lilcheaty/dijkwalk-experiments

dijkwalk experiments

This dataset holds the checkpoints, training curves, and evaluation results for the dijkwalk project. The project measures when directional reward shaping helps a learned agent walk a weighted graph to a hidden target. It also compares the same exact Dijkstra signal used as an RL reward and as a supervised training signal.

Code, tests, paper sources, and the visualizer are in the GitHub repository https://github.com/safzanpirani/dijkwalk. This dataset holds the files that the repository does not track: about 760 MB of .pt checkpoints and .json results from 183 paper training runs and 179 earlier exploratory runs. Console logs are not included.

Task

Each episode places an agent on a random connected weighted graph. At every node the agent sees at most the eight cheapest incident edges (K = 8) and must reach a hidden target node. Invalid actions are masked, and every reported evaluation has an invalid-action rate of exactly 0.

The exact Dijkstra regret is

Δ(u, v) = w(u, v) + φ(v) − φ(u),    φ(x) = d(x, target)

The two paradigms use it differently:

• Reinforcement learning (PufferLib PPO) receives the per-step reward −β·Δ / w_max, where w_max is the largest edge weight. With β = 1 each move in the wrong direction costs its exact regret.
• Supervised learning trains a decoder-only sequence model with teacher forcing. The soft_kl variant in this dataset uses Δ as a per-token teacher signal at temperature τ = 1.0.

Headline results

The GitHub repository has the full tables, gate audits, and figures under paper/ and paper-results/.

Question	Gate	Outcome
Q1: Δ as reward versus as loss weight	>5-point success, >0.5 opt-gap, or different size degradation	Pass
Q2: reward-shaping phase diagram	≥15-point graded-minus-sparse success with non-overlapping seed ranges	Null result
Q3: size generalization	>80% success at ≥8× training size while another architecture collapses	Pass
Q4: rigor and controls	three seeds, deterministic seed path, classical baselines	Complete

Q1, RL versus supervised. At 25M matched training compute with sampled decoding, RL beats supervised learning in all six cells, and the gap widens as graphs get larger.

Scale	Suite	RL	Supervised	RL advantage
small	train scale	97.2%	76.0%	+21.3 pp
small	near OOD	95.8%	53.3%	+42.4 pp
small	far OOD	90.8%	12.8%	+78.0 pp
large	train scale	96.4%	90.9%	+5.5 pp
large	near OOD	92.5%	62.7%	+29.9 pp
large	far OOD	87.6%	31.3%	+56.2 pp

With greedy decoding, far-OOD success is 79.1% for RL and 4.7% for supervised at the small scale, and 69.2% and 6.3% at the large scale. Compute matches within 1.4%, and parameter counts differ by at most 1.2%.

Q2, phase diagram. The strongest cell is cold-start graphs (n = 32 to 64) with a 1.25n step horizon. Graded shaping beats sparse reward there by 11.5, 12.2, and 12.4 points at goal bonuses of 10, 1, and 0. The seed ranges separate, and no cell reaches the 15-point gate. A binary backward penalty matches graded shaping in the strongest main-grid cell.

Q3, size generalization. Policies trained on graphs up to n = 32 are evaluated up to n = 768. At 24 times the maximum training size, sampled success is 90.9% for the MLP, 93.6% for the LSTM, and 56.1% for the Transformer. When the Transformer succeeds, its paths are cheaper (opt gap 22.5 against 50.1 for the MLP). More than 92% of sampled n = 768 episodes contain a two-cycle for every learned architecture.

Repository layout

README.md
experiments/                 179 exploratory training runs (early sweeps, ablations, smoke runs)
viz-data/
  experiments.json           merged ablation curves used by the visualizer
  experiments-*.json         per-run curve files behind that merge
  policy-mlp.{json,pt}       policy-architecture comparison runs
  policy-transformer.{json,pt}
  q1-supervised/             supervised training runs and their evaluations
  q1-rl/                     RL training runs at the 25M budget and their evaluations
  q1-eval/                   aggregated Q1 tables (rl.json, supervised.json, rl-5m.json)
  q2/                        54 main-grid runs plus the goal-bonus extension (162 total)
  q3/                        size-generalization runs and evaluations

File counts, excluding logs: experiments/ 537, q1-supervised/ 54, q1-rl/ 24, q1-eval/ 15, q2/ 327, q3/ 30.

Experiment details

Q1: cross-paradigm comparison (q1-rl/, q1-supervised/, q1-eval/)

Arm	Model	Parameters	Paired with
RL	LSTM policy	183,081	supervised small
RL	Transformer policy	531,202	supervised large
Supervised	small sequence model	185,192	RL LSTM
Supervised	large sequence model (d_model 72, 7 layers, 8 heads, vocab 113, max sequence 1024)	532,152	RL Transformer

Each arm trains with seeds 42, 43, and 44. The RL checkpoints are named q1-25m-shaping-beta1-seed*.pt (LSTM) and q1-25m-policy-transformer-seed*.pt. The supervised checkpoints are named q1-soft-kl-{small,large}-train20000-seed*.pt.

Three frozen 1,000-graph suites test every checkpoint. Each suite is pinned by SHA-256, and every result row stores the hash in suite_sha256.

Suite	Node count range
train-scale	16 to 32
near-ood	33 to 48
far-ood	64 to 96

Each checkpoint is evaluated with greedy and sampled decoding under a step budget of 4n. That gives 180 fixed-suite conditions: 72 RL and 108 supervised.

Q2: shaping phase diagram (q2/)

The main grid trains 54 five-million-step LSTM policies. It varies four factors:

• reward mode: graded Δ (shaping-beta1), the β = 0 control (shaping-sparse), and a binary backward penalty (shaping-binary);
• rollout horizon: 4n, 2n, and 1p25n (1.25n);
• graph regime: small (fixed n = 8 to 16) and cold (cold-start n = 32 to 64);
• seeds 42, 43, and 44.

The extension repeats the grid at goal bonuses of 1 and 0, which gives 162 runs. Every run uses the Muon optimizer at learning rate 0.015 with 1,024 parallel environments.

Run names follow q2-{regime}-{horizon}-g{goal_bonus}-{mode}-seed{seed}, for example q2-cold-1p25n-g0-shaping-beta1-seed42. Each run has a .json curve file and a .pt checkpoint. The files grid-manifest.json, grid-g0-manifest.json, and grid-g1-manifest.json list every run with its final success rate.

Q3: size generalization (q3/)

Nine five-million-step policies (MLP, LSTM, and Transformer, three seeds each) train on graphs up to n = 32. They are evaluated on n = 32, 48, 96, 192, 384, and 768 with 1,000 graphs per condition, greedy and sampled decoding, and suite seed 20260726. The checkpoints are q3-policy-mlp-seed*.pt, q3-policy-transformer-seed*.pt, and q3-shaping-beta1-seed*.pt (the LSTM).

Exploratory runs (experiments/)

This folder holds the runs from early in the project: the first ablation sweeps behind the visualizer and several smoke and reproducibility runs. Each run has a directory named by a numeric run id (178120009848) and a sibling final policy file (178120009848.pt). Inside the directory, PufferLib writes intermediate checkpoints (model_000025.pt) and the optimizer state (trainer_state.pt). These runs use different settings from the paper runs. The paper results come from viz-data/.

File formats

Training curve files (q2/*.json, q3/experiments-*.json, viz-data/experiments*.json) hold name, spec (environment settings and recurrent wrapper), n_params, seed, tag, artifact_stem, steps, num_envs, and curve. Each curve entry records agent_steps, epoch, SPS (steps per second), uptime, and the PPO loss statistics (losses/policy_loss, losses/value_loss, losses/entropy, losses/explained_variance, losses/approx_kl).

Evaluation files (eval-*.json) hold config, runs, and summary. Each row in runs describes one checkpoint on one suite and decoding mode:

Field	Meaning
episodes, successes, success_rate	episodes run and how many reached the target
episode_length	mean steps per episode
opt_gap	mean path cost of successful episodes divided by the optimal cost
backward_rate	fraction of moves that increase φ
two_cycle_rate, two_cycle_episode_rate	share of moves in A→B→A cycles, and share of episodes containing one
invalid_rate	fraction of masked-invalid actions (0.0 everywhere)
paradigm, architecture, training_budget, training_steps, train_seed	which model produced the row
suite, suite_sha256, n_min, n_max, decoding	the evaluation conditions
checkpoint, n_params	source checkpoint file and its parameter count

Supervised run files (q1-supervised/q1-soft-kl-*.json) hold the training configuration (variant, size, seed, steps, batch_size, tau, model), the final loss, a 200-point loss curve, and captures, a list of integer checkpoint steps.

Checkpoints (.pt) are PyTorch files. train.py eval --load-model-path <file> in the GitHub repository loads the RL checkpoints, and the supervised scripts in the same repository load the supervised ones.

Loading a file

from huggingface_hub import hf_hub_download
import json

path = hf_hub_download(
    "lilcheaty/dijkwalk-experiments",
    "viz-data/q1-eval/rl.json",
    repo_type="dataset",
)
rows = json.load(open(path))["runs"]
far = [r for r in rows if r["suite"] == "far-ood" and r["decoding"] == "sampled"]
print(sum(r["success_rate"] for r in far) / len(far))

Reproducing the runs

Clone the GitHub repository and follow its README.md. It covers setup, train.py, the scripts/q1_suite verifier, and the per-question scripts under scripts/. The seed controls Python, NumPy, PyTorch, PufferLib, graph generation, policy initialization, and action sampling. Same-seed reruns produce tensor-identical checkpoints and identical non-timing curves. Every seed appears in its filename, so concurrent runs never overwrite each other.

Caveats

• Greedy policies fall into two-cycles, so the headline numbers use sampled decoding. Greedy numbers are listed next to them where the paper reports both.
• The Q1 comparison matches compute and parameters closely. It does not separate the effect of the training signal from every optimizer and data-distribution difference between the two paradigms.
• The Q2 result is a null against a predeclared 15-point gate. The strongest cells show an 8 to 12 point advantage for graded shaping.
• The Q1 runs trained on a remote GPU box with the official CUDA 12.6 PyTorch wheel. paper/EXPERIMENT-SUMMARY.md in the GitHub repository lists every operational deviation.

Citation

No formal citation exists yet. Cite the GitHub repository: https://github.com/safzanpirani/dijkwalk.