MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307536930 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.15409

Constrained Differential Dynamic Programming: A primal-dual augmented Lagrangian approach

2022· preprint· en· W4307536930 on OpenAlexaff
Wilson Jallet, Antoine Bambade, Nicolas Mansard, Justin Carpentier

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsWillow Biosciences (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAugmented Lagrangian methodMathematical optimizationSolverOptimal controlLagrangian relaxationDynamic programmingOptimization problemTrajectory optimizationNonlinear programmingComputer scienceMathematicsNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trajectory optimization is an efficient approach for solving optimal control problems for complex robotic systems. It relies on two key components: first the transcription into a sparse nonlinear program, and second the corresponding solver to iteratively compute its solution. On one hand, differential dynamic programming (DDP) provides an efficient approach to transcribe the optimal control problem into a finite-dimensional problem while optimally exploiting the sparsity induced by time. On the other hand, augmented Lagrangian methods make it possible to formulate efficient algorithms with advanced constraint-satisfaction strategies. In this paper, we propose to combine these two approaches into an efficient optimal control algorithm accepting both equality and inequality constraints. Based on the augmented Lagrangian literature, we first derive a generic primal-dual augmented Lagrangian strategy for nonlinear problems with equality and inequality constraints. We then apply it to the dynamic programming principle to solve the value-greedy optimization problems inherent to the backward pass of DDP, which we combine with a dedicated globalization strategy, resulting in a Newton-like algorithm for solving constrained trajectory optimization problems. Contrary to previous attempts of formulating an augmented Lagrangian version of DDP, our approach exhibits adequate convergence properties without any switch in strategies. We empirically demonstrate its interest with several case-studies from the robotics literature.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicOptimization and Mathematical ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207