Skip to content

C2F-ARM under performs than in the paper #15

@ZXP-S-works

Description

@ZXP-S-works

Hi Stephen,

C2F-ARM is an ingenious method and I tried to replicate the learning curves in the paper. However, I failed in achieving the same performance as the paper for tasks "stack_wine" and "phone_on_base".

In the paper Fig. 3, for the "phone_on_base" task C2F-ARM achieved ~60 return at step 5e3 and for the "stack_wine" task C2F-ARM achieved ~70 return at step 5e3. However, when I run the code, I got ~25 return at step 5e3 for "phone_on_base" and ~15 return at step 5e3 which deviate from the std of seeds in the paper. Could you give me some instructions on how to replicate the results in the paper?

Thank you for your time!

Best,
XP

Here is the learning curve I got:

Here is some information about the setup I have:
Collecting demos (RLBench):
--save_path=***/ARM/data/
--tasks=stack_wine or phone_on_base
--image_size=128,128
--renderer=opengl
--episodes_per_task=10 (I used 10 since C2F-ARM only needs 10)
--variations=1
--processes=1

Run the training code:
(python3.7)
method=C2FARM
rlbench.task=stack_wine or phone_on_base
rlbench.demo_path=***/Baselines/ARM/data
framework.gpu=0
framework.training_iterations=5000 or 15000(I used a smaller max iterations)
framework.logdir=./arm_test

Workstation:
Linux 20.04 LTS
C2F-ARM Git commit Initial QTE commit.
rlbench 1.2.0
torch 1.13.1
torchaudio 0.13.1
torchsummary 1.5.1
torchvision 0.14.1

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions