Allow curriculum stages to be defined in iterations instead of raw steps#710
Open
saikishor wants to merge 4 commits intomujocolab:mainfrom
Open
Allow curriculum stages to be defined in iterations instead of raw steps#710saikishor wants to merge 4 commits intomujocolab:mainfrom
saikishor wants to merge 4 commits intomujocolab:mainfrom
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Curriculum configs can now use "iteration" instead of "step" in stage dicts (e.g. {"iteration": 5000} vs {"step": 5000 * 24}), which is more intuitive and doesn't require knowing num_steps_per_env.
Rather than propagating num_steps_per_env into the env config and duplicating conversion logic across curriculum functions, this resolves "iteration" → "step" once at config time in curriculum_manager.py before the env is created. Curriculum functions remain unchanged.
@kevinzakka I took your commit from #606, which was later reverted, and added a minor change to see if you like the fix. If you don't like the approach, please feel free to close the PR. If you need further changes, please let me know.