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

Training issue #111

Open
snehashis1997 opened this issue Jun 19, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Training issue #111

snehashis1997 opened this issue Jun 19, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@snehashis1997
Copy link

snehashis1997 commented Jun 19, 2024

<style type="text/css"></style>

Dataset gamma neg highest map (after 40 epcoh)
f/m: 460/694 4 86.69
f/m: 460/694 3 87.94
f/m: 460/694 2 87.67
f/m: 460/694 5 85.66
f/m: 460/694 6 84.34
     
f/m: 464/1500 4 90.21
f/m: 464/1500 3 92.95
f/m: 464/1500 2 90.39
f/m: 464/1500 5 90.88
f/m: 464/1500 6 91.23
     
f/m: 464/1942 4 92.51
f/m: 464/1942 3 92.6
f/m: 464/1942 2 92.99
f/m: 464/1942 5 92.9
f/m: 464/1942 6 90.73
@snehashis1997
Copy link
Author

Here are my findings about ASL training on my custom dataset, where "f/m" defines two different classes and their item numbers. In this setup, I set gamma_pos to 0. You can see that I increased the imbalance steadily, but I could not find a clear relationship between the gamma_neg value and mAP (mean Average Precision).

For the first set of data, where the imbalance is not too high, we get a better mAP with gamma_neg == 3. However, in the third set, where the imbalance is significantly higher, we achieve a better mAP with gamma_neg == 2. I think we should get a better map value at gammaneg == 6. Can you please explain if I am doing something wrong? What are your suggestions?

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

1 participant