Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness
-
diego.moore6
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2025 8:48 am
Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness
This lines up with my experience.
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. 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.
Building > buying.
Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness
From hands-on experience,
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.
Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness
@jhansen Pretty much this. One thing to add:
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. 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.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness
@barbara50 Follow-up question though -
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. 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.
-
ashley_flor
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2025 8:12 pm
Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness
@noah_pate This matches something I went through recently.
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. 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.
-
zoeanderson
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am
Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness
This lines up with my experience.
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.
Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness
I see it a little differently.
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. 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.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
they/them
-
ethan_fisc
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:36 am
Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness
Genuine beginner question -
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.