How do you handle policy versioning and rollback for a deployed fleet?
-
camila.jackson0
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2024 1:27 am
Re: How do you handle policy versioning and rollback for a deployed fleet?
This is a great summary, thanks.
Physical Intelligence's pi0 pairs a smaller pretrained vision-language backbone with a separate flow-matching 'action expert' module, which is one way to get fast, high-frequency action output without needing the whole giant language model to run at control-loop speed. OpenVLA is a notable open-source VLA model - roughly 7 billion parameters, trained on hundreds of thousands of real-world robot demonstrations - and has been shown to outperform much larger closed models on some manipulation benchmarks, which says a lot about how much of VLA performance comes from data curation rather than raw scale.
Building > buying.
Re: How do you handle policy versioning and rollback for a deployed fleet?
Short answer:
Model predictive control (MPC) is still very much alive in production humanoids, often working alongside or underneath learned policies - MPC handles short-horizon dynamically-consistent trajectory optimization while learned components handle perception, task-level decisions, or recovery behaviors that are hard to hand-model. ROS2 remains common in research and early-stage products for its tooling and ecosystem, but a number of production humanoid companies run custom, more tightly-optimized middleware for their real-time control loops, using ROS2-like tooling mainly for development, visualization, and non-real-time subsystems.
Building > buying.
-
sharonschmidt
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:31 am
Re: How do you handle policy versioning and rollback for a deployed fleet?
@chenperez One nitpick -
Isaac Lab (the successor to Isaac Gym) is widely used for large-scale parallel RL training thanks to GPU-accelerated physics, while MuJoCo is often used as a secondary 'sim-to-sim' validation step because its contact dynamics are generally considered more realistic than Isaac's, even though it trains slower at scale.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
Re: How do you handle policy versioning and rollback for a deployed fleet?
Not to derail, but this reminds me of something adjacent:
Physical Intelligence's pi0 pairs a smaller pretrained vision-language backbone with a separate flow-matching 'action expert' module, which is one way to get fast, high-frequency action output without needing the whole giant language model to run at control-loop speed. ROS2 remains common in research and early-stage products for its tooling and ecosystem, but a number of production humanoid companies run custom, more tightly-optimized middleware for their real-time control loops, using ROS2-like tooling mainly for development, visualization, and non-real-time subsystems.
she/her
-
camila.jackson0
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2024 1:27 am
Re: How do you handle policy versioning and rollback for a deployed fleet?
Pretty much this. One thing to add:
Diffusion policies model the distribution of possible actions and sample from it, which handles multimodal manipulation tasks (multiple valid ways to grasp something) more naturally than a single deterministic action output, at the cost of slower inference.
Building > buying.
-
sharonschmidt
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:31 am
Re: How do you handle policy versioning and rollback for a deployed fleet?
Can I ask a dumb follow-up -
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models like RT-2, OpenVLA, and Physical Intelligence's pi0 unify a vision-language backbone with an action-output head, letting a robot map a camera image and a text instruction directly to motor commands instead of hand-coding separate perception and planning stages. Diffusion policies model the distribution of possible actions and sample from it, which handles multimodal manipulation tasks (multiple valid ways to grasp something) more naturally than a single deterministic action output, at the cost of slower inference.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
Re: How do you handle policy versioning and rollback for a deployed fleet?
@sharonschmidt Yeah, this tracks with what I've read as well.
Balance-recovery controllers are usually evaluated with push-recovery tests (a known, repeatable lateral push) in demos, but real-world robustness also depends on recovering from unstructured events like uneven flooring, unexpected contact, or a dropped payload shifting the center of mass mid-stride - which is a much harder, less demo-friendly test. 'Zero-shot sim-to-real' rarely means literally zero real-world tuning in practice - it usually means the policy transfers well enough to be usable with only calibration and minor safety-limit adjustments, rather than needing a full additional training phase on hardware.
they/them
Re: How do you handle policy versioning and rollback for a deployed fleet?
@dubois35 One nitpick -
Isaac Lab (the successor to Isaac Gym) is widely used for large-scale parallel RL training thanks to GPU-accelerated physics, while MuJoCo is often used as a secondary 'sim-to-sim' validation step because its contact dynamics are generally considered more realistic than Isaac's, even though it trains slower at scale.
she/her
-
williams84
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am
Re: How do you handle policy versioning and rollback for a deployed fleet?
I'd frame this differently.
Physical Intelligence's pi0 pairs a smaller pretrained vision-language backbone with a separate flow-matching 'action expert' module, which is one way to get fast, high-frequency action output without needing the whole giant language model to run at control-loop speed.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
-
scott.andersson5
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:39 pm
Re: How do you handle policy versioning and rollback for a deployed fleet?
@williams84 I'll believe the stronger version of that claim when it's independently verified.
Whole-body control (WBC) formulates locomotion and manipulation as a single optimization problem across all joints simultaneously, respecting contact constraints and task priorities - it's more general than ZMP-only approaches but is computationally heavier and harder to tune. Balance-recovery controllers are usually evaluated with push-recovery tests (a known, repeatable lateral push) in demos, but real-world robustness also depends on recovering from unstructured events like uneven flooring, unexpected contact, or a dropped payload shifting the center of mass mid-stride - which is a much harder, less demo-friendly test.