Go to Post If it's anything that FIRST's competitive spirit has taught me, its to take the good with the bad. - Mike Schroeder [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy > Scouting
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2013, 23:38
RyanCahoon's Avatar
RyanCahoon RyanCahoon is offline
Disassembling my prior presumptions
FRC #0766 (M-A Bears)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Mountain View
Posts: 689
RyanCahoon has a reputation beyond reputeRyanCahoon has a reputation beyond reputeRyanCahoon has a reputation beyond reputeRyanCahoon has a reputation beyond reputeRyanCahoon has a reputation beyond reputeRyanCahoon has a reputation beyond reputeRyanCahoon has a reputation beyond reputeRyanCahoon has a reputation beyond reputeRyanCahoon has a reputation beyond reputeRyanCahoon has a reputation beyond reputeRyanCahoon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: An improvement to OPR

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchie461 View Post
This should yield an OPR matrix containing complex entries, which theoretically should have a least squares average for both teleop and auton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoftwareBug2.0 View Post
What advantage does this have over simply calculating independently with just auto scores, and then just teleop scores, and then just climb scores?
Since the OPR calculation boils to down to

P = (A^-1) * S

where P is the OPR, A is the binary matrix denoting teams in each alliance and S is the alliance scores, then Frenchie461 is essentially advocating

Pt + Pa*i = (A^-1) * (St + Sa*i)

and since matrix multiplication is distributive

Pt + Pa*i = (A^-1) * St + ((A^-1) * Sa)*i

So you'll end up with the same result as calculating each OPR component independently. You'll get least-squares best fit for each component (as you would otherwise), but there won't be any additional interaction gained between them. This makes sense, because the least-squares fitting part of the operation happens when taking the inverse of A, and isn't affected by the value of S (whether real or complex) that it is post-multiplied by. Performance-wise, I would guess they would take about the same amount of time, assuming you're not re-calculating the value of A^-1 when doing the calculations independently.



note: the inverse operation written ^-1 above becomes the generalized inverse for non-square cases of A
__________________
FRC 2046, 2007-2008, Student member
FRC 1708, 2009-2012, College mentor; 2013-2014, Mentor
FRC 766, 2015-, Mentor
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:06.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi