Page 1 of 3

Latent action spaces in VLA models - why tokenize actions at all?

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2025 1:50 pm
by nicole57
Been thinking about this a lot lately. 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. 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. Interested in both agreement and pushback here.

Re: Latent action spaces in VLA models - why tokenize actions at all?

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2025 7:29 pm
by byang
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.

Re: Latent action spaces in VLA models - why tokenize actions at all?

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2025 11:47 pm
by barbara50
@byang Ran into exactly this myself. 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: Latent action spaces in VLA models - why tokenize actions at all?

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2025 12:03 am
by jwang
@barbara50 Pretty much this. One thing to add: 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.

Re: Latent action spaces in VLA models - why tokenize actions at all?

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2025 3:31 am
by diego.moore6
This lines up with my experience. 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: Latent action spaces in VLA models - why tokenize actions at all?

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2025 9:32 pm
by mia.weber
Side note that might be relevant: 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. '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: Latent action spaces in VLA models - why tokenize actions at all?

Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2025 9:08 am
by kwilliams
@mia.weber One nitpick - 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.

Re: Latent action spaces in VLA models - why tokenize actions at all?

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2025 7:48 pm
by ethan_fisc
Sorry if this is a basic question, but Diffusion policies model the distribution of possible actions and sample from it, which handles multimodal manipulation tasks (multiple valid ways to grasp something) more naturally than a single deterministic action output, at the cost of slower inference. This whole thread is a good reminder how young this field still is.

Re: Latent action spaces in VLA models - why tokenize actions at all?

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2025 2:08 am
by barbara50
@ethan_fisc This lines up with my experience. 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: Latent action spaces in VLA models - why tokenize actions at all?

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2025 11:41 am
by nicole57
@barbara50 That's the official framing, at least - reality tends to lag a bit. 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.