Closed paul-tqh-nguyen closed 4 years ago
{"best_valid_loss": 0.013681062969185705, "number_of_epochs": 40, "most_recently_completed_epoch_index": 6, "batch_size": 1, "max_vocab_size": 25000, "vocab_size": 19882, "pre_trained_embedding_specification": "fasttext.simple.300d", "encoding_hidden_size": 512, "number_of_encoding_layers": 1, "attention_intermediate_size": 32, "number_of_attention_heads": 2, "dropout_probability": 0.25, "output_size": 119, "train_portion": 0.5, "validation_portion": 0.2, "testing_portion": 0.3, "number_of_parameters": 9575441, "test_f1": 0.8325288468240255, "test_loss": 0.012920586172941688}
https://github.com/paul-tqh-nguyen/reuters_topic_labelling/commit/c26143dc862513f961687dc4e040a13d54b2e14b beat this old score by a feature improvement. However, this old score had a lower loss. Would this hyperparameter set get better performance with the new feature? Let's investigate that.
Seeing the tragic discoveries from https://github.com/paul-tqh-nguyen/reuters_topic_labelling/commit/a842a476dc283e0e9cba8fc13526ee756d4c280b, I'll say that this issue is now unfortunately pointless.
https://github.com/paul-tqh-nguyen/reuters_topic_labelling/commit/c26143dc862513f961687dc4e040a13d54b2e14b beat this old score by a feature improvement. However, this old score had a lower loss. Would this hyperparameter set get better performance with the new feature? Let's investigate that.