-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 305
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
Report the results #15
Comments
Great, thanks! Updating README.md now. As for overfitting, you can observe the dev loss going up after about 60k steps from the Tensorboard summary. |
Ok, the F1 and EM curves on the dev set oscillate after 30k steps, but the loss curve keeps on a rise after that. Unfortunately, I have just saved the last five checkpoints. |
@jasonwbw Can you please share the trained model if possible? So that, it will be useful for all. Thanks in advance. |
Empirically, I found early stopping to be not beneficial to gaining maximum performance (possibly due to early stopping not letting exponential moving average to stabilize) so I am increasing the maximum patience from 3 to 10. |
Exact Match: 70.8136234626, F1: 80.0760742304 with following parameter. |
EM: 68.60, F1: 78.16 Results obtained with CPU(8GB ram), ran for 4 and 1/2 days |
@raisudeen Sorry for the late replay due to the vacation. Checkpoints obtained by TF 1.4 |
Hi @chesterkuo , is your result above obtained after this commit? f0c79cc |
Hi @localminimum , I am happy to see such a good performance results from re-implementation of QANet paper. To know the model performance with weaker embedding, I tried using Glove42B. Yes the results show that there is a decrease in the performance but that is not much, this proves the strength of QANet again.
|
@localminimum , yes, based on new changed with Glove "glove.840B.300d" |
@jasonwbw I tried to use your checkpoint but I got an error following:
|
@PhungVanDuy Firstly, I feel sorry that I have forgot to report some details, I obtain this results upon TF 1.4 instead of 1.5, and I report the results before commit f0c79cc. |
@jasonwbw Thanks for your support. I have used your checkpoint, however, the result not makes sense, here is my screenshot! |
Hi @PhungVanDuy , it seems like you are using the latest commit. @jasonwbw mentioned in the previous comment that he used the model before commit f0c79cc. You could revert back to the previous commit and try again. The performance fluctuation would be most likely due to my latest commit, removing the activation function from the highway layers. The input distribution will be very different without the relu activation and the highway layers won't have a single clue how to deal with the unseen distribution. |
@localminimum Thanks for your reply, I tried going back commit bb5769d (git reset --hard bb5769d) and run test. But I got an error following: I save checkpoint in the default folder (train/FRC/model and checkpoint file: model_checkpoint_path: "model_60000_ckpt") and using tensorflow 1.4 as @jasonwbw mentioned. @localminimum can you share for me lastest checkpoint of this repos? |
@PhungVanDuy maybe hidden size should be set to 128 in config. |
@jasonwbw I knew it but still error! Can you share your source code stable for the checkpoint? I would be very grateful for that. I am looking forward to your reply. |
@PhungVanDuy can you post the error you get here? |
@localminimum I reproduce the checkpoint of @jasonwbw with commit bb5769d (git reset --hard bb5769d).
My system:
|
@jasonwbw looking at the error above, did you use the old trilinear function for the pretrained model above? It seems like the optimised trilinear function exponential moving average is missing. |
@PhungVanDuy comment out the old trilinear function as it is in the latest commit. Only use the optimied trilinear function and try again. It seems like you are trying to load weights that are not present in the checkpoints which belong to the old trilinear function. |
@localminimum Thank you for your supports I solved it! |
Great work folks! :)This information is very helpful. One other piece of information that would help some audience, I guess, is the time taken for inference. @jasonwbw , @ajay-sreeram (CPU), @chesterkuo ?
|
Hi, I use all default parameters and get results worse than that you presented. |
I try to modify the character embedding size to train again with following parameter |
Hi @webdaren , is there a reason why you've trained specifically for 35000 steps? All the listed results are based on models trained for 60k steps or longer. |
@localminimum Thank you for your answer! I just want to compare with the result of the first row in listed results. I get the result (EM: 67.975, F1: 78.015) worse than that in listed results when I used these parameters of the first row in listed results(specially, the value of char_emb_size is 64 in config.py). |
The results are obtained on a K80 machine. I modify the trilinear function for memory efficiency, but the results are the same with the current version of this repository.
I'm not sure about the overfitting, the model is the last checkpoint after training 60,000 steps.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: