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
Thanks for your impressive paper. I'm very interested in your implementation of the loss surfaces. I have checked the original loss surface paper Li et al., 2018. I was wondering why you set the axis to θf−θp and θs−θp in Figure 7.
In my understanding, you are using them as two directions instead of random directions. But why θf locate at θf−θp=1 and θs locate at θs−θp=1.
Could you explain more on this and hopefully share your code for generating this surface?
Also, in your paper, you said that there is a barrier between θf θs. However, it looks like there also exists a similar barrier between θf θp. If so, how θp gradually reach θf?
Looking forward to your reply.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Authors,
Thanks for your impressive paper. I'm very interested in your implementation of the loss surfaces. I have checked the original loss surface paper Li et al., 2018. I was wondering why you set the axis to θf−θp and θs−θp in Figure 7.
In my understanding, you are using them as two directions instead of random directions. But why θf locate at θf−θp=1 and θs locate at θs−θp=1.
Could you explain more on this and hopefully share your code for generating this surface?
Also, in your paper, you said that there is a barrier between θf θs. However, it looks like there also exists a similar barrier between θf θp. If so, how θp gradually reach θf?
Looking forward to your reply.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: