explore_function part of ExplorationWorker #384
Conversation
interactive clang compilation together with exploration for a given module. This commit adds the class with its compile_module function which will compile the module with a given compiler policy.
Explores the module using the given policy and the exploration distr.
This implementation assumes the action set is only {0,1} and will just
switch the action played at explore_step.
| @@ -32,6 +33,30 @@ | |||
| from compiler_opt.rl import env | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| @dataclasses.dataclass | |||
| class SequenceExampleFeatureNames: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, I think this got caught up in some other changes that I made.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok, but to keep the change scoped, can you move it back where it was?
| module_name: str = 'module_name' | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def get_loss(seq_example: tf.train.SequenceExample, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
neat, I wonder if we should move the sequence example stuff in its own utility library? if you think that's a good idea, can you tag an issue on this, we can do it after.
| self.explore_step = 0 | ||
| self.gap = np.inf | ||
| self.explore_on_features = explore_on_features | ||
| self.explore_step: int = len(replay_prefix) - 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, OK. I see what is also happening. Can you separate the stylistic changes in their own PR, and just submit it once it passes the CI (no review needed, I suggest naming it like "[NFC] add _ for member fields"). Then merge this.
This helps both with this review and later: the mechanical change doesn't interfere (and one knows not to spend much time looking at it in the future, when we want to understand something)
Explores the module using the given policy and the exploration distr.
This implementation assumes the action set is only {0,1} and will just
switch the action played at explore_step.