Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Kuzushiji with SVM(support vector machine) #3

Closed
TomZephire opened this issue Dec 24, 2018 · 6 comments
Closed

Kuzushiji with SVM(support vector machine) #3

TomZephire opened this issue Dec 24, 2018 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@TomZephire
Copy link

TomZephire commented Dec 24, 2018

Kuzushiji_by_SVM.zip

I believe inferior counterpart is necessary to feature sophisticated DNNs more.

SVMs with 'RBF' Kernel with chosen parameters C and gamma by a random search give the following results.

Accuracy:
KMNIST 92.82% (test data), 99.98% (training data)
K49 85.61% (test data), 97.94% (training data) <--correct value(class averaged)

@hardmaru
Copy link
Collaborator

hardmaru commented Dec 25, 2018 via email

@TomZephire
Copy link
Author

Thank you for your advise. It is my first posting in GitHub. I have to learn and figure out how to do it...

@tkasasagi
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you for your analysis. :)

@mxbi
Copy link
Member

mxbi commented Dec 28, 2018

Hi @TomZephire, thanks for your analysis! I am running it now on the original MNIST dataset to get a number for that, and I will add it to our leaderboard :)

One thing I noticed is that you calculate K49 accuracy incorrectly - as we suggest using balanced accuracy (accuracy averaged over classes) to combat the inbalanced dataset. I notice you mention it can take over a day to run the SVM... So if you still have it could you send test predictions for K49?

Thanks

@mxbi mxbi self-assigned this Dec 28, 2018
mxbi added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 28, 2018
@TomZephire
Copy link
Author

TomZephire commented Jan 1, 2019

Thank you for your comment.
Fortunately, I saved the predictions in pickles. So, I could recalculate the accuracy quickly. See the original message and code in it.

@mxbi
Copy link
Member

mxbi commented Dec 24, 2019

Added these! (apologies for the long delay)
It would be appreciated if you could rerun on the new version of the dataset with minor image processing fixes, as it can lead to slightly different results

@mxbi mxbi closed this as completed Dec 24, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants