diff --git a/docs/best-practices/reference-runs.en.md b/docs/best-practices/reference-runs.en.md index d2f13d05..d386ba6a 100644 --- a/docs/best-practices/reference-runs.en.md +++ b/docs/best-practices/reference-runs.en.md @@ -109,32 +109,31 @@ The tables below are the **v1.0** Genesis numbers. The v0.4.7 numbers are preserved in a "Previous: v0.4.7" admonition next to each task so a re-baseline diff is one scroll away. -!!! note "Status: v1.0 sanity smoke, full sweep pending" - - The v1.0 reference cells stay `TBD` until the full - 30 000-iter / 4096-env sweep is rerun on Genesis 1.0. In the meantime - a **50-iter G1-Velocity-Flat sanity smoke** was run during the - migration (S1, PR #175) and shows a healthy learning trajectory: - - - Mean reward: iter 36 **−1.08** → iter 49 **−0.79** (monotonic improvement) - - Throughput: **~53 000 steps / s** sustained on RTX 4090 (CUDA 13.0) - - Wall-clock: ~1 min 39 s for 50 iters - - The sanity smoke confirms the v1.0 simulator runs the existing G1 - policy / rewards / observations without regressions in the hot - path — the only thing left is the multi-day wall-clock to populate - the per-seed convergence numbers. Maintainers running the full - sweep should fill the `TBD` cells from the corresponding - `eval.json` and append a footer with the GPU + driver pair the - numbers were collected on. +!!! note "Hardware the v1.0 numbers were collected on" + + - **Cartpole IP / DIP, Franka** — NVIDIA H200 (141 GB HBM3), driver + 570.211.01, CUDA 12.8, `QD_GRAPH=0` (Hopper requires it — no + `graph_do_while` fatbin for SM 90). Cartpoles ran with + `--parallel 3` on a single GPU; Franka ran with one seed per GPU + across GPUs 0–2. + - **G1-Velocity-Flat, G1-Tracking-Flat** — 4× NVIDIA GeForce RTX + 4090 (24 GB each), driver 580.159.03, CUDA 12.8. G1-Velocity used + one seed per GPU on GPUs 0–2; G1-Tracking ran seed 1 alongside + Velocity on GPU 3 (Phase A), then seeds 2/3 on GPUs 0/1 after + Velocity finished (Phase B). The cross-task concurrency on one + host oversubscribes the CPU per this doc's own warning — the + reward numbers are deterministic and unaffected, but the train + wall-clock below is the **concurrent-run** wall, not a solo + figure (a solo run on the same GPU is ~3–6× faster per the + `Time elapsed` counter in `train.log`). ### `GeneLab-Inverted-Pendulum-v0` | Seed | Final `return_mean` | `return_std` | Convergence iter | Train wall-clock | Eval wall-clock | |---|---|---|---|---|---| -| 1 | TBD | TBD | 150 | TBD | TBD | -| 2 | TBD | TBD | 150 | TBD | TBD | -| 3 | TBD | TBD | 150 | TBD | TBD | +| 1 | 39.977 | 0.002 | 150 | ~2.5 min | 12.6 s | +| 2 | 39.994 | 0.001 | 150 | ~2.5 min | 12.4 s | +| 3 | 39.986 | 0.001 | 150 | ~2.5 min | 12.6 s | Eval `length_mean = 1000.0` for all seeds (episode hits the time-limit cap without falling), so the policy is solved at the budget cap. `success_rate` @@ -152,9 +151,9 @@ is `null` (task does not publish `extras["is_success"]`). | Seed | Final `return_mean` | `return_std` | Convergence iter | Train wall-clock | Eval wall-clock | |---|---|---|---|---|---| -| 1 | TBD | TBD | 300 | TBD | TBD | -| 2 | TBD | TBD | 300 | TBD | TBD | -| 3 | TBD | TBD | 300 | TBD | TBD | +| 1 | 59.933 | 0.020 | 300 | ~3.5 min | 16.3 s | +| 2 | 59.914 | 0.174 | 300 | ~3.5 min | 16.4 s | +| 3 | 59.897 | 0.023 | 300 | ~3.5 min | 16.4 s | Eval `length_mean = 1200.0` for all seeds. `success_rate` is `null` (same reason as IP). @@ -171,9 +170,9 @@ reason as IP). | Seed | Final `return_mean` | `return_std` | Convergence iter | Train wall-clock | Eval wall-clock | |---|---|---|---|---|---| -| 1 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | -| 2 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | -| 3 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | +| 1 | 112.038 | 4.816 | 30 000 | ~28 h | 163.5 s | +| 2 | 112.871 | 4.918 | 30 000 | ~28 h | 160.3 s | +| 3 | 113.163 | 4.850 | 30 000 | ~28 h | 160.9 s | Eval `length_mean = 1000.0` for all seeds (play_env `episode_length_s = 20 s` × 50 Hz). `success_rate` is `null`. @@ -190,9 +189,9 @@ Eval `length_mean = 1000.0` for all seeds (play_env `episode_length_s = | Seed | Final `return_mean` | `return_std` | Convergence iter | Train wall-clock | Eval wall-clock | |---|---|---|---|---|---| -| 1 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | -| 2 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | -| 3 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | +| 1 | 138.444 | 0.006 | 30 000 | ~28 h | 227.3 s | +| 2 | 137.980 | 0.008 | 30 000 | ~29 h | 301.6 s | +| 3 | 138.060 | 0.004 | 30 000 | ~29 h | 236.9 s | Eval `length_mean = 1500.0`. The tracking play_env normally sets `episode_length_s = 1e9` for infinite viewer playback; `genelab eval` @@ -213,13 +212,15 @@ is `null`. | Seed | Final `return_mean` | `return_std` | `success_rate` | Convergence timestep | Train wall-clock | Eval wall-clock | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| -| 1 | TBD | TBD | TBD | 2 000 000 (budget cap) | TBD | TBD | -| 2 | TBD | TBD | TBD | 2 000 000 (budget cap) | TBD | TBD | -| 3 | TBD | TBD | TBD | 2 000 000 (budget cap) | TBD | TBD | +| 1 | −6.122 | 13.307 | 0.990 | 2 000 000 (budget cap) | ~67 min | 10.7 s | +| 2 | −7.260 | 14.695 | 0.990 | 2 000 000 (budget cap) | ~62 min | 10.4 s | +| 3 | −8.790 | 18.275 | 0.970 | 2 000 000 (budget cap) | ~64 min | 11.1 s | Eval `length_mean = 100.0` (fixed episode length). `success_rate` reflects -the goal-reach termination from the manipulation task; per-seed means and -the cross-seed mean will be filled once the v1.0 runs land. +the goal-reach termination from the manipulation task. Cross-seed mean +`success_rate ≈ 0.983 ± 0.012` — meaningfully tighter than the v0.4.7 +sweep, where one seed only reached 0.89 from end-effector drift on harder +goal poses. All three v1.0 seeds land in the same tight band. !!! note "Previous: v0.4.7" diff --git a/docs/best-practices/reference-runs.zh.md b/docs/best-practices/reference-runs.zh.md index 556ccbf9..76200d90 100644 --- a/docs/best-practices/reference-runs.zh.md +++ b/docs/best-practices/reference-runs.zh.md @@ -96,28 +96,28 @@ GPU vectorized 慢很多。 下表为 Genesis **v1.0** 的数字。v0.4.7 的旧数字保留在每个任务旁边的 "Previous: v0.4.7" admonition 里，方便 re-baseline 对比。 -!!! note "状态：v1.0 sanity smoke 已过，完整 sweep 待跑" - - v1.0 reference 单元仍为 `TBD`，要等完整的 30 000 iter × 4096 env - sweep 在 Genesis 1.0 上重跑后才能填。期间已在迁移过程中（S1， - PR #175）跑了一次 **50-iter G1-Velocity-Flat sanity smoke**，轨迹健康： - - - Mean reward：iter 36 **−1.08** → iter 49 **−0.79**（单调改善） - - 吞吐量：**~53 000 steps / s**，RTX 4090（CUDA 13.0）下持续 - - 墙钟：50 iter 共 ~1 min 39 s - - Sanity smoke 证明 v1.0 simulator 跑现有 G1 的 policy / reward / - observation 在热路径上没有回归；剩下的只是多天的墙钟跑完，填进各 - seed 的收敛数字。维护者跑完完整 sweep 后，请把 `TBD` 单元从对应 - `eval.json` 里取出填入，并附上跑数所用的 GPU + 驱动组合。 +!!! note "v1.0 数字所用硬件" + + - **Cartpole IP / DIP、Franka** — NVIDIA H200（141 GB HBM3），驱动 + 570.211.01，CUDA 12.8，`QD_GRAPH=0`（Hopper SM 90 没有 + `graph_do_while` fatbin，必须设）。Cartpoles 用 `--parallel 3` 在 + 单张 GPU 上并行；Franka 用一卡一 seed 跑在 GPU 0–2 上。 + - **G1-Velocity-Flat、G1-Tracking-Flat** — 4× NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 + （每张 24 GB），驱动 580.159.03，CUDA 12.8。G1-Velocity 用一卡一 + seed 跑在 GPU 0–2 上；G1-Tracking 的 seed 1 在 Phase A 与 + Velocity 并行跑在 GPU 3 上，seed 2/3 在 Velocity 跑完后才在 GPU + 0/1 上跑（Phase B）。跨任务在同一台机上并发触发了文档自身警告的 + CPU 过订阅 —— reward 数字是确定性的不受影响，但下面的训练墙钟是 + **并发跑的墙钟**，不是单 job 数字（同卡单 job 跑按 `train.log` + 里的 `Time elapsed` 计数约快 3–6×）。 ### `GeneLab-Inverted-Pendulum-v0` | Seed | 最终 `return_mean` | `return_std` | 收敛 iter | 训练 wall-clock | Eval wall-clock | |---|---|---|---|---|---| -| 1 | TBD | TBD | 150 | TBD | TBD | -| 2 | TBD | TBD | 150 | TBD | TBD | -| 3 | TBD | TBD | 150 | TBD | TBD | +| 1 | 39.977 | 0.002 | 150 | ~2.5 min | 12.6 s | +| 2 | 39.994 | 0.001 | 150 | ~2.5 min | 12.4 s | +| 3 | 39.986 | 0.001 | 150 | ~2.5 min | 12.6 s | 三个 seed 的 eval `length_mean = 1000.0`（episode 跑满时间上限不倒），策略 在预算上限解掉。`success_rate` 为 `null`（任务未 publish @@ -135,9 +135,9 @@ GPU vectorized 慢很多。 | Seed | 最终 `return_mean` | `return_std` | 收敛 iter | 训练 wall-clock | Eval wall-clock | |---|---|---|---|---|---| -| 1 | TBD | TBD | 300 | TBD | TBD | -| 2 | TBD | TBD | 300 | TBD | TBD | -| 3 | TBD | TBD | 300 | TBD | TBD | +| 1 | 59.933 | 0.020 | 300 | ~3.5 min | 16.3 s | +| 2 | 59.914 | 0.174 | 300 | ~3.5 min | 16.4 s | +| 3 | 59.897 | 0.023 | 300 | ~3.5 min | 16.4 s | 三个 seed 的 eval `length_mean = 1200.0`。`success_rate` 为 `null`（同 IP）。 @@ -153,9 +153,9 @@ GPU vectorized 慢很多。 | Seed | 最终 `return_mean` | `return_std` | 收敛 iter | 训练 wall-clock | Eval wall-clock | |---|---|---|---|---|---| -| 1 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | -| 2 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | -| 3 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | +| 1 | 112.038 | 4.816 | 30 000 | ~28 h | 163.5 s | +| 2 | 112.871 | 4.918 | 30 000 | ~28 h | 160.3 s | +| 3 | 113.163 | 4.850 | 30 000 | ~28 h | 160.9 s | 三个 seed 的 eval `length_mean = 1000.0`（play_env `episode_length_s = 20 s` × 50 Hz）。`success_rate` 为 `null`。 @@ -172,9 +172,9 @@ GPU vectorized 慢很多。 | Seed | 最终 `return_mean` | `return_std` | 收敛 iter | 训练 wall-clock | Eval wall-clock | |---|---|---|---|---|---| -| 1 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | -| 2 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | -| 3 | TBD | TBD | 30 000 | TBD | TBD | +| 1 | 138.444 | 0.006 | 30 000 | ~28 h | 227.3 s | +| 2 | 137.980 | 0.008 | 30 000 | ~29 h | 301.6 s | +| 3 | 138.060 | 0.004 | 30 000 | ~29 h | 236.9 s | Eval `length_mean = 1500.0`。Tracking play_env 默认 `episode_length_s = 1e9` 是为 viewer 无限 playback 设的；`genelab eval` 把它 clamp 到 30 s， @@ -194,13 +194,15 @@ Eval `length_mean = 1500.0`。Tracking play_env 默认 `episode_length_s = | Seed | 最终 `return_mean` | `return_std` | `success_rate` | 收敛 timestep | 训练 wall-clock | Eval wall-clock | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| -| 1 | TBD | TBD | TBD | 2 000 000（预算上限）| TBD | TBD | -| 2 | TBD | TBD | TBD | 2 000 000（预算上限）| TBD | TBD | -| 3 | TBD | TBD | TBD | 2 000 000（预算上限）| TBD | TBD | +| 1 | −6.122 | 13.307 | 0.990 | 2 000 000（预算上限）| ~67 min | 10.7 s | +| 2 | −7.260 | 14.695 | 0.990 | 2 000 000（预算上限）| ~62 min | 10.4 s | +| 3 | −8.790 | 18.275 | 0.970 | 2 000 000（预算上限）| ~64 min | 11.1 s | Eval `length_mean = 100.0`（固定 episode length）。`success_rate` 由 -manipulation 任务的 goal-reach termination 给出；每个 seed 的均值和三 seed -之间的总体均值在 v1.0 跑完之后回填。 +manipulation 任务的 goal-reach termination 给出。三 seed 平均 +`success_rate ≈ 0.983 ± 0.012` —— 比 v0.4.7 那次明显更紧凑：v0.4.7 有一 +个 seed 因为末端朝向 drift 只到 0.89；v1.0 三个 seed 全部落在同一个 +紧凑区间内。 !!! note "Previous: v0.4.7"