acurracy in MSCOCO and CIFAR-10

[tyler-tan]

Hi, thank you for your great work on TSA.
I have a question I would like to ask, when I run the Varying-Way Five-Shot and Five-Way One-Shot scenarios with the URL parameter file you provided, the accuracy of the two data sets MSCOCO and CIFAR-10 is lower than your provided more than 5%, and the accuracy rate of other datasets is %1-%2 different from what you provided. Have you performed any other operations on the MSCOCO and CIFAR-10 datasets?
looking forward to your answer.

[WeiHongLee]

Hi,

thank you for your question. I think it may be because of the noise during meta-testing, e.g. the optimization and sampling can cause noise that would affect the results. Also, it can be because of google-research/meta-dataset#54 reported in the meta-dataset repo. I recommend you to use our code and re-run experiments for all methods. If you want to reproduce the results shown in the paper, you can set shuffle_buffer_size=0 in the reader file which was an google-research/meta-dataset#54 in the original meta-dataset and make sure you use shuffled datasets as mentioned in the issue.

In our paper, all methods are evaluated under the same setting (shuffle_buffer_size=0 with shuffled datasets) for 5-shots and 1-shot settings and the ranking would be the same though results can be slightly affected by setting shuffle_buffer_size=1000.

Best!

[tyler-tan]

Hi,
Thank you for your answer, it helped me a lot.