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
Very interesting work and great results in both training-free and training-required regimes. I had two questions:
I was wondering about a random selection baseline -- how effective would that be by just randomly subsampling the feature selection indices without using APE. I see there are some ablations with PCA (which already are better than TIP-Adapter and TIP-X) so I was curious how well a random selection method would do?
Do you have the optimal mixing hyperparameters for each dataset? I couldn't find it in the appendix.
Great work again!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We implement a random selection baseline and a no-selection baseline for APE. The 1/2/4/8/16-shot results on ImageNet under ResNet-50 backbone are shown below:
The random selection and no-selection approaches are both worse than the proposed criterion.
The optimal hyperparameters for most datasets are given in the code except for the oxford_pets dataset, where we adjust the number of selected channels for different shot numbers, 600/700/800/900 channels can be selected.
Very interesting work and great results in both training-free and training-required regimes. I had two questions:
Great work again!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: