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

different result on training #1

Open
jiangfanhan opened this issue Jun 21, 2018 · 9 comments
Open

different result on training #1

jiangfanhan opened this issue Jun 21, 2018 · 9 comments

Comments

@jiangfanhan
Copy link

Dear Xingjun:
I have tried your method to train the 12-layer-cnn on CIFAR-10 with 20% noise rate,I also observe the decrease and increase of LID score. but in my experiment. the test accuracy is 88.34% by just using cross-entropy as loss function. (in your paper is 73.12%) for 40% noise rate the test accuracy is 84.88% (65.07% in your paper),the results is even better than the results using your D2L method. the only difference during the training process may lies on the preprocessing of the training image (what I use is described in the loss correction method CVPR'17). I wonder why the difference is so much and whether you can try the preprocessing method as in CVPR'17 and train the network again.
Thanks !

@xingjunm
Copy link
Owner

xingjunm commented Jun 26, 2018 via email

@jiangfanhan
Copy link
Author

jiangfanhan commented Jun 27, 2018

Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your reply. I have test three method in your paper, they are cross-entropy, forward estimation and D2L on CIFAR-10 dataset. with 20% noise, the test accuracy is 88.34% ,89.35% and 88.65% . with 40% noise, the test accuracy is 84.88%, 86.55% and 85.97% respectively. From other research result the DNN is robust to mild noise so the result just using CE loss is slightly degraded in such case, using correction method can not improve quite much, but the improvement can be observed. The result I get seemed to be closer to the result reported in the CVPR'17 paper, and my preprocessing method is the same as this paper. The CE is defined in the standard way for classification task, I do not take any change.

Regards,
Jiangfan

@pokaxpoka
Copy link

I have the same issue... I can't reproduce the results on the paper using d2l method even though I didn't change the codes... @xingjunm Could you check out the source code?

@xingjunm
Copy link
Owner

Hi pokaxpoka, thank you for your report. I do find reproductivity issue when tested with a fresh run on new devices. I will try to fix it. Can you provide the details of your results? Did it fail to converge with CIFAR-10 and 40%/60% noise rates?

@pokaxpoka
Copy link

Thanks @xingjunm When I tried your method it fails to converge with CIFAR-10 (40%/60% noise rate) and CIFAR-100. Thanks for your update.

@slowbull
Copy link

any update? does anyone replicate the result?

@xingjunm
Copy link
Owner

xingjunm commented Sep 19, 2018

I have uploaded an old version of the code old_version/d2l_old.zip, can someone test if this version works?

@xingjunm
Copy link
Owner

xingjunm commented Nov 7, 2018

Thank you all for your interest. And sorry that it took me so long to have time fix the issue. Sorry for the waiting. Good luck to you all with your papers.

@bbdamodaran
Copy link

@jiangfanhan , I did also observe that the accuracy of CCE is much higher than reported in the paper, if early stopping criterion is used with respect to (noisy) validation data. I got CCE accuracy=0.81

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

No branches or pull requests

5 participants