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

Why the result with this implementation is better than reported one in the original paper? #25

Open
sooonwoo opened this issue Jan 8, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@sooonwoo
Copy link

sooonwoo commented Jan 8, 2021

Hi, thanks for your impressive work!

It seems that we can get quite a lot better results with your implementation. Could you let me know what is the reason for the difference?

(Lb=40) 6.4% (Yours) | 13.81±3.37% (FixMatch(reported))
(Lb=20) 9% (Yours) | N/A. (FixMatch(reported))

@kekmodel
Copy link
Owner

kekmodel commented Feb 9, 2022

I think it's weird, too. I think there is something wrong with my code.

@lingjieyi
Copy link

I think it's weird, too. I think there is something wrong with my code.

Did you only run seed=5? I got 85.24 by setting seed=1 and total_epoch = 512 running this code.

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

3 participants