Closed BinahHu closed 3 years ago
Thanks for the kind words :)
I was just testing the model when I used 1 epoch, the correct number is obviously 160 as you well remarked. Unfortunatly, even with 160 epochs my results were a little under those of the original paper if I recall.
Thank you for your reply!
It's fine if the reproduced performance is a bit lower. That's acceptable!
Thank you so much for this excellent work!
I am a little confusing about the epoch number for ucir in the latest version (ucir_cifar100.yaml, line 42). It seems that you change it from 160 to 1. However, in the original implementation of UCIR, such number is 160. Moreover, I tried to reproduce UCIR using the current configuration, the results are awful (15.17% average acc).
I am wondering if this is a typo, or you have a higher level of consideration? Thank you so much!