-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
removed dataset removal code, and upgraded sampler #10
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Looks good. Why do we need a min of 1000? Also did you mean to change |
Why min 1000:Arbitrary choice, could be removed. Memory for storing huge parameter space could be big so i just put a min value in there Dropping to 60We process these video clips 6 at a time currently. There are 2 thoughts |
Min 1000Is there any difference between how things are sampled within the 1000 and in the next 1000? Is there some internal state that resets? Also should probs make it a constant variable (See Magic Number antipattern). Or an argument? Also you've written the same line SAMPLER_CHUNK = 1000
sampler = None
while simulation_num < args.number_of_simulations:
if(sampler == None or sampler_idx == min(SAMPLER_CHUNK, args.number_of_simulations)):
sampler_idx = 0
sampler = list(ParameterSampler(parameter_space, min(SAMPLER_CHUNK, args.number_of_simulations)))
params = sampler[sampler_idx]
sampler_idx += 1 Dropping to 60We're not concerned about duplicated frames, only duplicated initial settings. I think the solution is to add it as an argument: parser.add_argument('--num_timesteps_per_simulation', metavar='TIMESTEPS_PER_SIMULATION', type=int,
help='Number of frames to generate for each simulation', ) |
"Is there any difference between how things are sampled within the 1000 and in the next 1000? Is there some internal state that resets?"It appears so yeah, ive tested it and the docs imply it, tho their wording is a bit convoluted "We're not concerned about duplicated frames, only duplicated initial settings."Pretty much the same thing right? Simulations that are similar in any way. Im fine with your changes. That looks tidier, as you will! |
Well if we were concerned about this we wouldn't allow any simulations which went through the same point (e.g. any simulations where the ball passed through the center point somewhere in the simulation would be duplicates?). This is definitely not the same thing. |
Apologies delayed response was dealing with rebuttal No cos its all about batches of 6 frames being as different from eachother as possible right? |
Well see this example. Clearly both simulations are vastly different so should both be included in our dataset. Yet it just happens that the second frame is identical. The aim of the task is to require knowledge of multiple frames to predict future frames. So what makes a simulation unique is clearly the pattern of multiple frames not just a single frame. |
Yes okay, saying they were pretty much the same thing is careless, but asides from the point Having more video clips that are shorter will give more variety in initial conditions |
Pull request as dicussed before:
Further note:
(should help with memory)
The sampler is also properly random in this state
Vanishing balls
I took a look at the ball-disappearing bug , it was literally just too high gravity as suspected, cranked it waaaaay down and tested it and it works fine. Generating a large dataset now