3 ms·
I don't mean this to be adversarial, but what exactly is it you do that would not be sped up by checking someone else's results directly before fiddling around
by nonbel 9y ago
I don't mean this to be adversarial, but what exactly is it you do that would not be sped up by checking someone else's results directly before fiddling around and then trying out your own implementation?
- p1esk 9y agoBut that's my point: their results are not that important to me. As an example, recently I saw a paper on NN weight quantization, which had a very interesting idea, but the results were not impressive. I don't remember if they had any code published or not, but it didn't matter - I wanted to see what kind of results I'd get if I implemented it. Turned out it works really well, much better than what they reported in the paper.
- nonbel 9y agoHere is an idea: inverse dropout. How would you implement that?
- p1esk 9y agoLink to paper?
- nonbel 9y agohttp://jmlr.org/papers/v15/srivastava14a.html http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/srivastava14a.html
- p1esk 9y agoYou linked to the original dropout paper. What’s “inverse dropout”?
- nonbel 9y agoIt is just the description of an idea I came up with without any implementation. I was leaving it purposefully vague, just do the "inverse" of what it says in that paper.
- lorenzhs 9y agoThat's not a description of an idea, just like a paper doesn't only consist of the title. This kind of argument is insincere and not helpful at all.