Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Whole-body control, RL policies, VLA models, sim-to-real, ROS2, and the software stack that makes a humanoid actually walk and act.
diego.moore6
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu May 08, 2025 8:48 am

Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Post by diego.moore6 »

This lines up with my 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. A lot of what reads as 'full autonomy' in public demos is closer to a mix of scripted state machines, teleoperation for the hardest sub-tasks, and autonomous execution for the easier, well-rehearsed parts - transparency about this mix varies a lot between companies.
Building > buying.
jhansen
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:27 am

Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Post by jhansen »

From hands-on experience, 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.
barbara50
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2024 12:19 pm

Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Post by barbara50 »

@jhansen 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. A lot of what reads as 'full autonomy' in public demos is closer to a mix of scripted state machines, teleoperation for the hardest sub-tasks, and autonomous execution for the easier, well-rehearsed parts - transparency about this mix varies a lot between companies.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
noah_pate
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2024 8:25 pm

Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Post by noah_pate »

@barbara50 Follow-up question though - 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. 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.
ashley_flor
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri May 09, 2025 8:12 pm

Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Post by ashley_flor »

@noah_pate This matches something I went through recently. 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.
zoeanderson
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am

Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Post by zoeanderson »

This lines up with my experience. 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.
ivan22
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2025 11:13 am

Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Post by ivan22 »

I see it a little differently. 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. 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. Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
they/them
ethan_fisc
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:36 am

Re: Balance recovery controllers - push-recovery demos vs real-world robustness

Post by ethan_fisc »

Genuine beginner question - 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.
Post Reply