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
If I read the paper rightly, the DiffLoss should become larger to make the shared feature different from private feature. So maybe the beta_weight should be a negative number rather than a positive one ?
Many people have noticed that the DiffLoss turns to zero quickly, and actually both the source_private_feature and the target_private_feature turn to zero, because it can make loss smaller, which is caused by the positive beta_weight. And then, the DSN model becomes the same as DANN.
I tried beta_weight=-0.0001 ,the acc can sometimes reach 77.5% ,which seems not that useful......but at least the private_feature is not zero anymore.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If I read the paper rightly, the DiffLoss should become larger to make the shared feature different from private feature. So maybe the beta_weight should be a negative number rather than a positive one ?
Many people have noticed that the DiffLoss turns to zero quickly, and actually both the source_private_feature and the target_private_feature turn to zero, because it can make loss smaller, which is caused by the positive beta_weight. And then, the DSN model becomes the same as DANN.
I tried beta_weight=-0.0001 ,the acc can sometimes reach 77.5% ,which seems not that useful......but at least the private_feature is not zero anymore.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: