Anyone using language models purely for high-level task planning, not low-level control?

Whole-body control, RL policies, VLA models, sim-to-real, ROS2, and the software stack that makes a humanoid actually walk and act.
nicole57
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:29 am

Re: Anyone using language models purely for high-level task planning, not low-level control?

Post by nicole57 »

Minor factual note: Cross-embodiment training (training one policy across data from multiple different robot bodies) has shown some real transfer benefits for high-level behaviors, but low-level control (exact joint torques, timing) still tends to need embodiment-specific fine-tuning.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
chloe_jack
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2024 12:42 pm

Re: Anyone using language models purely for high-level task planning, not low-level control?

Post by chloe_jack »

From hands-on experience, 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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
kwilliams
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:57 pm

Re: Anyone using language models purely for high-level task planning, not low-level control?

Post by kwilliams »

Speaking from personal experience here, Sim-to-real transfer still commonly breaks on contact dynamics - friction, restitution, and deformable/compliant surfaces are the hardest things to model accurately in simulation, so policies trained purely in sim often need real-world fine-tuning specifically around contact-rich tasks.
he/him
nicole57
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:29 am

Re: Anyone using language models purely for high-level task planning, not low-level control?

Post by nicole57 »

@kwilliams One nitpick - 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.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
erik_novi
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2024 6:23 am

Re: Anyone using language models purely for high-level task planning, not low-level control?

Post by erik_novi »

@nicole57 Follow-up question though - 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. 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. Totally unrelated but has anyone else noticed how fast component costs are dropping this year.
she/her
Post Reply