Skip to content

The accuracy of our reproduction is very different from that reported in the paper? #20

Description

@ZHUXUHAN

SGG eval: R @ 20: 0.5099; R @ 50: 0.5933; R @ 100: 0.6170; for mode=predcls, type=Recall(Main).
SGG eval: ngR @ 20: 0.5942; ngR @ 50: 0.7655; ngR @ 100: 0.8537; for mode=predcls, type=No Graph Constraint Recall(Main).
SGG eval: zR @ 20: 0.0302; zR @ 50: 0.0616; zR @ 100: 0.0769; for mode=predcls, type=Zero Shot Recall.
SGG eval: mR @ 20: 0.1591; mR @ 50: 0.1939; mR @ 100: 0.2080; for mode=predcls, type=Mean Recall.

I just follow your scripts/rel_train_BGNN_vg_predcls.sh, and we train it 70000 iterations.
In your paper the mr is 30.4 / 32.9. but here, it just is 19.39, 20.80.
I hope you can just explain it, or you can push your checkpoint and log.
The accuracy reported in your paper is what we have to compare with you, but this reproduction result makes it impossible to carry out our comparison and we hope to get your help

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions