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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 3, 2024. It is now read-only.
Thank you so much for this codebase. It helps a lot to make NAS more reproducible.
I have a question regarding RMSProp. I do not see RMSProp often in computer vision, but I guess it is fine, there are not the greatest difference between optimizers. However, I see that you used epsilon=1.0 which I find odd since this is the constants that usually prevent division by zero errors and you set it at a very high value. That high value introduces a systematic bias in the variance estimate. Do you have any references for other public results using this in conjunction with that high learning rate or is there any reason in particular why epsilon=1.0?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Thank you so much for this codebase. It helps a lot to make NAS more reproducible.
I have a question regarding RMSProp. I do not see RMSProp often in computer vision, but I guess it is fine, there are not the greatest difference between optimizers. However, I see that you used epsilon=1.0 which I find odd since this is the constants that usually prevent division by zero errors and you set it at a very high value. That high value introduces a systematic bias in the variance estimate. Do you have any references for other public results using this in conjunction with that high learning rate or is there any reason in particular why epsilon=1.0?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: