How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Whole-body control, RL policies, VLA models, sim-to-real, ROS2, and the software stack that makes a humanoid actually walk and act.
zoeanderson
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Post by zoeanderson »

@williams84 Agreed, and I'd add: 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. Makes me wonder how this looks in another five years.
dubois35
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2024 12:01 pm

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Post by dubois35 »

I'd take that specific number with a grain of salt, honestly. 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.
they/them
mia_lars
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2024 11:00 am

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Post by mia_lars »

Agreed, and I'd add: 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.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
zoeanderson
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Post by zoeanderson »

@mia_lars Appreciate the detailed answer. 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.
camila.jackson0
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2024 1:27 am

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Post by camila.jackson0 »

I dealt with almost this exact situation. 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.
Building > buying.
zoeanderson
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Post by zoeanderson »

Minor factual note: 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.
noah_pate
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2024 8:25 pm

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Post by noah_pate »

Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful. 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. Domain randomization - varying friction, mass, sensor noise, and even visual textures during training - is one of the more reliable tricks for improving sim-to-real transfer, but overdoing it can make training slower to converge and produce overly conservative policies.
barbara50
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2024 12:19 pm

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Post by barbara50 »

@noah_pate Minor factual note: 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. 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.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
yuki71
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2025 1:05 pm

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Post by yuki71 »

Still learning the space, so correct me if wrong - '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. Totally unrelated but has anyone else noticed how fast component costs are dropping this year.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
erik_novi
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2024 6:23 am

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Post by erik_novi »

Can I ask a dumb follow-up - 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. 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. Anyway, good thread - following for more.
she/her
Post Reply