Skip to content
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

Bad performance in MuJoCo benchmarks #3

Open
jity16 opened this issue Apr 12, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Bad performance in MuJoCo benchmarks #3

jity16 opened this issue Apr 12, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@jity16
Copy link

jity16 commented Apr 12, 2023

Hello, I face some problems when running XQL on MuJoCo benchmarks (online).

  1. I have tested XQL on MuJoCo benchmarks, and none of the runs would return good performance, for example, Ant-v2: -100
  2. Only set the loss function as MSE, it will work well in MuJoCo benchmarks.

I don't really know if there are any sensitive parameters, but it seems that if the MSE loss (aka SAC backbone) mentioned in point 2 can work, the parameters might be reasonable

@jhejna
Copy link
Collaborator

jhejna commented Apr 14, 2023

Hi!

Thanks for your interest in our work! We have not tried XQL on the Mujoco benchmark, only on DM Control. The reward structure of these environments is very different. If you are interested in getting XQL to work on these environments, I would suggest tuning the value of beta, which our method is extremely sensitive to. I suggest starting with a large beta = 10, and progressively lowering it until good performance is reached.

@jity16
Copy link
Author

jity16 commented Apr 14, 2023

Thank you very much! We will try to tune beta later on.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants