Course talk:CPSC522/Grouped Prioritized Experience Replay (GPER)

The page is very well written and concise enough to give all the information without being too long. It is motivated very well and I found it very useful to read examples throughout the page: good job! I would add a little explanation on TD error since I think not all the readers have enough background to know what it is. I also think the page is missing the motivation for adopting that particular reward values: why do movement and wrong dropoff/pickup have the same score, and successful dropoff have such a big score compared to the other ones? Also I think the page would benefit from a bit more explanation on the pseudocode. For instance, it seems to have an infinite loop for the loop from line 2 to 4; some explanation could help clarify the code.

The topic is relevant for the course. 5 The writing is clear and the English is good. 5 The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5 The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 4 The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5 There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5 There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 3 It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 5 It is correct. 5 It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5 It was an appropriate unit for a page. 5 It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5 The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5 I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5 This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4 If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18.5

What is TD error and what does it measure? Perhaps further elaboration could make this clear. You could also consider labeling your figures to make it easier to follow your references in the discussion section. Overall, it was a great page. I also really enjoyed how it was concise and to the point.

The topic is relevant for the course. 5 The writing is clear and the English is good. 5 The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5 The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 4 The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5 There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5 There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 5 It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 4 It is correct. 5 It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5 It was an appropriate unit for a page. 5 It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5 The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5 I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5 This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 19

There are some spaces missing in the formatting of the brackets in the Introduction section. Why are the rewards for wrong pickup/drop off so small? Is that a consideration at all? Overall, it might be useful to outline more clearly the limitations of the study and some future directions and I think you have space for it as the page is not that long. I think it might be useful to report some specific numbers/comparisons in the results so it does not need to be read off the graph.

Other than that this page was well-organized and nice to read!

The topic is relevant for the course. 5 The writing is clear and the English is good. 5 The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students. 5 The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5 The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5 There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear.5 There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 5 It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning. 5 It is correct. 5 It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 4 It was an appropriate unit for a page. 5 It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5 The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5 I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic.5 This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 5 If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 19

Great page overall. The grouping idea is interesting, well motivated, and explained very well. The experiments are thorough and explain well. My only comment would be that the page lacks a future works discussion. It would really valuable for the reader to also having some suggested paths to go from here. Also, annotations and the bibliography seems missing. Currently, I'd give this page 18/20!