Better logging names for losses, metric, G and D, and visuals

[ibro45]

Chinmay Rao 8:14 PM
I have some suggestions. Let me know what you think. First, regarding the naming conventions of the networks. I found them a bit confusing.
From the current code, G_A is the generator for A->B, for example. Maybe, we can change it to G_AB.
Also currently, D_A seems to be the discriminator that takes real_B and fake_B as inputs (i.e. domain B). Maybe, we can instead call it D_B, since it works in domain B. This would be similar as in the paper - domain Y and D_Y
If we can change the names, then we can have naming conventions for loggable (metrics, losses, predictions) based on them (edited)

Ibrahim Hadzic 8:16 PM
i agree. This D_A think must have been a mistake in naming i guess, which just propagated to everything
8:16
G
8:16
G_AB makes perfect sense
8:16
also, do you think these names as such are good
8:17
or would you prefer generator_ab instead of G_AB
8:17
i think that the latter, while not being great regarding the python conventions, is still more easily readable
8:17
in this case
👍
1

Chinmay Rao 8:17 PM
I agree. IMO, G_AB is good
New
8:21
For the loggable stuff -------------------------
Maybe have a naming format like (ignore the spaces) ==> mode - type - specific_component
For example, I'd suggest the following changes -----------------------------------
Loggable losses:
loss_G_A --> train-loss-adv_G_AB
loss_D_A --> train-loss-adv_D_B
loss_cycle_A --> train-loss-cycle_ABA
2. Logable predictions:
Train D_A_fake --> train-pred-D_A_fake
3. Loggable metrics:
mse --> val-mse-A (i.e. MSE between fake A and reference A)

Ibrahim Hadzic 8:28 PM
i would actually leave out "train" from train-loss-adv_G_AB but otherwise yes

Ibrahim Hadzic 8:30 PM
for the point 3, i agree with "val" but I'm wondering about "A". We're calculating only A->B and a lot of stuff is done that way in the framework only for A->B, like testing let's say, because B->A is gonna be the case only for cycle-consistency models
👍
1

1 reply
Today at 8:32 PMView thread

Ibrahim Hadzic 8:31 PM
so you have a prob with generalizability
👍
1

8:31
but if you really need to do B->A, you could manually take care of it lets say, but that's not elegant