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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 31, 2023. It is now read-only.
Hello, in my opinion, the bisimulation loss makes the distance between any two latents equal to the difference (reward_dist + \gamma * (transition_distribution_dist)), which approximates the bisimulation metric. But such operation can make the latent vary over the time and the forward model (z_t, a_t --> z_{t+1}) may regress to an time-varying target z_{t+1}. So I want to know whether such conflict between these two losses may hurt the final performance and influence the convergence of the forward dynamics model? I am looking forward to your reply, thank you !
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Hello, in my opinion, the bisimulation loss makes the distance between any two latents equal to the difference (reward_dist + \gamma * (transition_distribution_dist)), which approximates the bisimulation metric. But such operation can make the latent vary over the time and the forward model (z_t, a_t --> z_{t+1}) may regress to an time-varying target z_{t+1}. So I want to know whether such conflict between these two losses may hurt the final performance and influence the convergence of the forward dynamics model? I am looking forward to your reply, thank you !
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: