What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
-
arjunsanchez
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2025 3:20 am
Re: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
@dchen Minor factual note:
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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
Re: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
@arjunsanchez One nitpick -
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.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
-
thomasmitchell
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2026 6:08 am
Re: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
@nschmidt Just to be precise about one thing:
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.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
Re: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
From what I've seen:
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.
-
ronald.clark
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2026 9:05 am
Re: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
New to this, so forgive me if this is obvious -
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: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
@ronald.clark One nitpick -
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.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
-
nancy_lewi
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2025 1:11 pm
Re: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
@barbara50 This matches something I went through recently.
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.
"Torque is a lifestyle."
-
mohammed.rossi
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2025 9:46 pm
Re: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
@nancy_lewi Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful.
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. 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.
-
arjunsanchez
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2025 3:20 am
Re: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
@mohammed.rossi Follow-up question though -
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. 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.
Anyway, good thread - following for more.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days