-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 133
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should controllers be allowed to use U_GOAL
or only U_EQ
?
#102
Comments
|
But for the control methods, this can be tricky since the cost function is part of both the control algorithm and the environment. The ideal case is we have a clear boundary between what's given as the environment/task (which will be used in evaluation) and what's part of the control algorithm. I'd say the cost itself (nonlinear quadratic) is still part of the task side (since we need it in evaluation anyways), but anything that uses linearization (needed in algo optimizations) can use the prior. |
@adamhall Do we currently have anywhere that needs to be fixed regarding this issue? |
@adamhall @Justin-Yuan status? |
I am leaning towards using |
Closing issue due to staleness |
Carrying on from #93.
Many controllers have been using
env.U_GOAL
either as a linearization point or in the cost which uses the true system mass, not the prior mass, which is whatsymbolic.U_EQ
is for. Should controllers have access toU_GOAL
or they should exclusively be usingU_EQ
. @Justin-Yuan What are your thoughts on this for the RL cost and Normalization?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: