You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hey I first wanted to say that this is great work. I also wanted to point out that in the non-amortized curvature loss if you look at the shapes:
grad_z is [batchsize x latent_dim]
grad_u is [batchsize x action_dim]
when I think in the paper grad_u should be [batchsize x latent_dim].
So, I think right now the way the curvature loss is formatted it is non-sensical dimensionally since if action_dim ≠ latent_dim or action_dim ≠ 1 then you'd get a dimension mismatch. Let me know if you have any questions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hey I first wanted to say that this is great work. I also wanted to point out that in the non-amortized curvature loss if you look at the shapes:
grad_z is [batchsize x latent_dim]
grad_u is [batchsize x action_dim]
when I think in the paper grad_u should be [batchsize x latent_dim].
So, I think right now the way the curvature loss is formatted it is non-sensical dimensionally since if action_dim ≠ latent_dim or action_dim ≠ 1 then you'd get a dimension mismatch. Let me know if you have any questions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: