Skip to content

Conversation

@danielsuo
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR contains commit history from #293 and fixes up howtos.

@danielsuo danielsuo changed the title Scheduled sampling Use Jax RNG for data shuffling in MNIST example. May 28, 2020
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented May 28, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #296 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #296   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   79.33%   79.33%           
=======================================
  Files          34       34           
  Lines        2255     2255           
=======================================
  Hits         1789     1789           
  Misses        466      466           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d6ec398...2bcc42c. Read the comment docs.

+ checkpoints.save_checkpoint(FLAGS.model_dir, optimizer, epoch, keep=3)
+
+
+ # Save model at every epoch
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this correct? The indentation look to have changed -- doesn't this now only save the model at the end of training?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, that sounds right; fixed.

- loss, accuracy = eval_model(optimizer.target, test_ds)
+ model = jax_utils.unreplicate(optimizer.target) # Fetch from 1st device
+ loss, accuracy = eval_model(model, test_ds)
+ loss_accuracy = eval_model(model, test_ds)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this correct? Seem like a typo maybe? (Do HOWTO tests pass here? -- looks like yes, but maybe the tests don't yet cover this step?)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, this is a typo! The test tests train_step, but not train.

@copybara-service copybara-service bot merged commit 37b196d into google:master May 28, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants