Skip to content
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

Submission for issue #77 #154

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

shishir13sharma
Copy link

@shishir13sharma shishir13sharma commented Jan 8, 2019

#77

@reproducibility-org reproducibility-org added the checks-complete Submission criteria checks complete label Jan 8, 2019
@koustuvsinha koustuvsinha added reviewer-assigned Reviewer has been assigned and removed reviewer-assigned Reviewer has been assigned labels Feb 1, 2019
@reproducibility-org
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi, please find below a review submitted by one of the reviewers:

Score: 7
Reviewer 1 comment : This work tries to reproduce Q-Map on several benchmark games. Although the results of reproduction are negative, the authors offer analysis and detailed results. The report is well-written, but the code documentation is terrible (for example, markdown format of README is incorrect). More hyper-parameter search can be conducted. Even though, I would give a weak accept for encouragement of participating reproduction challenge.
Confidence : 3

@reproducibility-org
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi, please find below a review submitted by one of the reviewers:

Score: 5
Reviewer 3 comment : This report describes an attempt to reproduce the results in the paper "Q-map: a Convolutional Approach for Goal-Oriented Reinforcement Learning".

  • The report is clearly written. The authors described the paper and the experiments they run in detail.

  • The authors seem to have written their own code for the paper (in pytorch) and I appreciate the effort.

  • While I understand the resource limitations on running these experiments. The experiments still seem to be fairly limited. The experiments would have been more information if it multiple runs over different hyper parameters were performed.

  • The authors found negative results. I am curious if the authors have attempted to reach out to the original authors to clarify details (there could have been slight differences in implementation that effects the performance of the method drastically).

Overall, i appreciate the effort. However, I would like to see more extensive experiments in order to make a better judgement on the reproducibility of the original paper.
Confidence : 4

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
checks-complete Submission criteria checks complete reviewer-assigned Reviewer has been assigned
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants