Hi, thank you for sharing this great work!
I was trying to reproduce the results on the GenImage dataset following the training and evaluation instructions in the repository, but I found that the reproduced performance is significantly lower than what was reported in the paper.
Following settings are chosen by myself, while others remain the same with the original paper.
Settings:
Results:
| Subset |
Acc |
| adm |
0.7106 |
| biggan |
0.5447 |
| glide |
0.9565 |
| midjourney |
0.7913 |
| sdv4 |
0.9993 |
| sdv5 |
0.9989 |
| vqdm |
0.8103 |
| wukong |
0.9963 |
| AVG |
0.8510 |
As you can see, the Performance is lower than reported.
I set batchsize as 32 and choose the best ckpt in the 5 epochs, but I'did use 8 * A100 as reported in the paper. Since Learning rate is not changed, I am not sure if I need to scale lr according to my hardware setting. I wonder if you have seen such behavior in your experiment. Thank you.
Hi, thank you for sharing this great work!
I was trying to reproduce the results on the GenImage dataset following the training and evaluation instructions in the repository, but I found that the reproduced performance is significantly lower than what was reported in the paper.
Following settings are chosen by myself, while others remain the same with the original paper.
Settings:
Results:
As you can see, the Performance is lower than reported.
I set batchsize as 32 and choose the best ckpt in the 5 epochs, but I'did use 8 * A100 as reported in the paper. Since Learning rate is not changed, I am not sure if I need to scale lr according to my hardware setting. I wonder if you have seen such behavior in your experiment. Thank you.