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
I have read iCaRL paper and fee it is quite interesting. I have a few questions regarding figure 4 and table1, I appreciate the response from the authors.
For Table1(a), what is the memory budget for the reported accuracy? For example, in the case of 10 classes, iCaRL accuracy is 64.1% and hybrid1 accuracy is 59.3, while in Fig4, when K=3000, the accuracy is roughly like this. Does that mean Table 1(a) is under the setting of K=3000?
In figure4, when K =2000, the accuracy of iCaRL is roughly 63%. While in Fig2(a) top right, the accuracy is roughly 50%, and Fig2 is also under the setting of K=2000. Thus, why there is a 13% accuracy gap in these 2 results? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Again, I would appreciate the authors for replying.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Dear authors,
I have read iCaRL paper and fee it is quite interesting. I have a few questions regarding figure 4 and table1, I appreciate the response from the authors.
For Table1(a), what is the memory budget for the reported accuracy? For example, in the case of 10 classes, iCaRL accuracy is 64.1% and hybrid1 accuracy is 59.3, while in Fig4, when K=3000, the accuracy is roughly like this. Does that mean Table 1(a) is under the setting of K=3000?
In figure4, when K =2000, the accuracy of iCaRL is roughly 63%. While in Fig2(a) top right, the accuracy is roughly 50%, and Fig2 is also under the setting of K=2000. Thus, why there is a 13% accuracy gap in these 2 results? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Again, I would appreciate the authors for replying.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: