Page 2 of 2
Re: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2026 10:20 am
by arjunsanchez
@dchen Minor factual note:
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: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2026 3:59 am
by nschmidt
@arjunsanchez One nitpick -
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.
Re: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2026 8:10 am
by thomasmitchell
@nschmidt Just to be precise about one thing:
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: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2026 11:09 am
by kim37
From what I've seen:
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: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2026 8:39 pm
by ronald.clark
New to this, so forgive me if this is obvious -
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: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2026 5:14 pm
by barbara50
@ronald.clark One nitpick -
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: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2026 5:25 pm
by nancy_lewi
@barbara50 This matches something I went through recently.
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: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2026 7:21 am
by mohammed.rossi
@nancy_lewi Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful.
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. 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.
Re: What's the real difference between a 'policy' and a classical controller at this point?
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2026 9:23 pm
by arjunsanchez
@mohammed.rossi Follow-up question though -
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. 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.
Anyway, good thread - following for more.