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

Append epoch rather than best val. loss to val_loss #744

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 24, 2024

Conversation

celestinoalan
Copy link
Contributor

Problem

Currently, we're val_loss.append(best_val_loss) in each epoch. This is misleading because we're appending the corresponding epoch (not best across epochs) quantities in train_loss, train_prep, and val_prep. This is also inconvenient, as one often would like to plot both train and validation losses as a function of the epochs to look for overfitting.

Solution

val_loss.append(eval_epoch_loss)

Before submitting

  • This PR fixes a typo or improves the docs (you can dismiss the other checks if that's the case).
  • [ X ] Did you read the contributor guideline,
    Pull Request section?
  • Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue? Please add a link
    to it if that's the case.
  • Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes?
  • Did you write any new necessary tests?

Thanks for contributing 🎉!

**Problem**
Currently, we're val_loss.append(best_val_loss) in each epoch. This is misleading because we're appending the corresponding epoch (not best across epochs) quantities in train_loss, train_prep, and val_prep. This is also inconvenient, as one often would like to plot both train and validation losses as a function of the epochs to look for overfitting.

**Solution**
val_loss.append(eval_epoch_loss)
@init27 init27 merged commit e2342c2 into meta-llama:main Oct 24, 2024
4 checks passed
@init27
Copy link
Contributor

init27 commented Oct 24, 2024

Thanks for the great catch-merged!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants