
Authors
Shuxin Cao et al.
Farm tasks
3
Evaluation
180 episodes (90 for baseline, 90 for method)

Result

Improvement over baseline

Not replicated

Reported
+62 pts
Ours
+2 pts
−200+20+40+60
  • Gain vs baseline
  • 95% CI, −5 pts to +9 pts
  • Paper's reported gain
  • No difference

Success rate

Reported
86%
Ours
6%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
  • Measured on our stations
  • 95% CI, 2%–12%
  • Reported in the paper

By task

TaskBaselineDiffusion PolicyMethodCSPImprovement
e01Clamp electrical component10%3/303%1/30−7 pts−23 to +8
e02Connect DC jack0%0/300%0/300 pts−11 to +11
e03Datum-corner alignment0%0/3013%4/30+13 pts−1 to +30
All tasks3%3/906%5/90+2 pts−5 to +9
Reported in the paper24%86%+62 pts

Rollouts

One clip per environment from this entry's evaluation, beside where each evaluation episode placed the environment's objects, coloured by its rating. Use the button beside each environment to open its evaluation dataset in the dataset viewer.

  1. e02Connect DC jack
  2. Held-out benchmark environment
    e01Clamp electrical component
  3. Held-out benchmark environment
    e03Datum-corner alignment

Implementation Details

What we changed

We reimplemented CSP from the paper; the authors have not released code, so where the paper is silent we followed BAKU, whose transformer settings match the paper’s. This round compares CSP with Diffusion Policy on three precision-sensitive tasks: connecting the DC jack, clamping the electrical component and pushing the box into the datum corner. Both arms train on the same data with the same cameras, chunk length, batch size and number of training steps. Differences from the paper:

  • Control. The control is Diffusion Policy, one of the paper’s baselines, trained on the same data as CSP with the platform’s standard settings.
  • Two arms and three cameras. Our platform is bimanual with three cameras, instead of the paper’s single arm with a fixed and a wrist camera.
  • Absolute pose actions. CSP decomposes chunks of 32 absolute end-effector poses, the same actions the control predicts, instead of the paper’s velocity-style actions.
  • Fixed cutoff. The coarse stage predicts the 8 lowest of 32 frequency components, inside the range the paper reports as working well, because the paper’s automatic cutoff rule gives no usable answer on absolute poses.
  • Shared image encoder. CSP uses Diffusion Policy’s image encoder, so the comparison isolates the action model.
  • Gripper in the coarse stage. Gripper width stays in the time domain and is predicted by the coarse stage, which the paper does not specify.
  • No language input. Neither arm receives the task instruction, because each task has a single fixed instruction.
  • Execution. Both arms run on the station’s blend runtime, which requests the next plan 800 ms ahead and crossfades into it over 600 ms.

See the code changes on GitHub⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Prompt summary

Read the CSP paper (spectral coarse-to-fine action decomposition), implement CSP and a Diffusion Policy control, choose three precision-sensitive tasks, train in the cloud, evaluate on stations and compare. (Chosen tasks: connect_dc_jack, clamp_electrical_component and push_box_into_datum_corner; default blend runtime.)

Response summary

CSP vs DP success: datum 4/30 vs 0/30 (AP 13 vs 0), clamp 1/30 vs 3/30 (AP 36 vs 40), dc jack 0/30 vs 0/30 (AP 34 vs 0); no clear SR difference overall.

Conclusion

No clear difference; CSP ahead on datum, behind on clamp. Note: we could not find the paper's hypothesis in our data, that high-precision behaviour lives in the high-frequency components of the actions.