Use same data for training and validation? about 2016_person_re-id HOT 5 CLOSED

Hi, @ahangchen .
You're right that we put one validation data and one training data as a pair when validation.
So the score of objective-2 is different from objective-1 when validation.
However, it does not effect the final result. So I haven't changed the code.
And another reason is that the validation data is limited. Therefore I decide use the training data as another element in the pair when validation.

from 2016_person_re-id.

@layumi

I can't agree that this doesn't effect the final result(the comparison accuracy)... The comparison is the result of feature extraction of two images. One of this extraction with familiar data will lead to higher accuracy of comparison while extraction with unseen data may lead to uncertain result and get lower accuracy.

Limitation of the validation data is a problem, but I prefer to reuse some of the validation data rather than reuse training data.

from 2016_person_re-id.

@ahangchen First of all, thank you. It is considered to be a validation bug. But we think the implicit result that we used presently also reflects the code running correctly. Because the another part is validation data which is blind to the model. Furthermore, we do not really care validation classification since we test on a retrieval problem.
Second, I will consider it again and may fix it next week. I am writing the new version of this code. In the next version, I will also provide a more stable training method.

from 2016_person_re-id.

@ahangchen
Today I update the second version of this repo and consider your suggestion again. It is nice to have a more reasonable validation curve.

But if we fix this, we need to ensure there are two validation images from same ID. We need to add some extra code to ensure this. I still think we do not really care about validation. To keep code simple, I decide to keep this version of validation. Besides, I still think the ideal curve should be similar to the validation curve now, if we train the model in the right way. So it is fine to use the present version.

Anyway, your suggestion is nice! Thank you very much.

from 2016_person_re-id.

@layumi Got it. Thank you for your reply. 😄

from 2016_person_re-id.