Skip to content
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

Running attention_net_validation_loss #8

Merged
merged 40 commits into from
Dec 9, 2020
Merged

Running attention_net_validation_loss #8

merged 40 commits into from
Dec 9, 2020

Conversation

ggantos
Copy link
Collaborator

@ggantos ggantos commented Nov 10, 2020

tags about where to look are coming after our one-on-one @djgagne, @jsschreck

Copy link
Collaborator

@djgagne djgagne left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The loss function names need to be propagated across modules and tests. Otherwise I just to see if the the loss we discussed this week make any difference before merging.

Copy link
Collaborator

@djgagne djgagne left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am approving and merging. We will need to go in a different direction since the particle attention net has not panned out sadly.

@djgagne djgagne merged commit 89bf6e3 into master Dec 9, 2020
@ggantos
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ggantos commented Dec 9, 2020

sounds good - thanks!!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants