Skip to content
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

[FEATURE] LR_DECAY adjustment from 0.007 to 0.0045 seems to help model convergence #488

Open
2-dor opened this issue Oct 9, 2024 · 8 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request priority:low Low-priority issues

Comments

@2-dor
Copy link

2-dor commented Oct 9, 2024

Hey Steve,

Minor thing but it seems that using the LR_DECAY value of 0.0045 in the trainer benefits model convergence over the 0.007 value in the trainer by default.

I have been using this value for a few months now & its ESR slope is slightly better. If you feel this is a noteworthy improvement, maybe having it included in the next release?

image

@2-dor 2-dor added enhancement New feature or request priority:low Low-priority issues unread This issue is new and hasn't been seen by the maintainers yet labels Oct 9, 2024
@sdatkinson
Copy link
Owner

Neat.

I'm potentially interested, but would want more data points.

It would be nice to assemble a set of test cases. I assume this is a high-gain model? Orange is better, but it's still over 0.01. What happens when it's a clean model, or when there's a cab? etc

@sdatkinson sdatkinson removed the unread This issue is new and hasn't been seen by the maintainers yet label Oct 11, 2024
@2-dor
Copy link
Author

2-dor commented Oct 11, 2024

Neat.

I'm potentially interested, but would want more data points.

It would be nice to assemble a set of test cases. I assume this is a high-gain model? Orange is better, but it's still over 0.01. What happens when it's a clean model, or when there's a cab? etc

Yes. It's a very hairy high gain model.
I will run a new set of tests today to ilustrate how the 0.0045 decay compares against the 0.007 across clean, gain & miced-up reamps.

@2-dor
Copy link
Author

2-dor commented Oct 11, 2024

This is how the training looks like for a "CLEAN" reamp:
image

@2-dor
Copy link
Author

2-dor commented Oct 11, 2024

This is how the training looks like for a "HIGH GAIN" direct (no cab) reamp:
image

@2-dor
Copy link
Author

2-dor commented Oct 11, 2024

This is how the training looks like for a "HIGH GAIN" miced-up (SM57 on cab) reamp:
image

@2-dor
Copy link
Author

2-dor commented Oct 11, 2024

This archive contains the reamps (all were done using the v3_0_0.wav), the resulting NAM models and the lightning_logs folder with all its contents: https://mega.nz/file/GhwwVbaJ#95_cYIMwLW4AeQN9lgXlG1VZ9YkDvpUqhPO1Ntw-XKs

@2-dor
Copy link
Author

2-dor commented Oct 11, 2024

LR 0.004 and LR_DECAY 0.004 seems to be slightly less jagged and converges comparatively (ESR & time) to LR_DECAY 0.007

Anyway, this is a deep rabbit hole..

@yovelop
Copy link

yovelop commented Nov 19, 2024

Absolutely agree that LR_decay better to be smaller than 0.007
I done many-many tests before and now use 0.002
It depends on how much epochs can you make. If less than 300 - then 0.007 is normal, if 1000-2000 - 0.003 will be great, if 2000-5000 - use 0.002, if more - 0.001

But initial lr sometimes need to set lower value or loss will jump many times (jump from local minimum to worse place)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request priority:low Low-priority issues
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants