Training parameters (lr and weight decay) change. #3
Open
wuyuebupt wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
Conversation
|
Applying these modifications on the LwF backbone of this code indeed improved the results. I agree with you about pulling them into the code. Thank you |
Author
|
It looks that the author doesn't maintain this repo anymore :( |
|
Hi @wuyuebupt, could you answer this question about how many bias correction layers should be learned? It would be very much appreciated. Thanks! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Change the lr schedule from steplr to multistep lr following the paper. Change weight decay according to the incremental stages. Early stages have larger weight decay than late stages. I got one close result [0.856, 0.72125, 0.6556666666666666, 0.6015, 0.5577], see the log file in the folder logs.
The distillation part is also different from our implementation. But I think your implementation is kind of fine.