Smoothness Ranks Skill, Not Success: An Audit of Published Trajectory-Smoothness Curation Metrics Under Episode-Length Controls

In behavioral cloning (BC), policy performance is fundamentally limited by demonstration data quality. Real-world datasets contain trajectories of varying quality due to operator skill differences, teleoperation artifacts, and procedural inconsistencies, yet standard BC treats all demonstrations equally. Existing curation methods require costly policy training in the loop or manual annotation, limiting scalability. We propose RINSE (Ranking and INdexing Smooth Examples), a lightweight framework for scoring demonstrations based on trajectory smoothness that is policy-architecture-agnostic and operates on trajectory data alone, with TED additionally using a phase-boundary/contact signal. Grounded in motor control theory, which establishes smoothness as a hallmark of skilled movement, RINSE uses two complementary metrics: Spectral Arc Length (SAL), a spectral measure of frequency-domain regularity, and Trajectory-Envelope Distance (TED), a spatial measure of contact-aware geometric deviation. We show that smoothness filtering can reduce the conditional action variance of the retained data distribution, with downstream effects that can be amplified by action chunking and compounding error. On RoboMimic benchmarks, SAL filtering achieves 16% higher success using one-sixth of the data. On real-world manipulation, TED filtering achieves 20% improvement with half the data. As a retrieval-stage filter within STRAP on LIBERO-10, RINSE re-ranking improves mean success by 5.6%. As soft weights in Re-Mix domain reweighting, RINSE scores produce domain allocations highly correlated with the learned Re-Mix allocations (Spearman $ρ\geq 0.89$). These results support smoothness as a useful quality signal across filtering, retrieval, and reweighting settings, especially in noisy or heterogeneous data regimes.

Imitation learning (IL) has seen remarkable progress, yet field deployment of IL-powered robots remains hindered by the challenge of out-of-distribution (OOD) scenarios. Fine-tuning pre-trained policies with end-user demonstrations collected in deployment environments is a promising strategy to address this challenge. However, end-user demonstrations are frequently of poor quality, characterized by excessive corrective motions, oscillations, and abrupt adjustments that degrade both learned and fine-tuned policy performance. Existing automated approaches for curating demonstration data require policy rollouts in the environment, making them computationally expensive and impractical for real-world deployment. In this paper, we propose a fast, efficient, and fully automated demonstration ranking metric based on the power spectral density (PSD) of demonstration trajectories. The PSD metric requires no policy learning, environment interaction, or expert labeling, making it well-suited for scalable, in-the-field data curation. Lower PSD values correspond to smoother, higher-quality demonstrations, while higher PSD values indicate erratic, artifact-laden trajectories. We evaluate the proposed metric on two benchmark imitation learning datasets comprising expert and lay-user demonstrations, and through a user study with older adults at a retirement facility, where collected demonstrations are used to fine-tune $\pi0.5$ \cite{intelligence2025pi_} for a daily living task. Results demonstrate that PSD-curated data yields policies with higher task success rates and smoother execution trajectories compared to uncurated baselines and two competitive data-ranking methods.

We study whether demonstration-curation metrics that detect defective training episodes also improve the downstream behavior-cloning policy that trains on the curated data. On a contact-rich LIBERO pick-and-place benchmark with a controlled structural defect (early gripper release during the carry phase), we find that the two quantities are sharply decoupled. The metric with the highest defect-detection AUROC (0.804) produces the worst curated policy (13.3% task success), while a metric with a substantially lower AUROC (0.638) produces a policy that nearly matches the oracle trained on ground-truth clean data (90.0% vs. 93.3%). We further show that five of the seven metrics we evaluate exploit episode length as a trivial proxy for the defect label, a confound that inflates reported AUROCs to near-perfect values and disappears once episode length is controlled. Across all conditions, the contaminated baseline succeeds on only 3.3% of rollouts, and the two best curation methods close this to within 3 percentage points of the 93.3% oracle ceiling. Our results argue that curation methods should be evaluated by the policy they produce, not the defects they flag, and that any curation benchmark must control for episode length before reporting detection accuracy. We release the testbed, all metric implementations, and the evaluation pipeline.