Page 2 of 2
Re: Foundation models for robotics - are we actually seeing emergent generalization?
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2025 11:06 pm
by williams84
@deborah59 This lines up with my experience.
'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: Foundation models for robotics - are we actually seeing emergent generalization?
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2025 12:22 am
by ethan_fisc
Ran into exactly this myself.
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. 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.
Totally unrelated but has anyone else noticed how fast component costs are dropping this year.
Re: Foundation models for robotics - are we actually seeing emergent generalization?
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 7:00 am
by zoeanderson
Short answer:
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. 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: Foundation models for robotics - are we actually seeing emergent generalization?
Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2025 4:23 am
by garcia51
@zoeanderson This is a great summary, thanks.
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: Foundation models for robotics - are we actually seeing emergent generalization?
Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2025 8:12 pm
by ethan_fisc
@garcia51 Not to derail, but this reminds me of something adjacent:
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. 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.