-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Review of Evaluation Metrics #25
Conversation
I think, we can discuss our metrics via this summary in the next meeting with all group members. If you have time, may you review it before the meeting? @magdalenafuentes Ps. I think, we do not need TL;DR for this review. I have simplified it. ⛱ |
Just reviewed this. It's looking better than last week :) I like the order better. Minor things:
I think it could be useful to contrast whatever metric we choose with the output of the model on a "standard" scenario with Western music (i.e. show how the generator matches the distribution in metric 1 in Turkish vs. Pop music) . @sertansenturk 's opinion? |
Thanks Magdalena for the review!
Sorry, I was sick during the weekend, I will review the write-ups in the
evening.
…On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 20:30 Magdalena Fuentes ***@***.*** wrote:
Just reviewed this. It's looking better than last week :) I like the order
better.
Minor things:
- Define tokens in this context.
- Define what the Folk-folks (nice joke eh ;) ) mean by "resolution"
- I like metrics 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 because they seem
musically informative, though still unclear to me if they're suitable for
this music (and how to implement them in some cases). Let's discuss this in
the next meeting.
- 6 and 7 seem a bit weird to me, don't get if directly apply here.
I think it could be useful to contrast whatever metric we choose with the
output of the model on a "standard" scenario with Western music (i.e. show
how the generator matches the distribution in metric 1 in Turkish vs. Pop
music) . @sertansenturk <https://github.com/sertansenturk> 's opinion?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#25 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEVI4cL748feX-L64rbupk9DyBuy3V2Tks5vOw2BgaJpZM4a6bAz>
.
|
We can use chapter 5 of this Master Thesis to get more evaluation metrics. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this list is pretty comprehensive, and you seem to understand the measures.
Obviously there could be more to check (e.g. the Gatech paper), but I think you have done enough at this stage.
I have written some comments. There are very few change requests, they are mostly explanation/clarification & suggestions. Feel free to start a discussion on the comments so we can clear out any doubts/question marks in your mind. Once the minor changes are complete and you are satisfied with the discussion, we can merge the pull request.
I have added some evaluation metrics, however, i will add more of them and more info about some of them. This is related with #20