Link EpiWM blog and correct score data reference
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -10,9 +10,11 @@ tags:
|
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
# EpiWM: LeWorldModel trained with epiplexity instead of SIGReg
|
| 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
EpiWM: these are the best checkpoints from replacing [LeWorldModel](https://github.com/lucas-maes/le-wm)'s SIGReg
|
| 14 |
anti-collapse term with the epiplexity score from EpiJEPA. The code, the full analysis and our replication of LeWM's
|
| 15 |
-
SIGReg recipe are in [the-puzzler/epijepa](https://github.com/the-puzzler/epijepa
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There is one folder per environment, laid out like LeWM's own releases:
|
| 18 |
|
|
@@ -24,8 +26,8 @@ There is one folder per environment, laid out like LeWM's own releases:
|
|
| 24 |
| `reacher/` | Reacher (DMC) | 0.3 | 200k | 1 | 76 | 72.0 | 76.6 | 52 / 62.0 / 60.8 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
These are planning success rates (%) with LeWM's CEM planner and evaluation (`eval.py`). The 3-seed means of the
|
| 27 |
-
same recipe are TwoRoom 99.9, Push-T 88.5, Cube 71.5 and Reacher 73.5 on n=500. LeWM's SIGReg recipe retrained by us at the same budget (2 seeds) gives 87.9, 88.6, 65.5 and 62.2. The released LeWM column is our measurement with LeWM's released evaluation;
|
| 28 |
-
best n=500 score; every seed's number is in
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
## Model
|
| 31 |
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
# EpiWM: LeWorldModel trained with epiplexity instead of SIGReg
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
+
[Blog post](https://the-puzzler.github.io/blog/epiwm/) 路 [Code and results](https://github.com/the-puzzler/epijepa/tree/main/worldmodel)
|
| 14 |
+
|
| 15 |
EpiWM: these are the best checkpoints from replacing [LeWorldModel](https://github.com/lucas-maes/le-wm)'s SIGReg
|
| 16 |
anti-collapse term with the epiplexity score from EpiJEPA. The code, the full analysis and our replication of LeWM's
|
| 17 |
+
SIGReg recipe are in [the-puzzler/epijepa](https://github.com/the-puzzler/epijepa/tree/main/worldmodel).
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
There is one folder per environment, laid out like LeWM's own releases:
|
| 20 |
|
|
|
|
| 26 |
| `reacher/` | Reacher (DMC) | 0.3 | 200k | 1 | 76 | 72.0 | 76.6 | 52 / 62.0 / 60.8 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
These are planning success rates (%) with LeWM's CEM planner and evaluation (`eval.py`). The 3-seed means of the
|
| 29 |
+
same recipe are TwoRoom 99.9, Push-T 88.5, Cube 71.5 and Reacher 73.5 on n=500. LeWM's SIGReg recipe retrained by us at the same budget (2 seeds) gives 87.9, 88.6, 65.5 and 62.2. The released LeWM column is our measurement with LeWM's released evaluation; Reacher evaluations use random-policy data, while the paper describes SAC-collected data. Each folder holds the seed with the
|
| 30 |
+
best n=500 score; every seed's number is in [analysis/scores/all_scores.csv](https://huggingface.co/basilboy/epiwm/blob/main/analysis/scores/all_scores.csv).
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
## Model
|
| 33 |
|