We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Hello, Mephisto.
Thank you for the great paper and code.
I'm trying to reproduce the result of the paper.
I've seen that the results of others get overwhelmed by LL4AL.
However, I cannot reproduce the result that is really close to 90 at 10K data.
Also, the random result shows an 85% accuracy average.
Is there anything I'm missing?
Your figure from the paper shows that random has more than 85% accuracy, but, your reproduced result shows much less than 85%.
Is there any difference or explanation like you changed your torch version(c.f. I'm using torch version 1.5 and 1.9)?
Thanks.
Best, DaeHo Lee
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
Hello, Mephisto.
Thank you for the great paper and code.
I'm trying to reproduce the result of the paper.
I've seen that the results of others get overwhelmed by LL4AL.
However, I cannot reproduce the result that is really close to 90 at 10K data.
Also, the random result shows an 85% accuracy average.
Is there anything I'm missing?
Your figure from the paper shows that random has more than 85% accuracy, but, your reproduced result shows much less than 85%.
Is there any difference or explanation like you changed your torch version(c.f. I'm using torch version 1.5 and 1.9)?
Thanks.
Best,
DaeHo Lee
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: