Whole-body control vs ZMP-based approaches - what's actually deployed today?
Re: Whole-body control vs ZMP-based approaches - what's actually deployed today?
@deborahperez 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.
Building > buying.
-
williams84
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am
Re: Whole-body control vs ZMP-based approaches - what's actually deployed today?
That's the official framing, at least - reality tends to lag a bit.
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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
Re: Whole-body control vs ZMP-based approaches - what's actually deployed today?
@williams84 Yeah, this tracks with what I've read as well.
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.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
Re: Whole-body control vs ZMP-based approaches - what's actually deployed today?
One nitpick -
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.
Building > buying.
-
deborahperez
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2024 4:22 am
Re: Whole-body control vs ZMP-based approaches - what's actually deployed today?
Still learning the space, so correct me if wrong -
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.
-
williams84
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am
Re: Whole-body control vs ZMP-based approaches - what's actually deployed today?
From hands-on experience,
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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
-
camila.jackson0
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2024 1:27 am
Re: Whole-body control vs ZMP-based approaches - what's actually deployed today?
@williams84 That's the official framing, at least - reality tends to lag a bit.
Zero Moment Point (ZMP) control keeps the robot's center of pressure within its support polygon and has been the classical backbone of bipedal walking for two decades - it's robust and well-understood, but tends to produce a somewhat conservative, flat-footed gait compared to more dynamic approaches. '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.
Building > buying.
Re: Whole-body control vs ZMP-based approaches - what's actually deployed today?
@camila.jackson0 Genuinely curious -
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.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
Re: Whole-body control vs ZMP-based approaches - what's actually deployed today?
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: Whole-body control vs ZMP-based approaches - what's actually deployed today?
Can I ask a dumb follow-up -
A lot of what reads as 'full autonomy' in public demos is closer to a mix of scripted state machines, teleoperation for the hardest sub-tasks, and autonomous execution for the easier, well-rehearsed parts - transparency about this mix varies a lot between companies. 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.
she/her