You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi,
Firstly I cannot get the best accuacy (6.7%) as reported. Set the 'is_full_validation' as 'True' and keep other settings the same as the souce code, I run the 'cifar10_train.py'. I only have my best results as 7.22% at about 77809 iters and the second best results as 7.28% at about 69207 iters. Maybe there are some tips that I have ignored. Would you give me some suggestions about it?
Secondly I notice that the validation curve is more unstable compared to the results in original paper. I run the code and find that it doesn't seem to converge. The results on validation set are shocked at last. Is there something wrong?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
Firstly I cannot get the best accuacy (6.7%) as reported. Set the 'is_full_validation' as 'True' and keep other settings the same as the souce code, I run the 'cifar10_train.py'. I only have my best results as 7.22% at about 77809 iters and the second best results as 7.28% at about 69207 iters. Maybe there are some tips that I have ignored. Would you give me some suggestions about it?
Secondly I notice that the validation curve is more unstable compared to the results in original paper. I run the code and find that it doesn't seem to converge. The results on validation set are shocked at last. Is there something wrong?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: