Page 3 of 3
Re: Anyone using human feedback (RLHF-style) for shaping robot behavior preferences?
Posted: Fri May 29, 2026 9:56 am
by ramirez77
New to this, so forgive me if this is obvious -
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. 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: Anyone using human feedback (RLHF-style) for shaping robot behavior preferences?
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2026 4:13 am
by samuel.campbell8
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. 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: Anyone using human feedback (RLHF-style) for shaping robot behavior preferences?
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2026 5:37 pm
by betty.king
@samuel.campbell8 I see it a little differently.
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: Anyone using human feedback (RLHF-style) for shaping robot behavior preferences?
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2026 2:59 pm
by choi98
Pretty much this. One thing to add:
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: Anyone using human feedback (RLHF-style) for shaping robot behavior preferences?
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2026 2:05 am
by karen_kim
To answer this directly:
'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.
Anyway, good thread - following for more.