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

Fix benchmark configs #665

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 13, 2023
Merged

Fix benchmark configs #665

merged 6 commits into from
Feb 13, 2023

Conversation

ernestum
Copy link
Collaborator

@ernestum ernestum commented Jan 26, 2023

Description

  • Fixes issue with the benchmark config files
  • Improves on the readability of the benchmark tests
  • Adds missing imitation.algorithms.dagger.ExponentialBetaSchedule (@Rocamonde could you do this?)

More details in #664.

Fixes issue #664 which was introduced in #653.

Testing

Improved test for the benchmarks.

@Rocamonde
Copy link
Member

(y) Will review tomorrow.

Copy link
Member

@Rocamonde Rocamonde left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

@ernestum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ernestum commented Feb 1, 2023

Thanks for the review @Rocamonde !
I still need the missing imitation.algorithms.dagger.ExponentialBetaSchedule file from you (see description of the PR). Otherwise the test can not pass.

@Rocamonde
Copy link
Member

Unfortunately I don't really have this file! You should ping @taufeeque9 who ran the experiments & gave me the JSON's.

@ernestum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ernestum commented Feb 1, 2023

All right then please @taufeeque9 please add the files to this PR when you get around to it.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 2, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #665 (8c67937) into master (5160179) will decrease coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 73.91%.

❗ Current head 8c67937 differs from pull request most recent head 49c2320. Consider uploading reports for the commit 49c2320 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #665      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.57%   97.51%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          89       87       -2     
  Lines        8602     8573      -29     
==========================================
- Hits         8393     8360      -33     
- Misses        209      213       +4     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/imitation/scripts/config/train_imitation.py 68.33% <ø> (+1.66%) ⬆️
src/imitation/scripts/train_imitation.py 95.71% <ø> (+3.06%) ⬆️
src/imitation/algorithms/dagger.py 97.79% <37.50%> (-2.21%) ⬇️
tests/test_benchmarking.py 95.00% <93.33%> (-5.00%) ⬇️
src/imitation/algorithms/adversarial/common.py 96.81% <0.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
tests/scripts/test_scripts.py 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
tests/algorithms/test_adversarial.py 100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/imitation/scripts/ingredients/policy.py
...imitation/scripts/ingredients/policy_evaluation.py
src/imitation/scripts/ingredients/bc.py
... and 4 more

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

@ernestum ernestum marked this pull request as ready for review February 2, 2023 11:36
@AdamGleave
Copy link
Member

@Rocamonde I think this is ready for another review now that Taufeeque has added the missing beta scheduler

Copy link
Member

@Rocamonde Rocamonde left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, just some minor comments. please do take a look before merging

tests/test_benchmarking.py Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/test_benchmarking.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@ernestum ernestum merged commit ddf31e9 into master Feb 13, 2023
@ernestum ernestum deleted the fix_benchmark_configs branch February 13, 2023 17:46
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants