State estimation drift over long missions - anyone solved loop closure well?
Re: State estimation drift over long missions - anyone solved loop closure well?
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.
they/them
Re: State estimation drift over long missions - anyone solved loop closure well?
From hands-on 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. 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 | grad student, biped locomotion
-
mohammed64
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2025 9:56 am
Re: State estimation drift over long missions - anyone solved loop closure well?
Same conclusion I've come to. Also worth noting:
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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
-
deborahperez
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2024 4:22 am
Re: State estimation drift over long missions - anyone solved loop closure well?
@mohammed64 Tangent, but worth mentioning:
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. 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.
Re: State estimation drift over long missions - anyone solved loop closure well?
@deborahperez Minor factual note:
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. 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.
Re: State estimation drift over long missions - anyone solved loop closure well?
Just to be precise about one thing:
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.
they/them
Re: State estimation drift over long missions - anyone solved loop closure well?
@garcia51 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. 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.
Re: State estimation drift over long missions - anyone solved loop closure well?
@lbianchi Yeah, this tracks with what I've read as well.
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.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
-
larrysokolov
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2025 4:23 pm
Re: State estimation drift over long missions - anyone solved loop closure well?
Not to derail, but this reminds me of something adjacent:
'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. 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.
he/him
-
williams84
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am
Re: State estimation drift over long missions - anyone solved loop closure well?
Tangent, but worth mentioning:
'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. 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."