Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?
Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?
@carol.robinson Can I ask a dumb follow-up -
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. 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: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?
Small correction on one detail:
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. 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.
Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?
@kim37 Just to be precise about one thing:
'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. 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.
Kind of makes me think about how different this all looked even three years ago.
-
jonathan.rao1
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:58 pm
Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?
@lbianchi Side note that might be relevant:
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.
This whole thread is a good reminder how young this field still is.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?
@jonathan.rao1 From hands-on experience,
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. 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: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?
@mia.weber To answer this directly:
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.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
-
zoeanderson
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2024 2:39 am
Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?
@deborah59 Slight correction, though the overall point stands:
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.
-
larrysokolov
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2025 4:23 pm
Re: Curriculum learning for locomotion - worth the setup complexity?
Sorry if this is a basic question, but
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.
he/him