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

[BugFix] Set strict=False in tensordict.select() calls for objective classes #2004

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 12, 2024

Conversation

albertbou92
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This PR proposes to set strict=False for the tensordict.select() calls in the objective classes.

The logic behind this is that in some situations the Actors and Value networks should still be able to run through the losses without some of the in_keys.

Examples are:

  1. RNN without the recurrent_state key can still be called when the is_init is True.
  2. Transformer networks may need a mask during inference but not during training.
  3. More generally, users could make custom TensorDict modules that have optional parameters.

Motivation and Context

Why is this change required? What problem does it solve?
If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here.
You can use the syntax close #15213 if this solves the issue #15213

  • I have raised an issue to propose this change (required for new features and bug fixes)

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce? Remove all that do not apply:

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds core functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation (update in the documentation)
  • Example (update in the folder of examples)

Checklist

Go over all the following points, and put an x in all the boxes that apply.
If you are unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We are here to help!

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTION guide (required)
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the tests accordingly (required for a bug fix or a new feature).
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.

Copy link

pytorch-bot bot commented Mar 9, 2024

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/rl/2004

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

❌ 2 New Failures, 1 Unrelated Failure

As of commit e547ab0 with merge base ad73733 (image):

NEW FAILURES - The following jobs have failed:

BROKEN TRUNK - The following job failed but were present on the merge base:

👉 Rebase onto the `viable/strict` branch to avoid these failures

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

@facebook-github-bot facebook-github-bot added the CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. label Mar 9, 2024
@albertbou92 albertbou92 changed the title select non-strict in losses [BugFix] Set strict=False in tensordict.select() calls for objective classes Mar 9, 2024
@vmoens vmoens added the bug Something isn't working label Mar 10, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@vmoens vmoens left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM just curious why we needed to adapt the tests too

torchrl/objectives/a2c.py Show resolved Hide resolved
torchrl/objectives/a2c.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@vmoens vmoens merged commit c371266 into pytorch:main Mar 12, 2024
64 of 67 checks passed
@vmoens vmoens deleted the losses_nonstrict_select branch March 12, 2024 14:45
vmoens pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 25, 2024
vmoens pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants