Live data from Hacker News

4000x Speedup in Reinforcement Learning with Jax

chrislu.page

31–32 of 32 posts

Re: 4000x Speedup in Reinforcement Learning with Jax

#31

How does this compare with PyTorch / Tensorflow / etc.? Obviously doing heavy data processing on the GPU will have a large speedup compared to a single thread on the CPU. It's almost like the author is claiming credit for creating Nvidia, when in fact he is just calling its APIs.

The baseline we are comparing to is standard RL training that is widely used in academia. The technique mentioned in the blog post is not widely used amongst researchers.

The reason we write about Jax is that doing this technique is really hard in PyTorch / Tensorflow. This is because:

1. Jax has vmap. (PyTorch does now too, but it is far more recent).

2. There are RL environments that others have written in pure Jax (see the blog post for four different repos of RL environments)

3. As m00x hints to, Jax replicates Numpy's API. This makes it way easier to use for non-neural network programming (e.g. RL environments).

Re: 4000x Speedup in Reinforcement Learning with Jax

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you shave a factor of n off of your algorithm, it usually isn't the same algorithm anymore. That's what they mean, the previous algorithm choice was "stupid" and you've stopped doing something stupid.

That's like saying, everybody struggling to solve SAT problems is just being stupid; just prove P = NP and solve the damn thing!

It's just an idiom and not meant to be taken so literally. Basically if you're getting a 100x improvement, you're jumping from one paradigm to another. And those are probably already solved algorithms / invented datastructures. If you're doing something novel and "clever" to speed up your algorithm for your circumstances, it's probably going to be under a 5x improvement.

Or to continue the SAT analogy, if you're doubling your SAT score (e.g. 700 to 1400) you're getting smarter. If your 100x'ing your SAT score, the best possible previous score you could have gotten is a 16. Which would mean you got about one and a half questions correct across both the reading and math SAT.

Post reply on HN