Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?

Whole-body control, RL policies, VLA models, sim-to-real, ROS2, and the software stack that makes a humanoid actually walk and act.
emma_whit
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2025 11:20 pm

Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?

Post by emma_whit »

@carol.robinson Can I ask a dumb follow-up - 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. 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.
kim37
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2025 11:21 pm

Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?

Post by kim37 »

Small correction on one detail: 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. 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.
lbianchi
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:56 pm

Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?

Post by lbianchi »

@kim37 Just to be precise about one thing: '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. 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. Kind of makes me think about how different this all looked even three years ago.
jonathan.rao1
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:58 pm

Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?

Post by jonathan.rao1 »

@lbianchi Side note that might be relevant: 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. This whole thread is a good reminder how young this field still is.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
mia.weber
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2024 4:38 am

Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?

Post by mia.weber »

@jonathan.rao1 From hands-on experience, 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. 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.
deborah59
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2024 9:37 am

Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?

Post by deborah59 »

@mia.weber To answer this directly: 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.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
zoeanderson
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am

Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?

Post by zoeanderson »

@deborah59 Slight correction, though the overall point stands: 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.
larrysokolov
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2025 4:23 pm

Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?

Post by larrysokolov »

Sorry if this is a basic question, but 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
Post Reply