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
Why does TAPAS perform worse than reported? #2
Comments
Hi,
Thank you :) Actually, good question.. I first thought I forgot to put my model in evaluation mode, but models are set to |
Thanks for your great contributions about TAPAS. I have pinpointed the reason for lower performance (77.1). It was caused by the lemmatized statements in the TabFact datasets of huggingface. TAPAS was not trained with lemmatized statements. By replacing the lemmatized statements with their original ones, I got 79.1 accuracy on test set. The original statements are available in the following link. |
Great, thank you @JasperGuo! Do you have any code that you can share? |
Sure. Here is the raw train, validation, and test data. Download the data and run the following script, it is expected to get 79.1% accuracy.
|
Thank you! It is really helpful. @JasperGuo |
@JasperGuo Can the data split further divided into simple_test, complex_test, small_test? Thank you! |
You can filter them by table id. |
Hi, nice tutorials!
Thank you for adding
TAPAS
tohuggingface/transformers
. It is really helpful.However, according to your
Evaluating_TAPAS_on_the_Tabfact_test_set.ipynb
, the performance oftapas-base-finetuned-tabfact
on test set is 77.1 while it is reported as 78.5 in the paper. What attributes to the performance drop?Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: