Miscellaneous fixes for MobileNet #179
Conversation
|
This is also another step towards #176, as all the MobileNet models now expose |
| @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Creates a ConvMixer model. | |||
|
|
|||
| - `planes`: number of planes in the output of each block | |||
| - `depth`: number of layers | |||
| - `inchannels`: number of channels in the input | |||
| - `inchannels`: The number of channels in the input. The default value is 3. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it necessary to specify this? It's already in the docstring above, and it seems inconsistent with the other bullets (either re-specify all + capitalize all or leave it as is).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm working on making this happen for all the docstrings in the new PRs (that is, having the default values in there). I need to push a larger documentation change sometime in the next few weeks and that should probably cover everything
src/convnets/mobilenet.jl
Outdated
| Dense(inchannels, fcsize, activation), | ||
| Dense(fcsize, nclasses))) | ||
| Dense(inchannels, nclasses))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is technically a bug fix but also slightly breaking. Maybe we can make a breaking release just to err on the side of caution? Deciding what to do for structural changes to the model here is tricky. cc @ToucheSir for opinions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like we are going to be making a huge breaking release anyways sometime after my GSoC work lands, so this just gets added to the list
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do/should we provide any guarantees about model structure across releases? I believe the only people affected would be those who've already trained models, and thus far I've not heard of any for MobileNet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or (user) code that relies on the structure but doesn't use Functors.jl. I think previously we decided to consider structural changes as breaking. But the more nuanced question here is whether a structural change that fixes an error is considered a bug fix.
I think probably here no one would complain given how recent the model definitions are.
|
If the slightly breaking changes hold this up too much it would be cool to factor the padding change out into a separate commit so that I can use it. |
|
Yes, this is the main reason I brought it up. I want to make a patch release with the recent changes before merging the breaking overhaul. |
theabhirath
force-pushed
the
mobilenet-fixes
branch
from
272a6f1 to
a2e2a3d
Compare
|
The breaking change has been undone for now. The rest I think should fit into the patch-release without a problem |
|
Can you rebase with the test changes from #171? |
Co-authored-by: Kyle Daruwalla <[email protected]>
theabhirath
force-pushed
the
mobilenet-fixes
branch
from
4bb065d to
5f22ee5
Compare
|
....wait. How did the CI go from one check passing to all checks passing |
|
Something to do with #171 disabling tests for some of the largest models? |
|
Oh, possibly 🤦🏽 I feel like this is just 50-50 at this point as to whether the tests pass or not (the funny thing is, one test in #171 actually failed 😂). Although I do hope they keep passing.... |
|
Looks like the failure was a timeout instead of an OOM, so hopefully it was an anomaly! |
|
Should be ready for merge and release now 😄 |
|
Thanks! |
Closes #178. Also removes an extra fully connected layer in MobileNetv1, making it now conform to the configuration described in the paper. And some minor docs and formatting changes I caught have also made it through