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
I am trying to reproduce your segmentation research recently. However, I have some problems.
Firstly, I noticed that in the paper, you mentioned lamb was set as 1.5 for COCO3 and PostDam3 and 1.0 for other experiments. However, when I checked the setting for COCO3, I notice the lamd_A = 1.0 and lamd_B = 1.5, and I am a little confused.
In your shared model, I also noticed that take 555 for example, the num_epoches = 4800, while the loss data seems to have 109 rows in total. Does this mean you record it every 4800/109 epochs?
Another question is that shouldn't the minimum of loss _no_lamd be -1 since it is -1*mutual_information? Why the loss drops to a little higher than -1.5? Is the ideal minimum loss affected by the number of clusters?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
RealNewNoob
changed the title
Several Issues about segmentation art.
Several Issues about unsupervised segmentation part.
Feb 1, 2021
I am trying to reproduce your segmentation research recently. However, I have some problems.
Firstly, I noticed that in the paper, you mentioned lamb was set as 1.5 for COCO3 and PostDam3 and 1.0 for other experiments. However, when I checked the setting for COCO3, I notice the lamd_A = 1.0 and lamd_B = 1.5, and I am a little confused.
In your shared model, I also noticed that take 555 for example, the num_epoches = 4800, while the loss data seems to have 109 rows in total. Does this mean you record it every 4800/109 epochs?
Another question is that shouldn't the minimum of loss _no_lamd be -1 since it is -1*mutual_information? Why the loss drops to a little higher than -1.5? Is the ideal minimum loss affected by the number of clusters?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: