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
From preliminary experiments, the LR schedule from the SWA papers (https://github.com/timgaripov/swa/blob/master/train.py#L94) seems to improve the baseline results (at least for deterministic and dropout). Upgrading to that one may close the gap from our deterministic baseline which reproduces the original paper of 96.0% (and we get 0.154 NLL). Their papers' baseline reports 96.4% and 0.12 NLL. (Same for CIFAR-100.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
From preliminary experiments, the LR schedule from the SWA papers (https://github.com/timgaripov/swa/blob/master/train.py#L94) seems to improve the baseline results (at least for deterministic and dropout). Upgrading to that one may close the gap from our deterministic baseline which reproduces the original paper of 96.0% (and we get 0.154 NLL). Their papers' baseline reports 96.4% and 0.12 NLL. (Same for CIFAR-100.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: