Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 1, 2024. It is now read-only.

[Feature Request] Output Normalization / Scaling #164

Open
natolambert opened this issue Aug 15, 2022 · 4 comments
Open

[Feature Request] Output Normalization / Scaling #164

natolambert opened this issue Aug 15, 2022 · 4 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@natolambert
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Feature Request

When training non delta-state models, the outputs of dynamics models can take large values (way outside a unit Gaussian). In the past I have tried using output scalars to let the outputs try to learn something close to a unit Gaussian rather than variables with diverse scales.

Motivation

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I think it would help the PR for the trajectory-based model, #158 .

Pitch

Describe the solution you'd like
I think there could be an optional output scalar that acts normally to the input one?

Are you willing to open a pull request? (See CONTRIBUTING) Sure.

Additional context

Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

@natolambert natolambert added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 15, 2022
@luisenp
Copy link
Contributor

luisenp commented Aug 19, 2022

Not fully understand the normalization you have in mind. Are you referring to passing a set of constant scalars to be applied to the output of the dynamics model?

@natolambert
Copy link
Contributor Author

A set of scalars (can almost use the input normalizers) that map from the raw network outputs to the actual states of the environment.

Two times this was useful:

  1. Especially when using real-world data I found this could help with training convergence a lot (letting models stay in their proven region of mapping from things in the range of unit Gaussians to outputs of unit Gaussians).
  2. when using non delta-state models, as the model outputs can take really broad ranges of values.

Maybe its best for me to try it and see how it impacts some basic tests. Not a crucial addition.

@mohakbhardwaj
Copy link

Hi, is there any update regarding this? I have also used it in the past and found it to be useful in certain cases. Thanks!

@natolambert
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mohakbhardwaj -- I haven't made the time to make the PR. Happy to provide feedback if you take a stab at it?

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants