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

a bug-fix of QR-DQN network definition. #157

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ddlau
Copy link

@ddlau ddlau commented Nov 24, 2020

No description provided.

@google-cla
Copy link

google-cla bot commented Nov 24, 2020

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with @googlebot I signed it! and we'll verify it.


What to do if you already signed the CLA

Individual signers
Corporate signers

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

@google-cla google-cla bot added the cla: no label Nov 24, 2020
@ddlau
Copy link
Author

ddlau commented Nov 24, 2020

@googlebot I signed it!

@google-cla google-cla bot added cla: yes CLA has been signed. and removed cla: no labels Nov 24, 2020
@ddlau
Copy link
Author

ddlau commented Nov 24, 2020

This is a Categorical-DQN legacy, which was just "transposed" in QR-DQN.
In contrast to Categorical-DQN, QR-DQN set fixed probabilites and learnable locations (a.k.a diracs).

@psc-g
Copy link
Collaborator

psc-g commented Nov 24, 2020

Thanks for pointing this out! This is indeed semantically incorrect and is mostly a consequence of QR-DQN inheriting from Rainbow (which does expect probabilities).
The probabilities field you rightly point out as not being probabilities is in fact not used at all in QR-DQN.

@ddlau
Copy link
Author

ddlau commented Nov 25, 2020

rightly

Yeah, I noticed it too, after "uptraced" to its caller, and found the strange thing is not used.
To be a little strict, isn't this sort of impreciseness and a misleading to new comings, more or less, I guess?
After all, it is not proper, so I suggest the modification, at least some comment there.

@psc-g
Copy link
Collaborator

psc-g commented Nov 25, 2020 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cla: yes CLA has been signed.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants