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

RL4J: SyncLearning lacks necessary training control #5267

Closed
AlexDBlack opened this issue May 21, 2018 · 4 comments · Fixed by #5972
Closed

RL4J: SyncLearning lacks necessary training control #5267

AlexDBlack opened this issue May 21, 2018 · 4 comments · Fixed by #5972
Labels

Comments

@AlexDBlack
Copy link
Contributor

From @viluon on October 9, 2017 22:56

https://github.com/deeplearning4j/rl4j/blob/273564b2e35294a83893688b9033013fe24129b6/rl4j-core/src/main/java/org/deeplearning4j/rl4j/learning/sync/SyncLearning.java#L36

The step counter lacks setters, which makes all Learning-based classes practically unusable after the first .train() call.

Copied from original issue: deeplearning4j/rl4j#70

@AlexDBlack
Copy link
Contributor Author

From @saudet on October 11, 2017 5:43

We could recreate these objects, if that's the intention. Could you explain your use case?

@AlexDBlack AlexDBlack changed the title SyncLearning lacks necessary training control RL4J: SyncLearning lacks necessary training control May 21, 2018
@viluon
Copy link

viluon commented May 23, 2018

@saudet continuous learning (improving the net while it is being used).

@saudet
Copy link
Contributor

saudet commented May 24, 2018

@viluon Sure, let's add a @Setter there or switch to @Data. Could you send a pull request?

@lock
Copy link

lock bot commented Sep 21, 2018

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.

@lock lock bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 21, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants