Open billpsomas opened 3 years ago
It does seem good to me.
I have found some performance loss if using recent pytorch versions (no idea why...), have you tried with torch==1.2.0?
Oh really? I am using torch 1.7.1. I will try with an older version and we'll see! Quite weird, though...
At least, the version had a significant impact on PODNet NME (https://github.com/arthurdouillard/incremental_learning.pytorch/issues/31#issuecomment-766335321).
Oh really? I am using torch 1.7.1. I will try with an older version and we'll see! Quite weird, though...
emmm, have you fixed the problem? I have same problem.....
Hello,
No, I haven't looked into the problem, have you try using torch==1.2.0 as I've suggested? Otherwise, you can look at DER which modify this repository, and propose their own BiC (slightly different than mine): https://github.com/Rhyssiyan/DER-ClassIL.pytorch
If you are just looking to add more baselines to your paper, I'd suggest you to WA instead (also see DER's repo). Like BiC it's a classifier recalibration, but simpler and more efficient.
PS: if you find something to improve my version of BiC, please share it with us.
Thanks for your reply. I have try two environment version.
1.python == 3.6.13 torch==1.2.0 run command:
CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 python -minclearn --options options/bic/bic_cifar100.yaml options/data/cifar100_1orders.yaml \
--initial-increment 50 --increment 10 --fixed-memory\
--device 0 --label bic_base50_inc10_torch_1.2.0 \
--data-path /data/Public/Datasets/cifar-100-python --save-model task
result in last setp:
"task_id": 5,
"accuracy": {
"total": 0.371,
"00-09": 0.411,
"10-19": 0.353,
"20-29": 0.227,
"30-39": 0.312,
"40-49": 0.372,
"50-59": 0.37,
"60-69": 0.178,
"70-79": 0.282,
"80-89": 0.373,
"90-99": 0.834
},
"incremental_accuracy": 0.5001666666666668,
"accuracy_top5": {
"total": 0.705
},
"incremental_accuracy_top5": 0.803,
2.python==3.8.5 torch==1.8.1 run command:
CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 python -minclearn --options options/bic/bic_cifar100.yaml options/data/cifar100_1orders.yaml \
--initial-increment 50 --increment 10 --fixed-memory\
--device 0 --label bic_base50_inc10_torch_1.8.1 \
--data-path /data/Public/Datasets/cifar-100-python --save-model task
result in last setp:
"task_id": 5,
"accuracy": {
"total": 0.38,
"00-09": 0.432,
"10-19": 0.334,
"20-29": 0.204,
"30-39": 0.297,
"40-49": 0.355,
"50-59": 0.42,
"60-69": 0.283,
"70-79": 0.329,
"80-89": 0.29,
"90-99": 0.851
},
"incremental_accuracy": 0.5095,
"accuracy_top5": {
"total": 0.72
},
"incremental_accuracy_top5": 0.8260000000000001,
It seems like that there is no much difference . emmmmmm,Both of their incremental_accuracy in last setp are about 0.50 which lower than the result reported in paper
Hello, my dear author.
It seems that your BIC implementation does not train the parameters of the bias layer, or I may not find it. Can you give me a suggestion.Thanks a lot.
Hello Arthur,
Congratulations for the contribution in IL.
I am trying to reproduce the BiC results running the following command: python -minclearn --options options/bic/bic_cifar100.yaml options/data/cifar100_3orders.yaml --increment 10 --initial-increment 50 --fixed-memory --temperature 2 --data-path data/ --device 0
The average incremental accuracy I am getting is ~51%, which is ~5% lower than this reported on paper. Is there anything wrong with the command?
Thank you in advance :)