Page 2 of 2

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2024 4:12 pm
by zoeanderson
@williams84 Agreed, and I'd add: 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. Makes me wonder how this looks in another five years.

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2024 9:34 am
by dubois35
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.

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2024 1:51 pm
by mia_lars
Agreed, and I'd add: 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. 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.

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2025 11:09 am
by zoeanderson
@mia_lars Appreciate the detailed answer. 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: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:37 am
by camila.jackson0
I dealt with almost this exact situation. 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: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2025 10:14 pm
by zoeanderson
Minor factual note: 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.

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2025 12:39 pm
by noah_pate
Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful. 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. 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.

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:41 pm
by barbara50
@noah_pate Minor factual note: 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. 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.

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2025 11:08 pm
by yuki71
Still learning the space, so correct me if wrong - '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. Totally unrelated but has anyone else noticed how fast component costs are dropping this year.

Re: How are teleoperation datasets actually being collected at scale?

Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2025 4:36 pm
by erik_novi
Can I ask a dumb follow-up - 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. 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. Anyway, good thread - following for more.