-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
doubts about shared classifier in val phase #10
Comments
Hi @Zysty,
The program will execute L321 only when you set eval_batch. "eval_batch" indicates we evaluate the method with a mini-batch. I just want to check the result when I average the features before and after batchformer. Empirically, this kind of evaluation does not improve the performance after we share the classifier during training phrase. Sorry for the redundant code. I mainly conduct the ablation study, visualized comparison (self.debug) and gradient analysis (self.debug) based on BalancedSoftmax. Therefore, there might be some redundant codes in BalancedSoftmax. Feel free to post if you have other questions. Regards, |
Thank you for the prompt reply. Looking forward to hearing good news from BatchformerV2, V3, and so on. Haha :) |
Yes. When I infer the model, I do not use eval_batch. It is just for debugging and ablation study. Thanks. It might require providing a novel insight for a new work compared to the current work. Otherwise, it mainly presents a generalized version and shows the possibility of new model architectures compared to current work. |
Hi @Zysty, |
Hi! Thanks for your sharing.
There may be differences between the paper and code.
In the paper , it can be seen that "we share the classifier between with or without the BatchFormer during training, which can thus be removed during testing".
While in the code, it can be found that the output of val phase, "logits", is the average obtained by the "self.logits" and "logits_old".
As a result, It seems like you still use BatchFormer in the val phase.
Could you please answer my doubts?
BatchFormer/long-tailed_recognition/BalancedSoftmax/run_networks.py
Line 321 in 01f6fc5
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: