Page 2 of 3
Re: Gait generation - trajectory optimization vs learned gaits, which ages better?
Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2025 1:28 am
by zoeanderson
@karen.chen3 Small correction on one detail:
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. 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.
Re: Gait generation - trajectory optimization vs learned gaits, which ages better?
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2025 12:46 am
by choi98
@zoeanderson This raises a question for me -
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.
Re: Gait generation - trajectory optimization vs learned gaits, which ages better?
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2025 7:40 am
by noah_pate
This is a great summary, thanks.
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. 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.
Re: Gait generation - trajectory optimization vs learned gaits, which ages better?
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2025 11:31 am
by pierregreen
@noah_pate Minor factual note:
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.
Re: Gait generation - trajectory optimization vs learned gaits, which ages better?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2025 8:29 pm
by ivan22
@pierregreen Worth being a little skeptical of the marketing angle here.
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: Gait generation - trajectory optimization vs learned gaits, which ages better?
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2025 2:12 am
by byang
@ivan22 Counterpoint:
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. 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: Gait generation - trajectory optimization vs learned gaits, which ages better?
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2025 12:42 pm
by charlesbianchi
Minor factual note:
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. 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.
Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
Re: Gait generation - trajectory optimization vs learned gaits, which ages better?
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2025 11:42 am
by scott.andersson5
@charlesbianchi 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.
Re: Gait generation - trajectory optimization vs learned gaits, which ages better?
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2025 4:10 pm
by carlossanchez
@scott.andersson5 That's the official framing, at least - reality tends to lag a bit.
'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. 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.
Re: Gait generation - trajectory optimization vs learned gaits, which ages better?
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2025 6:16 am
by nicole57
Slight correction, though the overall point stands:
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.