-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 429
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
Input and output mean scales updated during training (X-UMX) #685
Comments
Hello ! I don't master this architecture, people from Sony do : @r-sawata WDYT ? |
Sorry to have kept you waiting. I was busy due to CVPR deadline, and it has finally gone yesterday. I'll check this in a few days. |
The easiest solution would be using I would suggest registering both the scalers and the STFT window as buffers instead of as parameters since that's the general recommendation in Pytorch for model's tensors that are not being optimized. Doing this with the STFT window is quite straightforward (I can do a PR with a fix I've been testing that works well and is backward compatible with pre-trained models) but I'm unsure about how to do this with the scales since Pytorch doesn't have a nn.BufferDict function to replace nn.ParameterDict. |
Sorry for being so late. I confirmed it carefully, and found that mean and scale with As you may know, this X-UMX is the extended version of the original one, Open-Unmix (UMX). As shown in the initialization of their implementation, input_mean and input_scale should be learned during training. Please see here: |
Oh, okay. That's a bit weird to me, but if it works and the original UMX also did it that way I guess it's better to keep it like that. Thanks, |
Hello,
I've just realized that the elements of
mean_scale
in X-UMX are optimized during the training since they're registered as parameters. As far as I understand, that dictionary contains the pre-computed mean and std of the dataset for input normalization. Are they really supposed to be optimized during training? Shouldn't be registered as buffers rather than as parameters?Best,
David
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: