-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
Results cls_acc_top-1、cls_acc_top-5、loc_acc_top-1、loc_acc_top-5、GT_Known in the paper #1
Comments
Hi! Thanks for your comments. My suggestions are: First, check the Results and Models. Second, it may be a normal issue as the variance is relatively small. |
Hi! I test my pretrained module by the command on CUB:
It seems the result is correct. I guess the corrupted output image or the suboptimal performance may be due to the smaller batch_size as I mentioned in this link As I guess lots of people don't have enough memory, so in this file configs/CUB/deit_scm_small_patch16_224.yaml:
instead of the previous configuration, I gave in the config You can recheck it to see if it's the batch size issue. |
Hello! First of all, your work is excellent! Congratulations on a good result! Second, I'm very interested in your work, and there's a problem running the code.
The results cls_acc_top-1、cls_acc_top-5、loc_acc_top-1、loc_acc_top-5 and GT_Known using the source code on CUB are different from those in the paper. Compared to the paper results, I used the same settings, but the results decreased to varying degrees about 3%~4%.
Hope to get your reply and answer, thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: