You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've noticed a potential misalignment in the p2e_dv2 and p2e_dv3 implementations regarding what the ensemble predicts. According to the Plan2Explore paper, the ensemble should predict the image embedding, not the posterior state. The implementation in p2e_dv1 appears aligned with this:
loss -= next_obs_embedding_dist.log_prob(embedded_obs.detach()[1:]).mean()
However, in p2e_dv2 and p2e_dv3, it seems to aim to predict the next (randomized) posterior state:
loss -= next_obs_embedding_dist.log_prob(posteriors.view(sequence_length, batch_size, -1).detach()[1:]).mean()
Could this be an intentional modification, or am I missing something about how these predictions should be handled?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've noticed a potential misalignment in the p2e_dv2 and p2e_dv3 implementations regarding what the ensemble predicts. According to the Plan2Explore paper, the ensemble should predict the image embedding, not the posterior state. The implementation in
p2e_dv1
appears aligned with this:loss -= next_obs_embedding_dist.log_prob(embedded_obs.detach()[1:]).mean()
However, in
p2e_dv2
andp2e_dv3
, it seems to aim to predict the next (randomized) posterior state:loss -= next_obs_embedding_dist.log_prob(posteriors.view(sequence_length, batch_size, -1).detach()[1:]).mean()
Could this be an intentional modification, or am I missing something about how these predictions should be handled?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: