1. There is no discussion on the choice of "proximity" and the nature of the task. On the proposed tasks, proximity on the fingertip Cartesian positions is strongly correlated with proximity in the solution space. However, this relationship doesn't hold for certain tasks. For example, in a complicated maze, two nearby positions in the Euclidean metric can be very far in the actual path. For robotic tasks with various obstacles and collisions, similar results apply. The paper would be better if it analyzes what tasks have reasonable proximity metrics, and demostrate failure on those that don't. 2. Â Some ablation study is missing, which could cause confusion and extra experimentation for practitioners. For example, the \sigma in the RBF kernel seems to play a crucial role, but no analysis is given on it. Figure 4 analyzes how changing \lambda changes the performance, but it would be nice to see how \eta and \tau in equation (7) affect performance. Minor comments: 1. The diversity term, defined as the facility location function, is undirected and history-invariant. Thus it shouldn't be called "curiosity", since curiosity only works on novel experiences. Please use a different name. 2. The curves in Figure 3 (a) are suspiciously cut at Epoch = 50, after which the baseline methods seem to catch up and perhaps surpass CHER. Perhaps this should be explained.
2. Â Some ablation study is missing, which could cause confusion and extra experimentation for practitioners. For example, the \sigma in the RBF kernel seems to play a crucial role, but no analysis is given on it. Figure 4 analyzes how changing \lambda changes the performance, but it would be nice to see how \eta and \tau in equation (7) affect performance. Minor comments: