A Regularizer That Teaches Robot Policies to Ignore What Doesn't Matter — Consistently

Inner product regularization forces imitation-learned policies to respond consistently to irrelevant perturbations across nearby states, tripling real-robot success rates without extra data.

Imagine you're teaching someone to drive by riding shotgun. They learn fine on your usual route, but the moment a billboard changes or a parked car appears, they jerk the wheel. The problem isn't that they're bad at driving — it's that they learned to react to things that don't matter, and they react to those things differently depending on where they are on the road. InneR is a fix for exactly this: it forces the learner to be consistently indifferent to irrelevant changes, no matter what state they're in. The committed claim: existing regularization methods (weight decay, spectral norm, Lipschitz constraints) limit how sensitive a policy is to perturbations at each individual state, but they don't enforce that the policy treats irrelevant perturbations the same way across different states. InneR does. It exploits the fact that the policy's Jacobian induces an inner product on state space — the Fisher information metric for stochastic policies — and that the null space of this inner product identifies exactly which state perturbations are invisible to the policy. By clustering states whose induced inner products are aligned, averaging those inner products within each cluster, and then minimizing the smallest eigenvalues of that average, InneR shapes the policy so nearby states share a common null space. The perturbations the robot ignores at one state, it ignores at neighboring states too. On the ladder: the baselines are behavior cloning (BC) alone, BC + weight decay, BC + spectral norm, and BC + Lipschitz regularization. In simulated point-mass and block-pushing tasks with irrelevant state dimensions and distribution shift, InneR consistently outperforms all four. The headline real-world result is a diffusion policy on a Franka robot arm across three manipulation tasks: BC alone hits 18% average success, and InneR raises that to 57% — a 3.2× improvement — with zero additional demonstration data. Norm-based penalties sometimes performed worse than unregularized BC, which is a damning indictment of the naive approach. Architecturally, InneR sits in the family of Jacobian-based regularizers for imitation learning (gradient-based, supervised). It does not modify the policy architecture — it's a loss-function add-on, appended to any existing IL pipeline for deterministic or stochastic policies. The key structural choice is eigenvalue minimization on clustered Fisher-metric averages, which is a second-order operation on the policy. Compute overhead comes from Jacobian computation at training time, but no extra data or environment interaction is needed. Integrity is mixed in a predictable way. The simulated experiments are well-controlled ablations with clear axes of variation (irrelevant dimensions, distribution shift magnitude). The real-robot experiments on three manipulation tasks are the strongest evidence — these are physical, not simulated, and the 18% → 57% gap is large enough to resist mild cherry-picking. But validation is same-team only, there's no pre-registration, and three tasks on one robot arm is a narrow physical testbed. The authors are honest about scope but the burden of independent replication is unmet. The milestone that matters is scaling InneR to high-dimensional observation spaces — specifically vision-based policies where the state is an image, not a low-dimensional vector. The Jacobian computation becomes expensive in pixel space, and the clustering/eigenvalue minimization may not scale gracefully. If InneR (or a descendant) can maintain its consistency guarantee on image-conditioned diffusion policies at real-time control rates, that's the unlock for robust deployment outside the lab. The obvious experiment the authors didn't run: InneR on image-observation policies with a pretrained visual encoder (e.g., R3M, CLIP). The Jacobian of a CNN or ViT backbone is expensive to compute and may require approximations that break the theoretical guarantee. My read: (a) compute cost — full Jacobian through a vision backbone is prohibitive at training scale, and they prioritized the clean theoretical story with low-dimensional states first. This is the next paper, not a hidden failure.