Page 2 of 2

Re: Cross-embodiment training - does it actually transfer between robot bodies?

Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2026 8:59 pm
by larrysokolov
@novikova63 Side note that might be relevant: 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. 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.

Re: Cross-embodiment training - does it actually transfer between robot bodies?

Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2026 10:09 pm
by arjunsanchez
@larrysokolov Worth being a little skeptical of the marketing angle here. '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: Cross-embodiment training - does it actually transfer between robot bodies?

Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2026 5:47 am
by rossi30
@arjunsanchez Slight correction, though the overall point stands: 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. '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: Cross-embodiment training - does it actually transfer between robot bodies?

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2026 4:55 am
by amara.brown
Short answer: 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: Cross-embodiment training - does it actually transfer between robot bodies?

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2026 4:14 am
by scott21
@amara.brown Counterpoint: 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. 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: Cross-embodiment training - does it actually transfer between robot bodies?

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2026 2:45 pm
by karen_kim
@scott21 Small correction on one detail: 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: Cross-embodiment training - does it actually transfer between robot bodies?

Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2026 8:49 pm
by kim37
@karen_kim To answer this directly: 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.