Doubt regarding different initialization during training and testing about i2l-meshnet_release HOT 9 CLOSED

In the testing stage, you load the pre-trained model, not randomly initialize the weights.

from i2l-meshnet_release.

Oh yes, of course. Makes sense. Thanks! :) Closing the issue.

from i2l-meshnet_release.

Actually, sorry but one more doubt. Basically, I use the model during training (i.e. mode = 'train') and use it to see testing performance after each epoch. What I am observing is that the testing performance at the last epoch using the train model (i.e. mode = 'train') is better than when I am testing with the test.py script which uses mode = 'test'. Again, apologies if the question is elementary but would be grateful if you could tell me a possible reason for the same.

from i2l-meshnet_release.

I can't get your question. What do you mean by testing when mode == 'train'?

from i2l-meshnet_release.

I mean to say I use the model initialized during training to check the joint error metric values at regular intervals (50 steps or so). The joint error metric values I get when the training is almost ending (i.e. during the last few hundred steps or so) is quite a bit lesser compared to those that I get during testing (using the test.py script that loads the checkpoint after training is over). Do you have any idea why that might be so?

from i2l-meshnet_release.

Did you test on the same chunk of dataset?

from i2l-meshnet_release.

Yeah, for both testing while during training and after training, I use the testing data given by the testset loader.

from i2l-meshnet_release.

I think the only difference is that this.
The eval mode fixes parameters of batch normalization layers, while they are changable in the training stage.
Does the model in the training stage provides much better result than the model in the testing stage? That is weird because the eval mode is very common thing.

from i2l-meshnet_release.

Hi, thanks for the quick response. Indeed, that solved my problem. Admittedly, I had tried out some modifications in the model such as using group norm instead of batch norm. Maybe that was the problem? Regardless, will try to figure this out. Thanks again for the help. Closing this issue for now.

from i2l-meshnet_release.