sequence-ai

Cloud inference for robot policies.

pip install sequence-ai

import sequence_ai

with sequence_ai.connect(model="pi05-droid") as policy:
    out = policy.act(
        "pick up the cup",
        observe=robot.read_observation,   # cameras + joints
        act=robot.apply_action,           # one joint target
        validate=robot.is_safe,
        hold=robot.hold,
        max_seconds=30,
    )

policy.interrupt()      # from any thread, at any moment

Two brains, one string between them

A VLM looks at a snapshot, decides what to do next, and says it in a sentence. This package is the how: it takes that sentence with the current cameras and joints, asks a vision-language-action model for the next second of joint targets, and plays them out while fetching the next second.

The two halves run at completely different speeds — the brain thinks between subtasks, the arm needs a chunk every second — and instruction is their entire interface.

act() is shaped to be called as a tool. It overwrites the observation's instruction on every call, so your eyes never have to know what the brain last decided and a stale sentence cannot leak into a chunk after the brain has moved on. max_seconds is required and has no default: this drives hardware, and a tool call a language model can start but nothing bounds is one an arm can be left running by a dropped conversation.

Wiring the two together — retries, failure detection, choosing the next sub-goal — is yours. This package provides inference and a control loop, not orchestration.

Changing your mind

policy.interrupt()

Thread-safe, and the only method meant to be called from a thread other than the one driving.

It stops within one control period, not one chunk. The loop checks between every action, so at 15 Hz the arm stops in about 67 ms. Waiting for the current chunk to finish playing would be up to a full second of an arm still reaching for something the brain has already given up on.

It also cuts through a stalled fetch. If the buffer has run dry and the loop is blocked on a chunk that is taking five seconds, an interrupt does not wait that out — stop latency is a property of this loop and never of the service.

Interruption unwinds through hold() like any other early stop, and is not raised: a stop you asked for is an outcome, not an error. RunOutcome.reason says which ending happened.

What it does for you

Four things, and each of them is something a loop written straight against the HTTP endpoints has to get right before it behaves properly on a robot:

None of the four is guesswork. Every one is a defect that existed in this client, was measured, and was fixed — the numbers below are those measurements, not estimates.

It keeps the connection open

Measured against the production gateway, six samples each:

184.9 ms per call — 60% of the total — is TCP and TLS handshake. That is what with sequence_ai.connect(...) removes. Nothing proprietary: any HTTP client that reuses a connection gets the same result. This package just makes it the default rather than something you have to remember.

Why it matters: a chunk is a deadline. pi05-droid returns 1.00 s of motion per call, and a warm end-to-end /v1/act through this gateway measured 793 ms — the next chunk has to arrive before the current one finishes playing, so 185 ms of avoidable handshake is a fifth of the entire budget.

Actions come in chunks

One call returns a block of future actions, not a single command — between 0.5 s and 2.1 s of motion depending on the model. That is why cloud inference works at all: the control loop does not need a network round trip per control step.

with sequence_ai.connect(model="pi05-droid") as policy:
    pred = policy.predict(observation)
    print(len(pred.action_chunk), "steps covering",
          pred.action_chunk.covers_seconds, "s at",
          pred.action_chunk.control_frequency_hz, "Hz")

The gap between chunks is the hard part

A loop that waits for the buffer to empty before asking for the next chunk stops the arm once per chunk, every chunk, for a full round trip. It is not an occasional hiccup — it is structural, and on the faster models it dominates:

So run() starts the next inference while the current chunk is still playing, and reports what happened rather than hoping:

out = policy.run(observe=..., act=..., max_actions=250, on_underrun=robot.hold_position)

print(out)        # RunOutcome(250 actions over 17 chunks in 16.8s, completed)
out.underruns     # times the buffer ran dry before the next chunk arrived
out.underrun_s    # total seconds the arm spent with no command
out.max_seam_jump # largest per-dimension step across a chunk boundary

The trade, stated plainly: a prefetched chunk is computed from an observation taken before the previous chunk finished, so the overlap window is open-loop. Freshness and continuity are in direct opposition here and no setting gets both. prefetch=False restores strictly closed-loop behaviour, stall included — right for bench work, wrong for a moving arm.

max_seam_jump is a measurement, not a correction, and it stays one unless you ask otherwise. smooth_seam=N ramps the first N steps of each new chunk out of the last executed action, and it is the only setting in this library that changes a number on its way to the motors — so it is off by default and guarded twice: it applies only when the chunk declares an absolute action space (action_chunk.action_space), and never to the first chunk of a run. Blending deltas is not smoothing; it rescales the increments and moves the arm somewhere the model never asked for, so a delta chunk is passed through untouched even when you ask. max_seam_jump is measured before any blending, so turning it on cannot hide what it smooths.

Many robots at once

One Policy per control loop. A Policy holds one action buffer, and two loops popping from it do not take turns — they interleave. Driving the same handle from a second thread raises, because both quieter options are worse: interleaving sends each robot a shuffled half of the other's plan while both loops report success, and a blocking lock would make the second loop run at half rate, underrunning on every chunk.

def drive(robot, model):
    with sequence_ai.connect(model=model) as policy:      # one each
        return policy.run(observe=robot.read, act=robot.apply,
                          validate=robot.is_safe, max_actions=250)

with ThreadPoolExecutor() as pool:
    left, right = pool.map(drive, [arm_l, arm_r], ["pi05-droid"] * 2)

This costs nothing to follow. The handshake is paid once per Policy, not once per call. Measured with eight loops running concurrently against one gateway: eight connections, ten requests each, zero sequence breaks, zero underruns. Requests arriving while the gateway is busy queue on the server rather than displacing work already in flight.

What the loop says while it runs

run() reports lifecycle, not telemetry:

  starting…      first chunk on its way, or a cold worker loading — nothing is moving yet
  running        a command has reached the robot
  done

Waiting out a cold worker (about 100 s) and losing a few hundred milliseconds at a chunk boundary are the library's problems, not yours — startup_timeout_s defaults to 300 s, so the first call on a cold worker waits rather than failing. Every number is still in RunOutcome afterwards if you want it.

policy.run(..., on_status=log.info)     # programmatic
policy.run(..., progress=False)         # silent

The default progress="auto" writes a single line to stderr only when stderr is a terminal — nothing in a script, a pipe, or a log file.

Cold starts

A worker that is not loaded takes about 100 seconds to become ready — 12.5 GB of weights and a JIT compile. A control loop's budget for one chunk is 533 ms. Those two numbers are why connecting is a separate call from controlling.

Connect first, then drive

policy.wait_until_ready()          # once, before the robot needs to move
while running:
    policy.next_action(observe())  # every one of these is warm by construction

wait_until_ready() needs no observation — a robot should be able to bring its model up before it is in position, which is exactly when it has no frame worth sending. It is authenticated but not billed: it touches no GPU. It is also what starts the worker, so polling it is the thing that brings the model up, not merely a way to watch.

ready() is the non-blocking form, returning (ready, eta_seconds).

Skipping it does not fail — it silently costs you the loop. Measured on one run against a cold endpoint, the client starting anyway:

first control request   13,533 ms      <- the cold start, now inside the loop
p50                        415 ms      <- the steady state was always fine
mean                     1,096 ms      -> 0.49 arms sustainable   
mean without that one      441 ms      -> 1.21 arms sustainable   

One request that should not have been in the loop is the entire difference between sustainable and not.

If you skip it anyway

The gateway does not stall on a cold worker — it answers 503 immediately with the number:

try:
    policy.predict(observation)
except sequence_ai.Unavailable as exc:
    if exc.warming:
        print(f"loading; ready in ~{exc.retry_after_s}s")   # 118

run() waits that out for you by default (startup_timeout_s=300), and only before the first action. It reports starting… while it does, so a wait is never mistakable for a hang:

policy.run(..., startup_timeout_s=0)     # opt out: fail immediately on a cold worker

That line is the whole design. Before the first action nothing is moving, so waiting is free. Once the arm is in motion, silently pausing it for two minutes and resuming from a two-minute-old plan is worse than stopping — so mid-run warming is raised, and hold fires.

How big your frames are is how fast you go

Latency scales with the bytes you send, at roughly 16 ms per kB. This is the single largest thing under your control, and it is larger than the model:

observation    p50      mean     sustainable arms
14.6 kB      586 ms    623 ms         0.86        
 3.4 kB      384 ms    433 ms         1.23        

Measured through the gateway, alternating A/B against one warm worker over one connection so that drift in the service cancels. inference_ms did not move between the two (119 ms against 111 ms) — every millisecond of the difference was transport. A direct measurement against the worker agreed: 181 ms for the same 11.2 kB.

Send JPEG, not arrays. A frame as a list of integers is roughly 16x the bytes of the same frame as base64 JPEG, and it is the most common way to land on the slow side of that table.

Quality 85 is safe; resolution is not yet. On a real DROID frame with the sampling noise pinned, JPEG q95 moves the resulting action by 0.51% of its amplitude, against a model whose own sampling variance between two identical calls is 70-108% — roughly 150x larger. Dropping quality is therefore free in action terms. Cutting resolution is a different question and an open one: these models are trained on real camera frames, and how much downscaling they tolerate has not been measured here. Change quality first.

Three ways to drive it

From most control to least. They are the same request underneath; the difference is who owns the loop.

policy.predict(obs)            # the whole chunk, you do everything
policy.next_action(obs)        # we hold the buffer, you own the cadence
policy.run(observe=, act=)     # we own the loop
policy.act("...", observe=, act=)   # we own the loop and the instruction

act() is run() with the instruction pinned and a time bound required — the shape a VLM calls as a tool. Everything run() accepts, act() accepts.

Safety

An action returned by any model is model output, not a safe robot command.

This library does not check joint limits, reachability, collisions, or whether a step is safe at the robot's current velocity. Bounds checking, a watchdog and an e-stop belong between this library and your motors.

policy.run(
    observe=robot.read_observation,
    act=robot.apply_action,
    validate=robot.is_safe,   # return False to stop the loop
    hold=robot.hold,          # called if it stops early, or if act() raises
    max_actions=250,
)

max_actions is required and keyword-only. There is no run_forever() — an unbounded loop that moves a robot should not be startable by accident.

validate=None is allowed for bench and simulation work, and warns once so it cannot happen silently on real hardware.

Errors are typed

Because a controller reacts differently to each:

Configuration

export SEQUENCES_API_KEY=seq_live_...      # or pass api_key= to connect()
export SEQUENCES_BASE_URL=...              # for staging; defaults to production

Get a key at app.generalsequences.com.

Install footprint

One dependency: httpx. Python 3.9+.

A robot controller is often on a Jetson with a pinned, fragile Python environment, and ROS 2 Humble ships Python 3.10. Every transitive dependency is another chance for the install to fail on the machine that actually matters.

If your controller is not Python

The endpoints underneath are public and documented at generalsequences.com/docs. There is no private control plane and nothing this package reaches that you cannot:

curl https://api.generalsequences.com/v1/act \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $SEQUENCES_API_KEY" \
  -d '{"model":"accounts/sequences/models/pi05-droid","observation":{...}}'

Keeping that door open is deliberate — a vendor SDK that is the only supported way in locks you to one language, and robot controllers are very often C++. But it is a door, not the front entrance. The four items in the table at the top are work your client then has to do itself, and the reference documents each precisely enough to reimplement. Reaching for Python first is simply cheaper.