Page 2 of 2
Re: Reinforcement learning for locomotion - how much reward shaping is too much?
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2024 4:24 am
by scott.andersson5
This is a great summary, thanks.
'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.
Re: Reinforcement learning for locomotion - how much reward shaping is too much?
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2024 7:56 pm
by zoeanderson
@scott.andersson5 This is a great summary, thanks.
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.
Re: Reinforcement learning for locomotion - how much reward shaping is too much?
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2024 4:45 pm
by chloe_jack
@zoeanderson +1 to this. Worth adding:
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. '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.
Re: Reinforcement learning for locomotion - how much reward shaping is too much?
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2024 2:43 am
by deborah59
@chloe_jack This matches something I went through recently.
'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. 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: Reinforcement learning for locomotion - how much reward shaping is too much?
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:29 am
by pierregreen
This raises a question for me -
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. 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.
Kind of makes me think about how different this all looked even three years ago.
Re: Reinforcement learning for locomotion - how much reward shaping is too much?
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2024 2:33 am
by jonathan.rao1
@pierregreen +1 to this. Worth adding:
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.
Anyway, good thread - following for more.